Housing and Planning Bill — Clause 72 — Vacant High Value Local Authority Housing — Local Retention of Funds for Social Housing — 3 May 2016 at 20:27

Anna Soubry MP, Broxtowe voted against requiring the local retention of funds from selling high value council homes where there is a local need for social housing.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the local retention of funds from selling high value council homes where there is a local need for social housing.

MPs were considering the Housing and Planning Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47

Lords amendment 47[2] stated:

  • Page 31, line 42, at end insert—
  • “( ) If a local housing authority so wishes, and that authority can demonstrate, whether by reference to its local housing plan or otherwise, that there is a need in its area for social housing of the kind that it proposes to build, the Secretary of State shall enter into an agreement with that authority whereby it shall retain such part of the payment as may be required to fund the provision of a new dwelling to be let as social housing on terms (as to tenure, rent or otherwise) which are similar to those on which the old dwelling was let.”

Had it not been rejected this would have added the above new subclause to clause 72 of the Bill[3] titled Reduction of payment by agreement. The clause related to a requirement for local councils to pay central Government the value of any high value council homes which are likely to become vacant during the year. Provisions in the Bill require councils to consider selling such high value council homes. The rejected amendment sought to require some of the funds to be retained for the provision of social housing locally where need is demonstrated.

Without the rejected amendment the option to allow such funds to be retained locally was available, but there is nothing in the Bill requiring the Secretary of State use it.

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con287 (+2 tell) 0087.6%
DUP0 1012.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1033.3%
Lab0 164 (+2 tell)072.2%
LDem0 4050.0%
PC0 1033.3%
Total:287 172079.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive