Local Government Finance Bill — New Clause 2 — Safety Net Payment to Local Authorities — Major Redevelopmnet Areas — 24 Jan 2012 at 20:48

Phillip Lee MP, Bracknell voted against setting out what the Secretary of State must consider when deciding if to make a payment to a local authority in relation to the loss of business rate income due to a major redevelopment scheme.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the Secretary of State to consider the proportion of business rate income lost and the potential future social and economic benefits relating to a development scheme which results in a loss of business rate income for over a year when deciding if to make a "safety net" payment in relation to it.

The provisions in the Local Government Finance Bill for local retention of business rates include a "safety net" scheme, funded by a levy on business rates, designed to smooth out year to year variations in local authorities' business rate income.

MPs were considering the Local Government Finance Bill[1]. The proposed new clause which was rejected in this vote was:

  • Major redevelopment schemes: non-domestic rate income
  • ‘(1) In any case where a relevant authority proposes a major redevelopment scheme resulting in a substantial loss of non-domestic rate income for a period exceeding one year, the authority may make an application to the Secretary of State for a safety-net payment to be made to the authority each year for the period of the scheme. The Secretary of State must determine whether to make such a payment having regard to—
  • (a) the proportion of non-domestic rate income which will be lost to the authority for the period of the scheme, and
  • (b) the future social and economic benefits of the scheme.
  • (2) The Secretary of State must notify the authority of his or her decision on whether or not to grant a safety-net payment and allow the authority 28 days to make representations about his or her decision before issuing a final determination.’.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con242 (+1 tell) 0079.4%
DUP0 5062.5%
Ind0 10100.0%
Lab0 213 (+2 tell)083.3%
LDem42 (+1 tell) 0075.4%
Total:284 220080.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive