amendment of the law

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly support all measures that will help us to get housing supply up because that is an objective shared across the House. I shall have something more to say about Ebbsfleet in a moment.

We have also called for local authorities to have a higher proportion of small sites in their five-year land supply and to give guaranteed access to public land for small firms and custom builders, something to which the Secretary of State referred and that was also in the Budget. That is also why we have said that a proportion of homes in new towns and garden cities should be built by smaller firms and custom builders. The truth is that if we are going to make progress, we have to change the way in which the housing market and the building market work, which is something that Ministers have not yet acknowledged. Why? We know that the high cost of housing is driven by the cost of land. We know that not enough land is being released for housing development. We know that by the time that land is given planning permission, it is often prohibitively expensive and we know that this can create an incentive to bank, rather than build on, the land.

As the Planning Minister told me in a written answer earlier this year, as of January there were 538,000 units with planning permission that had not yet been completed. About half had been started and the rest were working towards a start or were on hold. He says that land banking is not an issue. He says that in many an answer to a written question, but he forgets that a 2008 Office of Fair Trading survey found that strategic land bought with options, which accounted for about 83% of land banks, was worth 14.3 years of production. That is about enough land to build 1.4 million homes.

What is more, under the current system, there is very little that local authorities can do about it, because existing compulsory purchase order powers are legalistic, expensive, time-consuming and complex. Authorities are in a weak position to try to get the land brought forward. That is why we have argued for and will deliver much greater transparency in the system by ensuring that developers register the land that they own or have options on. We will give councils the power to charge developers escalating fees for sitting on land with planning permission to incentivise them to actually build the homes they said they wanted to build.

The idea is denounced by the Secretary of State but it is supported by the International Monetary Fund and by the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and indeed it was supported by the Planning Minister before he got his job. As a last resort, we will give local authorities proper compulsory purchase powers so they can, in the right circumstances, buy, assemble and grant planning permission on land that is being held back from development.

What is the purpose of this? It is to address the current imbalance in power between communities and developers. This is the point the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) raised. Where communities decide where new housing needs to go, which is what neighbourhood planning is all about and why I strongly support it, and when permission has been given, they should be able to do more to ensure that the houses actually get built. But there is a problem here, and it is the reason why the Planning Minister gets a lot of stick from many of his Back Benchers. When a five-year land supply has been identified, all the cards are stacked in the developers’ favour. They can look at one site and say, “That’s brownfield, too expensive to develop, there is contamination. We are not going there.” They can look at another site and say “That’s not viable.” They do not explain their measure of viability but just end the conversation by saying it is not viable. They look at a third site and say, “Okay we can do about 100 houses a year on that site”, even though, physically, it could take 250, 500, or say, 1,000 houses. Then, at the end of the process, when the numbers are added up against the council’s assessment of its annual housing need, what happens? Lo and behold, developers say, “Your five-year land supply is inadequate and therefore, we would like to build there and there and there.” That is what is going on up and down the country.

I think the deal is that communities have to take responsibility for identifying sufficient land for housing supply, but they then have to be able to ensure that the houses that are needed are built on the land that they have identified. What we have at the moment is a system in which communities and their local authorities have very little power and that is why change is required.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by community? How does he identify the community in this context?

[Hilary Benn]

First, the community is represented by the local authority, and, secondly, I think the community has a really important part to play by joining in the process of neighbourhood planning. We have seen from some parts of the country—Thame is probably the best example—that the community took responsibility. It consulted and had a referendum and, from memory, 73% of people voted in favour of the plan. It identified sites for housing development. I think that is the right approach, because for too long, we have had a system where no one has taken responsibility and everyone has pointed the finger at somebody else when it comes to housing supply. That is why we need change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I agree with a certain amount of what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has said. I am delighted to hear from him and other Opposition Members a gentle—or, in some cases, not so gentle—movement towards accepting that the saving public, the pensioners, should be allowed to choose their own vehicles to finance their retirement income.

I introduced a private Member’s Bill in 2003, entitled the Retirement Income Reform Bill. It was designed to lift the compulsion to purchase an annuity at the age of 75. The then Government opposed it, but it so happened that I got a majority of more than 100 on that Friday in the spring of 2003. These things happen on Fridays when Government Members are elsewhere. Eventually, however, the Government talked the Bill out. It was defeated on the basis that the public were unable to make their own decisions on the funding of their retirement. It was said that they would waste the money, or simply not do what the Government wanted them to do with their retirement funds. I happen to take the view that the Government are a poor parent, a poor business man and a poor manager of people’s old age. I was disappointed, but not surprised, that the then Government talked out my Bill. The number of private Members’ Bills that get talked out is too big to worry about.

I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce in the Budget statement last week that he intended to liberalise the way in which we deal with pension income. I was even more interested when the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), announced that her party and her Front Bench were coming round to accepting that the public should be trusted with the management of their own financial affairs in retirement. She made that announcement rather half-heartedly, but she made it none the less. I think that that is practically and philosophically the right thing to do.

In the course of this afternoon, I have smelled the burning rubber of handbrake turns from Labour Back Benchers who are beginning to realise that they need to catch up with those on their Front Bench, who in turn are deciding that they need to catch up with those on our Front Bench and with public opinion that is in favour of greater liberalisation of the pension and retirement income system. The fact that criticism has been made of the banking system and of the financial services sector does not undermine the practical and philosophical benefits of liberalising the system.

[Frank Dobson]

I agree that those criticisms do not undermine the philosophical side of things, but it is the practicalities that people are bothered about. Most of the concern arises from the fact that the various institutions have been giving people a bad deal on annuities and that, unless they actually go out of business, they are likely to be offering the products that are the alternative to annuities. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that those self-same institutions will be offering people a good bargain, if they have not done so in the past?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Yes, I do. I find that view deeply depressing, although not in the least surprising. The right hon. Gentleman is a good old-fashioned socialist and I respect him for that. I wish that more of his colleagues were as clear in their views as he is. I happen to take the view, however, that Mr and Mrs Retirement Person should be allowed to do what they like with their pension funds and that if the financial services sector misconducts itself, we should prosecute it or take regulatory action against it. We should not act to prevent the vast majority of individuals from doing what they think best for their financial future, either pre-retirement or post-retirement, simply because we fear that there might be one or two bad hats in the financial services sector. If those of us who are about to retire wish to invest our pension funds in property or in stocks and shares—

[Mr McFadden]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I fear that I am limited to one free hit, and the right hon. Gentleman may not have one. Perhaps he should see his financial adviser instead.

If those of us who are about to retire wish to invest our pension funds in property or in stocks and shares—or in buying an annuity—let us do it. Let us be allowed to make informed, adult decisions. Yes of course we must build protections into the system to prevent people from being mistreated or misled, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, but we must allow them to make their decisions from a position of knowledge. For goodness’ sake, let us not imagine that Mr Whitehall Man, or even Mr Labour Cabinet Minister, is better able than anyone else to decide how I should lead my life. I really object to that form of nanny state—

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Quite right!

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I used that expression in order to encourage my hon. Friend. I do not like the kind of jargon that we are forced to use in these short, time-limited debates.

If there is one thing in the Budget that we ought to appreciate, it is the liberalisation of the pension and old-age retirement income. My private Member’s Bill was defeated by the then Government. I think that Ruth Kelly was the Treasury Minister who organised its destruction. I hope that, were she here in the House now, she would welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week. I hope, too, that Opposition Members will come to realise that they need to catch up with public opinion and to acknowledge the desire of all people, whether they vote Labour or Conservative—I dare say one or two might even vote Liberal Democrat—to support their own independence and to make their own decisions. I congratulate the Chancellor and I wish him all good speed with this measure.