Comparison of Divisions: Opposition Day — [9th Allotted Day] — Business Rates and the Recession — 25 Mar 2009 at 18:52 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) (unedited): Opposition Day — [9th Allotted Day] — Business Rates and the Recession - 25 Mar 2009 at 18:52 - Division No. 90
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that the effect of the five per cent. rise in business rates and the end of transitional rate relief will mean soaring bills at a time of deflation and recession; notes the poor take-up of small business rate relief and calls for entitlement to be made automatic in England, as it is in Wales; believes the complex and shrinking Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme should be replaced with genuine incentives for local authorities to promote business growth; further calls for local authorities to have the power to apply local business rate discounts; expresses concern about the effect of the 2010 rates re-valuation on retail premises and urges a review of the re-valuation plans; cautions that local firms will suffer as a result of the Government's business rate rises on empty property, new supplementary rates being imposed with no business say, and retrospective increases in rates on business by ports; and asserts that the Government's policies on business rates are harming local firms during the recession.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
"notes that the Government has recognised the problems that many businesses face and is committed to do all it can to help them through these testing times; recognises the action the Government has taken to give targeted support to businesses including a £20 billion working capital scheme, an aim to pay Government suppliers within 10 days, a cut in the main rate of value added tax to 15 per cent., a deferral in the increase in the small companies' rate of corporation tax, free business health checks, more than £100 million towards debt advice, the HM Revenue and Customs Time to Pay scheme benefiting 93,000 firms by deferring £1.6 billion in tax, and extension of Empty Property Relief; believes the Government's commitment to the annual Retail Price Index cap means that there has been no real terms increase in business rates since 1990; welcomes the Small Business Rate Relief scheme benefiting 392,000 businesses by £260 million in 2007-08; recognises that funding of almost £1 billion since 2005-06 has been provided through the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive scheme; further supports fairness in the system that ensures that properties are revalued every five years with transitional relief to phase in significant increases in bills from revaluation; and acknowledges help provided for businesses, including in ports, receiving unexpected and significant backdated rates bills by introducing an unprecedented eight years to pay, as part of a package of measures that ensures through the rates system there is certainly, fairness and appropriate relief for businesses.".
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 297.
Vote (b) : Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat - 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 - Division No. 104
The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:[1]
- This House
- regrets the Government's recent statement[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
- recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
- notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
- believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
- is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
- further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
- calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.
As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:[3]
- This House
- recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
- notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
- further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
- acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
- further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
- supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
- further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
- further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
- further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.
... was never voted upon.
Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."[5]
- [1] Christopher Huhne MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
- [2] Phil Woollas MP, Written Ministerial Statement, 29 April 2009
- [3] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
- [4] Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the Commons, Daily Mail, 30 April 2009
- [5] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
Opposite in Votes - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) was opposite to their vote on Motion (b). You can also see all differing votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b) |
Robert Wareing | Liverpool, West Derby | whilst Independent | no | aye |
Diane Abbott | Hackney North and Stoke Newington | Lab | no | aye |
Harry Cohen | Leyton and Wanstead | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Jeremy Corbyn | Islington North | Lab | no | aye |
Paul Farrelly | Newcastle-under-Lyme | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Mark Fisher | Stoke-on-Trent Central | Lab | no | aye |
Neil Gerrard | Walthamstow | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Kate Hoey | Vauxhall | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Kelvin Hopkins | Luton North | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Joan Humble | Blackpool North and Fleetwood | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Andrew MacKinlay | Thurrock | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Gordon Marsden | Blackpool South | Lab | no | aye |
Julie Morgan | Cardiff North | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Nick Palmer | Broxtowe | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Steve Pound | Ealing North | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Nick Raynsford | Greenwich and Woolwich | Lab | no | aye |
Andy Reed | Loughborough | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Linda Riordan | Halifax | Lab (minister) | no | aye |
Alan Simpson | Nottingham South | Lab | no | aye |
Paul Truswell | Pudsey | Lab | no | aye |
Mike Wood | Batley and Spen | Lab | no | aye |