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
Patrick McLoughlin MP, Derbyshire Dales 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 and not 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.
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47E
Amendment 47E 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 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.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Housing and Planning Bill
-  Lords amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill containing amendments 47E
-  Clause 72 of the Housing and Planning Bill as at the time of the vote
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
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.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||286 (+2 tell)||0||0||87.3%|
|Lab||0||184 (+2 tell)||0||80.5%|