New Clause 2 — Major redevelopment schemes: non-domestic rate income

Housing (Amendment) – in the House of Commons at 8:48 pm on 24th January 2012.

Alert me about debates like this

‘(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.’.—(Helen Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Photo of David Amess David Amess Conservative, Southend West

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The Committee having divided:

Ayes 219, Noes 284.

Division number 439

See full list of votes (From The Public Whip)

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of John Healey John Healey Labour, Wentworth and Dearne

On a point of order, Mr Amess. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell, wound up the previous debate for the Government, but I am not certain that Hansard will record exactly how he voted. Now he has rejoined the Front Bench having gone absent for a little while, perhaps he could tell us.

Photo of David Amess David Amess Conservative, Southend West

I am afraid I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order. The Committee will have heard what he said and will draw its own conclusions.

Photo of Tom Harris Tom Harris Labour, Glasgow South

Further to that point of order, Mr Amess. I wonder whether you could clarify a rule of which many of us were unaware. Is it in fact possible to run into the wrong Lobby and avoid your name appearing in Hansard by not actually voting? I have been in the House for 10 years, but I was not aware that that route was open to us.

Photo of David Amess David Amess Conservative, Southend West

It is perfectly in order, whether it be unusual or not for the Minister to have done what he did.

Photo of Dave Watts Dave Watts Labour, St Helens North

On a point of order, Mr Amess.

Photo of Dave Watts Dave Watts Labour, St Helens North

It is on a different point. Is it possible, Mr Amess, to extend the time of this debate by 15 minutes, bearing in mind that we have lost 15 minutes because a Minister was locked in the wrong Lobby?

Photo of David Amess David Amess Conservative, Southend West

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no powers to do so. Any more points of order would obviously reduce the time further.