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,
