I thank the Minister for the way in which he responded to the debate. The problem is that when certain exemptions are included in a Bill, the question arises of where the boundaries should be drawn, and the arguments are always difficult to deploy.
I have often seen housing developments on the edge of villages or in towns that have included community facilities as some of the planning gain. That leaves the problem of older halls that might need redevelopment and remain empty. A new hall might not be 100 per cent. provided by a developer: it might need new chairs, or redecoration. This tax proposal could well affect the ability to provide first-class facilities for communities that badly need them and that would use them.
I am sorry to tell the Minister that we will press the amendment to a Division; it is one of those afternoons. I hope that, in due course, he will take account of the arguments, particularly in his consultation.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 232.
Rating (Empty Properties) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Syms
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Rating (Empty Properties) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c944 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:51:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403158
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403158
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403158