Housing and Planning Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Before I call the Minister, I wish to repeat what Mr Speaker said on 25 April about Lords amendments and financial privilege: designation of such amendments is not a matter of choice, and it has no bearing on the freedom of the House to debate and decide on them.

I must also tell the House that, as Mr Speaker then said, he has asked the Procedure Committee to inquire into the so-called privilege reason, and the Clerk has prepared a memorandum for its consideration.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 47B and 47C. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

I must inform the House that five of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England and one both to England and to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on a certified motion, a double majority—or, in the latter case, a triple majority—will be required for the motion to be passed.

Clause 4

Planning permission: provision of starter homes

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 47B and 47C, and Government motion to disagree.

Government motion to insist on Lords amendment 97A and disagree to Lords amendment 97B.

Lords amendment 108, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 109B.

Lords amendment 110, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.

[Brandon Lewis]

Let me begin by informing the House that I am placing in the Library today the Department's analysis of the application of Standing Order 83O in respect of the Lords amendments.

We find ourselves here again, and, enjoyable as that may be, and while I thank those in the other place for not insisting on their amendments relating to a number of issues, I am very surprised that they have chosen again to oppose one of our most important manifesto commitments, namely the commitment to ensure that more homes are built: homes that we need, and homes that young people are crying out for. Last week we heard from many Members, in the Chamber, about the people who had asked them when starter homes would be available. We need to get on with helping those people to fulfil their dreams and get on to the home ownership ladder. Some 86% of our population want to be given a chance to do that.

Lords amendment 10B allows local authorities to meet their starter home requirement with other low-cost home ownership products. The amendment would again totally undermine our manifesto commitment to build 200,000 starter homes by 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I want to start by associating myself with the comments made by the hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee. I hope the Minister will not seek to portray their views, or indeed mine, as those of people who oppose home ownership. Clearly, that is not the case, and I hope the Government will have learned the lesson that fear tactics—certainly in London—do not work very well for them.

On Lords amendment 10B, the Government propose a review. From my brief period as a Minister, I know that when Governments look at what they can offer as a sop to the Opposition, it is a review that comes forward. I welcome the fact that a review is on the table. However, given the impact that zero-carbon homes would have and the positive contribution they would make, that is what we need to stick by. The Minister and other Conservative Members have referred to the Lords intervening in this. Of course, Conservative Members had their opportunity to reform the House of the Lords in the previous Parliament, and failed to do so.

The Minister may also refer to the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment to being the greenest Government ever. I assume that commitment is still in play for them, and hope they would therefore support the idea of zero-carbon homes and the highest possible environmental standards. Last time we discussed this, I asked the Minister how much people would save if these higher standards were introduced. I am afraid that he did not have a response, but he did refer to the fact that people generally keep their homes for seven years. That is another demonstration of a rather short-sighted approach, because these homes will be there not for seven years but for 50 or 100 years—who knows? The zero-carbon measures would have an impact over the duration of the lifetime of these homes—an impact that would benefit all future occupants, not just those who live there for a minimum of seven years.

In relation to extra costs, last time we discussed this, the figure of £3,000 was deployed, although that was disputed. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead suggested that those costs had gone down to £1,500, and the Minister referred to £15,000; I am not quite sure where he got that from. In any case, long-term savings would clearly be derived from these higher energy standards for homes, and that would benefit everyone who lived in them thereafter.

It is legitimate for the Government to point out that amendment 10B would place additional burdens on smaller builders. It would therefore be appropriate for the Government to come forward with ideas about how to address that through training, advice and additional support from which those builders could benefit so that they could not only develop the sites that we want to be developed but develop homes to the highest possible standards to ensure that the Government meet their climate change commitments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I must inform the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.