LOCAL MP Ian Liddell-Grainger was accused of "stabbing West Somerset in the back" this week after he appeared to claim the district should not receive its full share of business rates from the proposed Hinkley Point C power station.

In a speech in the House of Commons on Tuesday night, Mr Liddell-Grainger said that although Hinkley C would be in West Somerset, the biggest impact would be felt by Sedgemoor District Council and Somerset County Council.

As a result, he said, business rates should be shared between the trio of authorities.

His comments sparked outrage, with West Somerset Labour Party accusing him of "dropping a bombshell" on the district and local councillors accusing him of favouring Sedgemoor over West Somerset.

In unprecedented scenes, Mr Liddell-Grainger attended a full meeting of West Somerset Council on Wednesday night to try and explain his comments.

But he initially made matters worse when he seemed to accuse the district of not doing enough to get more out of Hinkley C developer EDF Energy through a separate Section 106 agreement to off-set the impact of the development.

Section 106 funding is entirely separate to business rates and is paid by developers through the planning process to communities affected by their schemes.

Mr Liddell-Grainger said Sedgemoor had done "too well" out of the 106 process and he had wanted to make sure West Somerset was "not forgotten".

He claimed many of the comments in his speech simply related to the 106 funding provided by EDF, but the speech also referred to "business rates" and "nuclear community benefits", without apparently differentiating between the three.

"The point I was making was 106 money. West Somerset did not get as much as it should have done. What I want to see in business rates is that you get a fair share.

"If you feel I have slighted you I apologise unreservedly. It was not what I intended to do," Mr Liddell-Grainger said.

From April next year, the Government is planning to fund local authorities by allowing them to keep some of the business rates collected in their districts, up to a certain limit, rather than sending the money straight to the Treasury.

In addition, a separate funding pool could be created using business rates paid over and above the Government's local authority funding limit, which all local authorities could then draw on in set areas.

No firm details have been released about the additional funding pool, but it is anticipated it could be used as a community funding pot to off-set Hinkley C through the business rates system.

However, under such a scheme, West Somerset would still retain the bulk of "traditional" business rates payments.

Speaking at Wednesday's council meeting, finance lead member Cllr Kate Kravis repeatedly challenged Mr Liddell-Grainger to clarify what he had meant in his speech.

She said she was unclear whether he wanted West Somerset to share all its business rates payments or just the additional "community benefit" funding pool.

In his speech, Mr Liddell-Grainger told the House of Commons: "The formula for allocating business rates is based on where the project is.

"Hinkley Point is on the coast just inside the boundary of West Somerset district council.

"Everybody knows that the only way to get heavy traffic - or any traffic - in and out of Hinkley is via Bridgwater and the M5.

"Therefore, although West Somerset district council will suffer some disruption, most will be borne by Sedgemoor District Council and Somerset County Council.

"It does not need a genius to work that out, but when the rules were devised there seems to have been a shortage of thinking.

"Thanks to the way the rules are drafted, West Somerset Council will qualify for all the cash and Sedgemoor and Somerset County Council will not receive any in mitigation.

"That is a muddle and I know it is not what was intended. I am sure that the Minister will agree - at least, I hope he will.

"Sedgemoor Council, Somerset County Council and EDF believe that business rates should be split in proper recognition of the effect of the project on all communities in the area."

Council leader Cllr Tim Taylor said Section 106 funding, community benefit funding pots and business rates payments were entirely separate things and "should not be confused".

He said West Somerset was fully aware of the need to work fairly, especially with other local authorities, and challenged Mr Liddell-Grainger to say what extra 106 funding West Somerset could have achieved.

He said he had no prior knowledge of Mr Liddell-Grainger's speech and he was "disappointed" not to have been consulted on it in advance.

Mr Liddell-Grainger said his speech "was designed around the retention of business rates when Hinkley Point C comes online because the roads here are abominable, we got very little."

But his "roads" comment appeared to relate to the separate Section 106 funding, which is paying for a new roundabout at Washford Cross.

Mr Liddell-Grainger denied he had said business rates should be "split" and said Bridgwater had got far more 106 funding for education that West Somerset had.

As a result of his comments, Cllr Kravis again asked him to clarify if his speech referred to 106 funding, general business rates or the proposed new community benefit fund which could be paid for through the business rates system.

"I am still not clear what you mean," she said.

"If Bridgwater gets another Morrisons depot they [Sedgemoor] will get a set proportion of the business rates.

"If Hinkley Point in West Somerset comes online, then West Somerset will get a retention of those business rates.

"I was under the impression that in the case of major infrastructure schemes there may be a possibility of extra business rate retention for the hosting communities.

"But that would be on top of the business rates scheme. If you are talking about the general business rates, I don't understand the rationale of wanting those shared across the area."

She said that at the point Hinkley C came online - believed to be 2020 at the earliest if the scheme goes ahead - Bridgwater would not be "massively affected" as the major development work would have already been done and that impact was being off-set by the separate 106 funding.

But she said she was more than happy for the council to continue existing discussions with neighbouring authorities about mitigating the impact of the Hinkley C development on communities in both Sedgemoor and West Somerset.

Mr Liddell-Grainger agreed with Cllr Kravis and said he knew there were two separate business rates-related schemes.

"It is two different things and I will continue to fight for both of them," he said.

Williton councillor Hugh Davies said he would like to know how Mr Liddell-Grainger would divide up any additional community benefit cash between Sedgemoor, West Somerset and the county council.

Watchet member Cllr Pete Murphy said he was "disappointed" by the MP's speech: "I have read it. It sounds as if the MP is taking sides against this council.

"If Hinkley Point C is built all the construction work for which the 106 is mitigating will have taken place.

"When it is generating, the business rates will be payable. Surely where the business is based is where the business rates should be paid?

"That is what happened with Hinkley Point A and Hinkley Point B, what has changed?

"It's on our land and we should get the business rates, it's that simple."

Mr Liddell-Grainger said he was fully supportive of West Somerset Council and added: "My job as an MP is to get the maximum benefit for all my constituents."

Cllr Taylor said he had already asked Mr Liddell-Grainger to do all he could to fight West Somerset's case for community benefit and he congratulated him for putting the cause firmly back under the spotlight.

After a lengthy debate, councillors said they welcomed Mr Liddell-Grainger's pledge to continue working on behalf of the council.

They also welcomed the "confirmation" that his speech did not relate to the sharing of general business rates but only to the proposed additional community business rate retention fund.

Councillors stressed they fully supported the need for all local authorities to work together, as they had already been doing, and said it was vital communities affected by Hinkley C were mitigated.

Meanwhile, Sedgemoor District Council's corporate director Bob Brown appeared to be in no doubt as to what Mr Liddell-Grainger's speech meant.

In a press statement issued just hours after the speech, he welcomed the MP's stance, having himself spoken directly to Westminster about the need to share business rates from Hinkley Point C.

He said "as it stood" business rates would only benefit West Somerset "rather than Sedgemoor" which he believed would suffer the most disruption and legacy impact.

Mr Brown said: "There is no doubt the Government is in a muddle over all this as our MP so eloquently pointed out but with the planning examination into Hinkley Point C ending this month, now is the time to sort it out in a way that doesn't leave the communities here paying too high a price for helping solve the country's energy problems."

In a statement, the West Somerset Labour Party said Mr Liddell-Grainger risked alienating the people of West Somerset as it seemed he did not think the district deserved to receive a windfall from business rates.

Labour district councillor Maureen Smith, who represents Minehead South, said it was clear the MP wanted to "bend the rules in favour of Sedgemoor".

"The rules are quite clear. The Hinkley site is in West Somerset and any business rates payable should come to West Somerset," she said.

After the meeting, Mr Liddell-Grainger said he did not believe West Somerset councillors had understood the financial situation regarding the Hinkley C development.