Brandon Lewis
Main Page: Brandon Lewis (Conservative - Great Yarmouth)Housing and Planning Bill
Brandon Lewis Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early. I wanted gently to challenge her comments about today’s debate bearing in mind that the programme motion was agreed with the Opposition and that we agreed to the changes they asked for.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I remind the Minister that we voted against the programme motion.
Amendment 53 safeguards the replacement of like-for-like housing; homes cannot be sold if their sale value is less than the cost of replacing the original property. Amendment 55 seeks to exempt certain types of specialist housing from “high value” determination. Owing to the extremely limited time available today, I will not speak in detail on those amendments. I will focus instead on amendments 131 to 141, which leave out all the clauses in chapter 2 of part 4, effectively removing the chapter from the Bill.
Labour Members are not against local authorities making sensible decisions about their assets, but that is not what the clauses in this chapter of the Bill would enable. They will force local authorities to sell off much-needed council housing, even when they have huge waiting lists. Glyn Robbins, estate manager of Quaker Court, stated that many council homes in London in places such as Quaker Court are likely to be deemed high value, and that is where the Government’s legislation will have the most severe impact.
Tim Farron
Probably not, because there is not much time left and I do not want to prevent others from speaking.
In addition, the replacement home should in most cases be equivalent to the one sold off. It should be located in the same local authority area and there must be an initial presumption that the replacement home would be the same tenure unless there is a strong case for changing it, based on local need. This would avoid the squeezing out of social homes for rent, which are often occupied by some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, in favour of other potentially more profitable tenures. My amendment would provide not only a one-for-one replacement of homes, but in many cases like for like. I urge Members to support it.
Brandon Lewis
I support the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I want to say from the outset that I am proud to support amendments 112 and 130. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), as well as to colleagues across London not just for inspiring these amendments, but for working so passionately and diligently to ensure that we get a good result for London. That is quite a contrast to Labour, from whose Members I have received no direct approaches about doing anything positive to increase the housing supply in London.
Brandon Lewis
I shall give way in a few moments.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park on the birth of his son.
We shall be looking to ensure that local authorities in London can make an agreement with the Government. These provisions will require two new affordable homes to be provided for every vacant, high-value dwelling that we expect to see sold.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister will explain why the joint duty on the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London and local housing authorities in Greater London to provide two units of affordable housing for each council home sold, which was set out in new clause 1 in Committee, failed to make it through to amendment 112, which we are debating today?
Brandon Lewis
Well, it did not get through Committee. As we shall come on to later, it is interesting to reflect on how few provisions Labour Members voted against in Committee, yet today they seem to have found a voice that they did not have before.
We all know—it has been spoken about on the Floor of the House today—that housing markets vary across our country, and that has been reflected in the legislation so that, for example, it is possible to define “high-value” areas differently in different areas. Housing need is most acute in London, as we have heard today—hence amendment 112.
Brandon Lewis
I am not giving way at the moment.
I intend to use the flexibility of the agreement process to take account of the difficulties that other local authorities might have in seeking to deliver more housing—again, if they had high-value areas, for example. My hon. Friends have spoken about that this afternoon. The Bill is framed to provide as much flexibility as possible, so that we can consider the circumstances of each local authority and its housing need.
I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Bath (Ben Howlett), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), for St Albans (Mrs Main), for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Bracknell (Dr Lee), for Woking (Jonathan Lord) and for Braintree (James Cleverly), as well as with hon. Friends from other areas to make sure that we get these regulations in the right place so that local authorities can deliver the housing that they need.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would like the Minister to add South Cambridgeshire to the list.
Brandon Lewis
I am happy to work with South Cambridgeshire. In fact, we are working well with it; it provides a good example of central Government and local government working together, as we have seen with 10,000 homes being delivered for Northstowe. I encourage local authorities to join others from across London that have already spoken to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park rightly asked about progress, and the London Land Commission will be building on the work opened up by the Government’s delivery of public sector land. We have allocated sufficient land for 160,000 homes, although the London Land Commission must go further to see what more can be done in London.
This is a real opportunity for a step change in housing supply for London. I am not talking just about the two-for-one scheme that has been discussed this afternoon, important though that is, but about a huge opportunity for Londoners and those in other places around the country that has also been outlined this afternoon: the added flexibility for councils to work together on innovative new ideas to deliver more homes across our country, and, unlike Labour, to drive up supply.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain how building houses in areas other than the part of Brent North where 500 houses will be lost will help my constituents who cannot afford to get on to the housing ladder at all?
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman google #ownyourhouse, where he will find a range of Government schemes to deliver more homes, including new homes, for people throughout the country.
We heard from the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about her opposition to councils’ using vacant high-value building to build more homes and help more people into home ownership. Labour Members have also stated their opposition to ensuring that social tenants on high incomes pay a fair rent. I am not going to rehash the arguments that we had on Second Reading and Report—
Brandon Lewis
No, not at this stage.
Opposition Members had their chance to vote against these clauses in Committee—that is what clause-by-clause stand part debates are for—but they stayed quiet. I will not stay quiet this afternoon. I want to make it very clear that we are introducing these clauses because we have an elected mandate to do so. We will deliver new homes for those who need them, and that will include the opportunity to gain access to home ownership. There is no time to lose.
Brandon Lewis
Not at this stage.
Government amendments 9 and 11 will enable this part of the Bill to come into force on Royal Assent so that funding becomes available as soon as possible. We discussed amendment 51 in Committee as well. I want to ensure that we have full flexibility to use receipts to deliver new homes. Amendments 92 and 93 would result in a reduction in flexibility, and we therefore cannot support them. As I said in Committee, amendments such as amendments 89 and 109 represent the worst examples of the command-and-control, centralist approach that Labour seems to like. We see the same mindset in amendments 94 and 53, which attempt to limit the definitions of high value and high income, once more attempting to introduce exclusions into the Bill. As I have said time and again, we will let further engagement inform detailed policy.
Labour Members also want the Government to tell home owners that they must sell their properties at less than the market value, and to prevent them from letting their homes for a period of 10 years. I think that that is unfair and inappropriate. People should have the right to do with their own homes what any other home owner would do. The Government want a voluntary agreement with housing associations rather than the imposition of unnecessary requirements in legislation, which is what would result from amendment 91
Let me now clarify the position relating to the payment of grant under clause 61. I know that the National Housing Federation is interested in this. I am happy to confirm that, under clause 61, grant will be paid to housing associations as compensation for the right-to-buy discount. The terms of the grant-making power in the clause will enable it to be considered a revenue grant, so it will be sufficient to classify the grant as income. Of course, if the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had his way, there would be no clause 61 or clause 62.
Brandon Lewis
I will not give way at this stage, because we are short of time and I want to respond to the points that have been raised by those who have spoken.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about amendments 107 and 108. I trust that the housing association tenants in his constituency who want to buy their own homes will note his comments, and will remember them when they are home owners at the next general election.
Tim Farron
Is the Minister aware that in the 1980s the late Willie Whitelaw expressed concern to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, about the impact of the right to buy, unmitigated, in rural communities such as the Lake district? Thirty years on, will he at least take note of what was said by the great man?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that one of the problems of the right to buy is that for 13 years, for every 170 homes that were sold the Labour Administration built only one, which is disgraceful. That is why, under our reintegrated scheme, there is one-for-one replacement. I think it right to move to two-for-one in London, given the higher-value asset sales there. The Labour party neglected to replace supply for 13 years, but Labour Members still think that the public will believe their rhetoric.
Let me return to chapter 4, part 4. Government new clause 59 and amendments 119, 120 and 128 will ensure that tenants who do not provide information on income cannot then have their rent raised any higher than the maximum chargeable under the policy as a whole. Government new clauses 60 and 61 and amendment 111, 113 to 118, 121 to 127 and 129 are part of our wider deregulatory package for housing associations. Amendment 111 removes clause 64, which is no longer needed.
Brandon Lewis
No, not at this point.
We heard the thoughts of the hon. Member for City of Durham on amendments 57 to 60. Again at the risk of repeating myself, I want to make something clear. I have already made it crystal clear, in Committee and elsewhere, that we propose to introduce a taper so that there will always be an incentive to find and keep work. I accept that, as Opposition Front Benchers were not present for the whole Committee stage, they may have missed that at the time.
I want to ensure that our policy is simple to implement, as well as flexible. The option to create a central body to enable data to be transferred to landlords—which amendment 63 would remove—has been provided for the sake of simplicity. For example, the role could be carried out by one local authority on behalf of others.
I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about new clause 39. As she knows from her engagement with the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, the Government have already decided to reduce social rents by 1% a year, so I do not believe that the body that she has proposed is necessary.
Let me now deal with Members’ opposition to chapter 5. The approach adopted by the hon. Member for City of Durham would mean that families continued to be trapped in overcrowded council homes, while older tenants whose children had left home continued to occupy homes that might no longer be appropriate for their needs, with no opportunity to move.
Brandon Lewis
No, I will not give way at this stage. I must try to deal with all the points that other Members have made.
Moreover, the hon. Lady’s approach would mean that some lifetime tenancies would be passed on to family members who were perfectly able to meet their own housing needs.
I can make it clear to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), that when someone with a secure tenancy is asked to move, the tenancy will be transferred with that person. We will give local authorities the freedom and flexibility to apply that to voluntary moves as well.
Brandon Lewis
In the interests of speed, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the report of what I have just said, but yes, we will ensure that secure tenancies continue when tenants are asked to move, and councils will be able to consider applying them to voluntary moves as well.
I do not believe that the hon. Lady’s proposal represents a good use of social housing, and I trust that the House will agree. The Government amendments will result in a Bill that will bring fairness and efficiency to the housing market, and will further the dreams of aspirational home owners. I commend them to the House.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As I said, we would have liked to remove the chapters on the forced sale of council housing and the mandatory rent rises, but we cannot do so because of time. I therefore wish to withdraw amendment 131, to which we shall no doubt return in the Lords. I will, however, press amendment 142, which seeks to protect security of tenure for council tenants, and in due course my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) will press amendment 89.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72
Reduction of payment by agreement
Amendment made: 112, page 31, line 19, at end insert—
‘(4) Where the agreement is with a local housing authority in Greater London, it must require the authority to ensure that at least two new affordable homes are provided for each old dwelling.
(5) But if the Greater London Authority has agreed to ensure that a number of the new affordable homes are provided, that number is to be deducted from the number for which the local housing authority must be made responsible under subsection (4).
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations create other exceptions to subsection (4) in relation to one or more local housing authorities.
(7) In this section—
“new affordable home” means a new dwelling in England that—
(a) is to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market, or
(b) is a starter home as defined by section2;
“new dwelling” means a building or part of a building that—
(a) has been constructed for use as a single dwelling and has not previously been occupied, or
(b) has been adapted for use as a single dwelling and has not been occupied since its adaptation;
“old dwelling” means a single dwelling taken into account under section67(2) for the purposes of the determination.
(8) If a determination under this Chapter relates to more than one financial year—
(a) an agreement under this section may be made in relation to the determination so far as it relates to a particular financial year, and
(b) if such an agreement is made with a local housing authority in Greater London, the reference in subsection (7) to the determination is to the determination so far as it relates to the financial year to which the agreement relates.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “new affordable home”.’ —(Brandon Lewis.)
Where a local housing authority is required to make a payment to the Secretary of State in respect of its vacant high value housing, Clause 72 allows an agreement to be made to reduce the amount. This amendment is about the terms and conditions that must be included in an agreement.
Clause 153
Regulations: general
Amendment made: 130, page 76, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) regulations under section72(9);”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 112 and ensures that regulations amending the definition of affordable home are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 155
Commencement
Amendments made: 9, page 77, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) Chapter 2 of Part 4;”
This amendment provides for Chapter 2 of Part 4 (vacant high value social housing) to come into force on Royal Assent.
Amendment 11, page 77, line 17, leave out paragraph (a). — (Brandon Lewis.)
This is consequential on amendment 9.
New Clause 59
Reverting to original rent levels
‘(1) Rent regulations may include provision for the purpose of ensuring that where a requirement imposed under section 79(1) ceases to apply, the rent is changed to what it would have been if the requirement had never applied.
(2) Rent regulations may include provision for the purpose of ensuring that where—
(a) a local housing authority is required by section81(2) to charge the maximum rent because of a tenant’s failure to provide information or evidence, and
(b) the tenant subsequently provides the necessary information or evidence,
the rent is changed to what it would have been if section81 (2) had never applied.” —(Brandon Lewis.)
This relates to Chapter 4 of Part 4. It is primarily intended to ensure that where a person ceases to be a high income tenant, his or her rent returns to normal levels for social tenants. It also deals with circumstances where a person has failed to provide information or evidence but subsequently does so.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Private providers: policies for high income social tenants
‘(1) A private registered provider of social housing that has a policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England must publish that policy.
(2) The policy must include provision for requesting reviews of, or appealing, decisions under the policy.”—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113. Where a private registered provider decides to adopt a policy of charging higher levels of rent to high income social tenants this new clause requires the policy to be published and to contain provision about the procedure and disputes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 61
Hmrc information for private registered providers
‘(1) HMRC may disclose information for the purpose of enabling a private registered provider of social housing to apply any relevant policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England.
(2) The information may only be disclosed to—
(a) the private registered provider of social housing,
(b) the Secretary of State for the purposes of passing the information to registered providers,
(c) a public body that has been given the function of passing information between HMRC and registered providers by regulations under subsection (3), or
(d) a body with which the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the passing of information between HMRC and registered providers.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) give a public body the function mentioned in subsection (2)(c), and
(b) make provision about the carrying out of that function.
(4) The Secretary of State must obtain HMRC’s consent before making—
(a) arrangements under subsection (2)(d), or
(b) regulations under subsection (3).
(5) Information disclosed under this section to the Secretary of State or to a body mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (d) may be passed on to a registered provider for which it is intended.
(6) Information disclosed under this section may not otherwise be further disclosed without authorisation from HMRC.
(7) Where a person contravenes subsection (6) by disclosing any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—
(a) is specified in the disclosure, or
(b) can be deduced from it,
section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.
(8) In this section—
“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“relevant”, in relation to a private registered provider’s policy about levels of rent for high income social tenants in England, means a policy that—
(a) has been published as required by section (Private providers: policies for high income social tenants), and
(b) complies with any requirements imposed under subsection (2) of that section;
“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the meaning given by section 19(2) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005;
“tenant” includes prospective tenant.” — (Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 79
Mandatory rents for high income social tenants
Amendments made: 113, page 33, line 14, leave out “a registered provider of social housing” and insert “an English local housing authority”
This is the first of a number of amendments that restrict Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill (high income social tenants: mandatory rents) to local authorities. Private registered providers will not be required to charge high income social tenants specific rents but NC60 and NC61 are intended to facilitate them doing so on a voluntary basis.
Amendment 114, page 33, line 23, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Clause 80
Meaning of “high income” etc
Amendment made: 115, page 34, line 3, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority” .—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Clause 81
Information about income
Amendments made: 116, page 34, line 7, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority” .
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 117, page 34, line 9, leave out “registered provider” and insert “local housing authority”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 118, page 34, line 11, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “English local housing authority”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 119, page 34, line 12, leave out “rent at the market rate” and insert “the maximum rent”
Clause 81(2) enables regulations requiring rent to be charged at the market rate to a tenant who has failed to comply with a requirement to provide information about income etc. This amendment and amendment 120 change this so that the tenant must be charged the maximum rate that they would have to pay as a high income tenant (which might still be less than the full market rate).
Amendment 120, page 34, line 18, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (2) “the maximum rent” means the rent that a local housing authority is required to charge a high income tenant of the premises under section 79 (or, if regulations under section 79(3)(a) provide for different rents for people with different incomes, the rent that a person in the highest income bracket would be required to pay).”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 119.
Clause 82
HMRC information
Amendments made: 121, page 34, line 20, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 122, page 34, line 24, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 123, page 34, line 26, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 124, page 34, line 28, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 125, page 34, line 31, leave out “registered providers” and insert “local housing authorities”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 126, page 34, line 39, leave out “registered provider” and insert “local housing authority”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Clause 83
Power to increase rents and procedure for changing rents
Amendments made: 127, page 35, line 16, leave out “registered provider of social housing” and insert “local housing authority”
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 128, page 35, line 17, leave out “increase” and insert “change”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
This amendment is consequential on NC59.
Clause 86
Enforcement by Regulator of Social Housing
Amendment made: 129, page 36, line 4, leave out clause 86.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The enforcement powers in Chapter 4 of Part 4 were primarily aimed at private registered providers. In light of amendment 113 they are no longer needed.
Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme order, 5 January).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Clause 89
Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life
Amendment proposed: 142, line 20, leave out clause 89. . —(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment, together with amendment 143, would enable councils to be free to manage flexibly tenancies in a way that drives best value from stock whilst supporting strong local communities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order, and that I have made no change to the provisional certificate issued yesterday evening. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motions are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and they have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
There will now be a joint debate on the consent motion for England and Wales and the consent motion for England. I remind hon. Members that, although all Members may speak in the debate, if there are Divisions only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England.
I call the Minister to move the consent motion for England and Wales, and I remind him that, under Standing Order No. 83M(4), on moving the consent motion for England and Wales, he must also inform the Committee of the terms of the consent motion for England.
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Housing and Planning Bill and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 97, 98 and 120 to 150 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
Schedules 7 and 10 to 15 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales
Amendments 180 and 181 made in Committee to Clause 71 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 75), which is Clause 76 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108);
Amendments 127 and 128 made in Committee to Clause 85 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 75), which is Clause 92 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108).
The First Deputy Chairman
With this we shall consider the consent motion to be moved in the Legislative Grand Committee (England):
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Housing and Planning Bill and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 63, 65 to 77, 79 to 81, 83 to 85, 87 to 95 and 99 to 119 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
Schedules 1 to 6, 8 and 9 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) including any amendments made on Report;
New Clauses NC6, NC7, NC29 to NC31, NC35, NC37, NC43 to NC46, NC59, NC60 and NC62 on Report;
New Schedules NS1, NS4 and NS5 on Report;
Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England
The omission in Committee of Clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 75);
Amendment 4 on Report, resulting in Clause 78 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) being left out of the Bill;
Amendment 111 on Report, resulting in Clause 64 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) being left out of the Bill;
Amendment 129 on Report, resulting in Clause 86 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 108) being left out of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
The importance of what we are doing in the Chamber today is shown by the fact that so many of my hon. Friends are here to see us delivering on a manifesto pledge. I am just sorry that Labour Members do not think it is so important to do what is right for our country and its constitution.
As you have outlined, Mrs Laing, I am also required under Standing Orders to inform the Committee that I intend to move a further consent motion relating to England at the end of this debate. I will, however, address both consent motions now.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my written ministerial statement of 7 January, which informed the House that I had placed in the Library my Department’s analysis of the application of Standing Order No. 83L in respect of Government amendments tabled on Report.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Since so many of the clauses in the Bill have been designated as applying exclusively to England or, indeed, to England and Wales, will the Minister help the House—particularly Members who are excluded from the vote on the consent motion, if there is one—by stating what evidence he has that not a single person from Northern Ireland is a landlord in England and Wales and therefore that there is no particular Northern Ireland interest in the Bill?
Brandon Lewis
I will come on to that specific point in a few moments. I would, however, point out that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members were able to speak on Second Reading and on Report both last Tuesday—through to the early hours—and this afternoon, and that we touched on that very point.
I want to thank Mr Speaker for his careful consideration and certification of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and of members of the Procedure Committee for getting us to this historic inaugural Legislative Grand Committee. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerks of the House for their, as ever, excellent service and advice to Mr Speaker and to my Department.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many Conservative Members welcome some modest justice for England at last. We welcome the fact that at a time when Scotland is being given so many powers of self-government, we now have a small voice and a vote. May I encourage the Minister to go further and make sure that we have justice over money and over law making for England in order to have a happy Union?
Brandon Lewis
As ever, my right hon. Friend tempts me to go just a little beyond the Housing and Planning Bill, but I understand his point.
As we all know, the history of this House goes before us, so it is quite rare to see a true first. I am very proud to be the first Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box to address the very first Legislative Grand Committees for England and Wales and for England only.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House noted when he opened the debate on Standing Order No. 83L back in October, the process we will now follow has created
“fairer Parliaments and fairer Assemblies”,
giving, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has just mentioned,
“the English a strong voice on English matters without…excluding MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom from participation in this House.” —[Official Report, 22 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 1175.]
The purpose of the Legislative Grand Committee is to allow English and Welsh MPs either to consent to or to veto the clauses of and the amendments made to the Bill. I will not detail the territorial extent of each clause and amendment, but I again draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to my written ministerial statement of 7 January.
When we discussed the principle of English votes for English laws in the House, we heard fears that it would or could create a class system within the Chamber. As the first Minister to lead a Bill through this process, I am happy to report that that has not been my experience. The debates in the Public Bill Committee and on Report clearly demonstrate that the majority of Members of Parliament support the measures in the Bill. For example, although we did not have the pleasure of their company in the Public Bill Committee, the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) ensured that constituents in Scotland were represented during our debate both on Second Reading and on Report. As well as the hon. Lady’s questions about the territorial extent of our new duty on public sector organisations to dispose of land, we have also discussed the implications of landlords or housing associations who may have properties in the devolved Administrations, as well as in England.
My Department is responsible for local authorities, communities and housing associations in England. In many ways, we are the Department for England. It is therefore fitting that the majority of the clauses in Mr Speaker’s certification before this very first Committee relate to England only. However, thanks to Members on both sides of the Chamber, I am satisfied that the House has considered the Bill’s implications for the whole of our United Kingdom.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Bill relates to England only. May I put it on the record that it is absolutely right that only English MPs should vote for it? As one of those who will be excluded, I applaud the English MPs who have decided that their constituents should not have their legislation affected by people coming from Wales, Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point that relates to the consent motion on English-only matters. Obviously, some parts of the Bill cover Wales as well and we will deal with those separately this afternoon.
My noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford will continue to ensure that any cross border issues are carefully considered in the other place.
This is an historic Bill in many ways. It will put homeownership within the grasp of generations that have only dreamed for many years that it could be possible. It will deliver a planning system that is the envy of the world. It will get Britain building again. By being the first Bill to go through this procedure, it goes further. I am proud of the steps that this elected Government are taking through this Bill to deliver our manifesto commitments.
Clive Efford
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the removal of secure tenancies from council tenants was not in the Conservative manifesto and that the Government have no mandate to introduce that abolition? Council tenants were not warned by the Conservatives that they would impose this on them.
Brandon Lewis
We had that debate in Committee and earlier today on Report. The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the Bill because it does deliver our manifesto commitments. It will deliver homeownership to a whole new generation of people by bringing forward starter homes and it will extend homeownership to 1.3 million people who have been locked out of it. His party has fought to prevent both proposals at every opportunity, and disgracefully so.
Brandon Lewis
I will not take any more interventions on the Bill. This is about English votes for English laws.
I am proud of the steps the Government have taken to bring fairness to the devolution settlement. In that spirit, I ask this inaugural Legislative Grand Committee to consent to the certified clauses and schedules of the Housing and Planning Bill and the certified amendments made by the House to the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call John Healey.