Housing and Planning Bill — Clause 72 — Vacant High Value Local Authority Housing — Local Retention of Funds for Social Housing — 11 May 2016 at 13:30

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Islington North voted to require the Secretary of State to consider applications from councils to fund new social housing from the proceeds of selling off vacant high value housing and to require the amounts retained by local councils to be sufficient to fund at least one replacement affordable home.

The majority of MPs voted not to require the Secretary of State to consider applications from councils to fund new social housing from the proceeds of selling off vacant high value housing. The majority of MPs voted against requiring any sum a local council is permitted to retain in relation to charges on high value vacant council houses be sufficient to fund at least one new affordable home outside Greater London and two within it.

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 47E

Amendment 47E[2] stated:

  • Page 31, line 42, at end insert—

“() The amount of any reduction agreed under subsection (1) must be sufficient to fund the provision of at least one new affordable home outside Greater London, and at least two new affordable homes in Greater London, for each old dwelling.

  • ( )Where the local housing authority can demonstrate, whether by reference to its local housing plan or otherwise, that there is a particular need in its area for social rented housing, the Secretary of State, as part of any agreement under subsection (1), must consider any application from the authority to fund the provision of a new dwelling to be let as social housing, in respect of each old dwelling.”

Had the amendments not been rejected they would have added subclauses 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
Con286 (+2 tell) 0087.3%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1033.3%
Lab0 184 (+2 tell)080.5%
LDem0 6075.0%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 30100.0%
UUP1 0050.0%
Total:292 197083.7%

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