Housing (London)

Debate between George Howarth and Nick Boles

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was passionate, and I listened to her in silence. It would be great if she was not perhaps silent—I would hate it for her ever to be silent—but could just allow me to speak.

The reason why we introduced the permitted development right was because councils across the country were resisting the conversion of low-value, under-used offices to the houses that all of us agree are desperately needed. Since we introduced the permitted development right, it has been estimated that there were more than 2,000 conversions in less than a year of offices into homes that people are going to live in and enjoy, so that they feel that their housing need has been met. That immensely progressive reform is delivering vitally needed housing in the face of the opposition from local authorities that had no good reason to oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

May I make this clear? I am not giving way.

I want to address the subject of foreign buyers. Listening to Opposition Members’ speeches, one would think they wanted to prevent foreign buyers from buying London properties, which would be entirely logical given the shortage of properties. Then, listening to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, one would think the Opposition were going to make it slightly more difficult to claim, by putting in a table or a chair, that a home was empty—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Nick Boles

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I have always found it easy to disagree with academics on almost any subject, and I disagree with Professor Blackburn on that.

My hon. Friend’s question leads me neatly to my next point. With much more trepidation, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with what the Clerk of the House said in his contribution to our evidence about the risks posed by the Bill. I recognise that I am probably the least qualified person here to comment on orders of this House, and on the risks of judicial review that the proposed statute might create, because I am not a lawyer, a long-standing MP or a constitutional historian. However, it seemed inadequate for the Clerk of the House to suggest putting this fundamental provision into the statutes of the House—the orders of the House, as I believe they are called—because surely the House can do away with those orders on a relative whim.

The one advantage of the statute that the Government are proposing is that it will have to make its way through the other House. Any further changes will also therefore have to make their way through the other House, and we have a commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that we will see full-scale reform of that other House before the next election, to which the Bill would apply.

[Mr George Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is making a witty and amusing speech, but does he really believe that the courts inevitably act in a totally rational way in all circumstances? My experience of them, certainly in matters of this kind, is that they can be very capricious.

[Nick Boles]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point—I should like to call him my right hon. Friend; I am very keen on people joining the coalition, as Members might know—but I am not sure whether the courts are any more capricious than Members of this House. Is that a terrible thing to say?

I am troubled by the proposal of the Clerk of the House, and I fear that those on my own side who advance it are doing so not because they really think that he has a better way to secure fixed-term Parliaments but because they do not believe in fixed terms, and they want to undermine the Bill. If it is going to be brought in, they want it to be introduced in as weak a form as possible. So let us not be deluded by that argument.

I want to turn briefly to the argument about election dates. I shall approach the subject with great deference to those who represent parts of the other nations of the United Kingdom, because they of course must be the ones who speak for their constituents. However, in the United States—a place where individual states have much more power and at least as much sense of their own independence and individual character—all the elections always happen on the same day. In that fine democracy, they happen on the first Thursday in November, either every four years or every two years. In the United States, people would consider it a constitutional outrage if elections were to happen on any other day.

If elections were held on different days, minor elections—I do not venture to suggest that elections to the devolved Assemblies are minor; I am talking about any that people thought were minor—might be used to express an opinion about a major subject, such as the economic policy of the UK Government. It is only by having elections on the same day that people can be guaranteed an ability to express their opinion on every issue that matters to them, be it local, regional or pertaining to their state, their governor, their mayor or the Government of the day. The same applies to referendums, which is why I also support the idea of their being held on the same day. I venture to suggest that hon. Members should really question whether they are assisting the independence of their local elections, and the autonomy of the decision making on the issues in those elections, by proposing separate election dates. I fear that they might achieve the reverse.