Deaths of Homeless People

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. Part of the rough sleeping strategy and rough sleeping initiative is about delivering both the 2,600 new bed spaces next year and the 750 staff to provide support in tackling the sort of issues he is talking about.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

If every seat, aisle and step in this Chamber was full, we still could not fit in every person who has died in the streets in this country, and that is actively at the door of the Government. We have had the cuts to housing and support services, particularly drug and alcohol services, and those chickens are coming home to roost. This cannot be fixed with the Housing Minister changing every few months, and by coming and making excuses. We need proper action and proper funding, and the Government need to take responsibility for the impact of welfare reform.

[Luke Hall]

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the £1.2 billion that is going in to provide homelessness support through the rough sleeping strategy. He makes an extremely valid point; there is no shying away from a hugely difficult set of statistics, and we should all pause for thought. He paints a vivid image. It is right to point to the fact that we are continuing to invest in our health services, with £30 million made available from NHS England for rough sleeping over the next five years, and £2 million in health funding to test these community-based models of provision, but he is right: there is no shying away from and no complacency about the fact that this is an extremely difficult issue affecting our whole society. We will strain every sinew to make this happen.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Bill came around very quickly from Second Reading to Committee and then to Third Reading, which just shows that, when Parliament decides to do something, it can do it. Perhaps that is because we are light on business and there is time to debate and discuss these issues. I know that this is a geek interest—I take pride in being a geek and in liking data, numbers and finance, and this is an important matter. We cannot achieve the Government’s ambitions if we do not have a solid financial foundation. Business rates, although boring for many people, are actually a very important part of that. I also wish to echo the thanks to the Clerks for supporting the passage of the Bill. As always, they acted with absolute professionalism and ensured its smooth passage.

The purpose of the Bill has already been outlined, which is that it creates a three-year cycle and brings forward the revaluation period by one year. None the less, issues were raised on Second Reading and in Committee. I am slightly fearful that the Minister will be whisked away to another Department very shortly, and that we will lose his consistency and thoughtfulness. It matters not only that we pass the legislation in this place, but that we manage the transitional arrangements and the impact that naturally follows. We need to see what transitional arrangements will be in place. We need to ensure not only that the valuation office has capacity and is encouraged to deal with the backlog of 60,000 appeals going back to 2010, but that it has the people to deal with a new revaluation in the appeals process that will come. We need to make sure that the transitional arrangements are there, so that those who are adversely affected are able to manage that transition.

As part of the wider review, we need to ensure that we are clocking the geographical shift in valuations that takes place with every revaluation, because if we are going to move to 50%, 75% or 100% retention, that will naturally have an impact on the financial stability of local authorities that are part of those schemes. If, after every revaluation, we see a transition to the values of London and the south-east, that will not help build the northern powerhouse, which is a shared ambition for everyone who cares about the whole of the UK benefiting from the country moving forward.

We also need a more fundamental review of local government finance. I really feel sorry for local government Ministers. It is not right that the Treasury often has a closed mind to their funding issues, that they are told to deal with the envelope of money that they have, and that they are always last in the queue, behind the NHS, the police service and other more pressing Departments. The truth is that, if we do not get this right, older people will not get the care they need, younger people will be put at risk, and, critically for democracy, people will question why they are paying more and more council tax for less and less of the neighbourhood services that everybody enjoys universally. We on the Labour Benches will be holding our own review.

I thank the Minister for his approach this Bill, and I look forward to scrutinising it through the transitional arrangements as we approach the revaluation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill (Second sitting)

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I hope not to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes.

I hope that by now the Committee is familiar with the three specific improvements the Bill will make to the business rates system: first, it will move the next revaluation in England and Wales to 1 April 2021; secondly, it will move the cycle for revaluations in England thereafter from every five years to every three years; and, thirdly, it will move the latest date by which draft rateable values must be prepared in England and Wales to the 31 December preceding the revaluation. I am glad to say that those substantive changes can all be found in clause 1.

To understand clause 1, we need first to consider the main primary legislation for business rates: the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Part III of the Act concerns business rates; it currently requires revaluations in England and Wales to take place every five years from 1 April 2017. Clause 1 is concerned entirely with amendments to that Act, and specifically to section 41(2A), which provides for revaluations of local rating lists in England

“on 1 April 2017 and on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”;

to section 52(2A), which does the same for central rating lists in England; and to sections 54A(4)(b) and 54A(5)(b), which provide for revaluations of local and central rating lists in Wales on a date specified by the Welsh Government by order—1 April 2017—and

“on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards.”

That shows in black and white the delivery of our commitment to make the rating system more responsive to changes in the property market and fairer for ratepayers, and to ensure that businesses see those benefits as soon as possible.

Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of the 1988 Act set out the deadline by which draft rateable values must be provided before the revaluation. That is currently set at no later than 30 September. Clauses 1(3) and 1(6) of the Bill move the deadline to no later than 31 December. It is important to remember that that is only a deadline—it is the latest date by which draft rateable values must be prepared. The Welsh Government agree that the deadline for the draft list should be changed to 31 December. Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of the 1988 Act apply to both England and Wales, so the amendments made by clauses 1(3) and 1(6) will automatically change that date in both countries.

Clause 2 will make purely consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation. The sections of the 1988 Act that concern the transitional arrangements made at the time of each revaluation, and the regulations made under those powers in England, reflect the existing five-year cycle of rating lists. Clause 2 will therefore amend those references to bring them in line with the new cycle of rating lists in England and Wales. It will make no other changes to the powers in those sections.

Clauses 3 and 4 are, I hope, self-explanatory. As is normal practice, the Bill will come into force two months after it is passed. It will give the valuation office the legal basis it needs to complete the valuation exercise for a revaluation in 2021. Since it has already started work on those valuations under the existing legislation and will continue that work over the coming months, there is no need to shorten the normal two-month commencement period.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning, though brief and focused, we heard from representatives of the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Retail Consortium, the Confederation of British Industry, the Local Government Association, and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. We place on record our thanks for the time they took to give evidence to the Committee.

The scope of the Bill is narrow, and that was reflected in the discussion we had. However, some themes came out during that session that are worth repeating. Clause 1 brings forward the new ratings list by a year, to 2021—a move that we welcome and that was welcomed by all those who gave evidence earlier today. There were calls for annual reviews, but given the concerns about capacity in the Valuation Office Agency, evolution might be more advisable, which is why we support bringing the new list forward by one year.

One element that was queried by the Local Government Association was the change from six to three months’ notice to billing authorities of the new list, pushing the deadline from “not later than September” to December. That change will hit many local authorities, as they will be presenting—or, in many cases, would intend to have already presented—their budget proposals to council. That is important because, as employers, councils have to meet their statutory obligations to their employees for any changes that might follow, whether for redundancies or any structural changes within the organisation. It is important that councils can meet the January deadline for that, so the notice period is important. I therefore ask that the Minister meets representatives of the LGA as a matter of urgency to address their concerns and decide whether something can be done to minimise the impact of that change.

Clause 2 addresses transitional relief and brings it in line with the new list proposals. There was a broader discussion, which I do not intend to pad out here, about business rates and their impact on the retail sector, the viability of businesses and the future of high streets and town centres. We share the concerns about those issues and would welcome further discussions to create a business rates system that is not only fairer but helps British businesses and industry to thrive in future, rather than—as business rates do at the moment—simply acting as a tax to occupy or exist. There are growing calls for change, and I hope they are heard and acted on by the Government beyond the scope of this Bill.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically thoughtful comments and join him in thanking all the witnesses we were lucky to hear from this morning.

During this morning’s session, I was pleased that there was widespread support for the principle of the Bill, namely shortening the revaluation cycle to make business rates more responsive to economic conditions. It felt like all participants agreed that three years was the right place to end up, striking an appropriate balance between responsiveness on the one hand and providing some certainty and stability for ratepayers on the other.

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that my team is already in discussions with the LGA and will continue to be so. It is also in discussions with CIPFA, which participates in a technical working group on business rates and business rate reform to ensure that the process for local authorities submitting their NNDR1 forms by the end of January is not unduly impacted by the change. As in the past, we have been able to work constructively with local government and CIPFA to ensure all the processes that need to happen for revaluation work for the sector, ratepayers and everyone else involved.

To the hon. Gentleman’s last point, and without wanting to stretch the scope of the Bill, I understand what he says. I am glad he recognises the contribution of business to our economy and society—not least providing employment and the funds we need for our public services. We will always be keen to do what we can to support business. With regard to business rates, £13 billion of various reforms have already been enacted by the Government—most recently the retail relief scheme, which provides a third discount to retail high street stores on their business rates bill and has been warmly welcomed. The Government will continue to watch that issue closely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill (First sitting)

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Okay. I call Jim McMahon.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Thank you. Welcome, Dominic. It is good to see you. What impact do your members consider that the current business rates system is having on our high streets and town centres?

Dominic Curran: An extremely adverse impact. The business rates level has risen 50% since its inception in 1990. It has risen by 10p in the pound, from 40p to just over 50p, in the last decade alone, at a time when there is, as you well know, an enormous retail transformation happening on the high street. That prohibitive level of business rates is hindering our members’ ability to invest in their stores and in the retail experience for the future that we hear so much about and that our members want to be a part of.

[Jim McMahon]

Q Quite often when we hear about the decline of the high street and the pressures in town centres, it is framed as a challenge between the on-street and the online, when actually most of your members will trade in both ways. Do your members have a view on how best to balance the shift to a growing online presence with the cost of occupying high street locations?

Dominic Curran: Yes. We have put in a submission to the Treasury Committee, which, as you will know, is holding an inquiry on the impact of business rates at the moment. Fundamentally, we think the system is broken. It needs reform. Our overarching call is for a wide-ranging, fundamental reform of the entire suite of business taxation. The problem is that, in the past, there have been reviews just of the business rate system in isolation. Given its links to local government finance, and the wider impact of how different taxes affect the ways in which businesses operate—online and offline—we need a much more wide-ranging review.

That said, we recognise that that is quite a big, long-term ask, so we have called for some immediate reforms—most importantly and immediately, a freeze in the multiplier, and then a way of using the forecast increased revenue from corporation tax to offset business rates revenue, so that we can begin to, essentially, treat all business taxes with one coherent tax system, and use one element to help another element. An online tax, which is often prayed in aid, is not the best idea. If it is an online tax on goods, it would effectively be levied 100% on the retail sector. Retail pays 25% of business rates, so if you were to use the online tax to recycle the revenue from that to help retailers, they would essentially be paying 100% of the tax and getting 25% of the benefit.

[The Chair]

May I just interrupt for a moment? Questions and answers need to be within the scope of the Bill, which is specifically about the timing of bills and business rates, and we should try to constrain ourselves to that very narrow basis and avoid talking about wider issues. Was there a supplementary within scope, Mr McMahon?

[Jim McMahon]

Q The revaluation period is being brought forward, which is a subject of the Bill. Revaluations obviously have a direct cash impact on the members that each of you represent. With the revaluation that will now take place in 2021, and the subsequent revaluations every three years, should there be scope to review the treatment of direct-to-consumer warehousing—for instance, the Amazon warehouse delivering direct to the end consumer—and the amount of business rates that they pay per square metre compared with the high street department store?

Dominic Curran: I think—

[The Chair]

Again, I do not mean to be difficult, but I am advised that consumer warehousing is not strictly within the scope of the Bill, which is on the timing. Do you want to make a comment within the scope of the Bill?

Dominic Curran: I would only say that I think that all business properties should be valued every three years, as the Bill suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

Thank you.

[Jim McMahon]

Q To follow up on that point, when the revaluation is brought forward, that will not dispense with the appeals already in the system—they are still there and need to be administered—and it will just create the opportunity for further appeals. Have your members expressed any concern about the capacity in the valuation office? Do you have any concerns about what it might mean if no additional capacity is brought in and there is a more recent revaluation in 2021?

Martin McTague: I can certainly answer that. There is widespread concern about the lack of capacity in the VOA. It is bizarre that the solution seems to be that you impose a six-month cap on appeals. That is effectively saying, “It’s so difficult to get these appeals through the process that we are going to cap the time required to do it.” Yet the information is not available to the business rate payer to be able to challenge things easily. The point that you made at the beginning—that the VOA is fundamentally under-resourced to deal with this change—needs to be addressed quickly.

Edward Woodall: I agree with Martin. The feedback I get from my members is that there is a lack of capacity at the VOA to allow them to engage meaningfully in the process and talk to individuals. There is also a challenge, which we will probably come to, about the structure of the process it has developed—check, challenge, appeal—and people’s ability to interact with that, which is causing difficulties.

Dominic Curran: Absolutely. Our members are enormously frustrated with the VOA on a day-to-day basis. The appeal system is clogged up at best. It needs better resourcing. There certainly should not be a cap on appeals, in terms of the time length. But more frequent revaluations would, to an extent, reduce the need for appeals, because valuations would be less out of date, although they would probably still be somewhat out of date.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q A final quick question, Mr Curran. One of the things that the VOA has to do at the moment is to deal with appeals. You just made the point that more frequent revaluations ought to reduce the volume of appeals. Will you elaborate on that point, because, obviously, less appeal work would be an offset to the increased work of more frequent revaluations?

Dominic Curran: The argument is strongest if we were to move to a system of annual revaluations. With an annual revaluation, it almost would not be worth appealing a valuation that you thought was wrong, because it would change in a year’s time anyway. The other effect would be that the valuation probably would not be so wrong, because your annual changes would be on a much smoother line—looking at it on a graph—whereas if we revalue every seven years, as we have, you get quite a steep change. Obviously, somewhere between seven years and one year, the line gets smoother and smoother. It is a question of judgment which number we pick. Using that logic, three years should have fewer appeals than five or seven, but one year should have fewer than three. We will see how good the VOA is at dealing with three-yearly revaluations.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. Who will be the first Member to ask a question? I call Jim McMahon.

[Jim McMahon]

Q Thank you, Chair. I thank the panel members for taking the time to come and give evidence. This is a question for each of you in your different guises. We heard in the previous evidence session that there is concern about the Valuation Office Agency’s capacity to deal with the revaluations and the appeals that may follow. Have you got any views on that?

Annie Gascoyne: I am happy to go first. It is an issue that the VOA has struggled with the number of appeals in the past. There would be a challenge with VOA capacity if we moved to annual revaluations, which is what businesses would like to see in the longer term, because it would mean that the revaluations were more in sync with the economic cycle and what businesses are able to pay. However, we think that the three-year revaluations are a good stopgap, and are something that the VOA should have the capacity to deal with. That said, there have been issues with the check, challenge, appeal system and the VOA’s IT systems, which were implemented too quickly without due thought to some of the more complex business relationships when it comes to property.

The VOA has some work to do to look at modernising its IT infrastructure, perhaps taking lessons learned from how making tax digital for VAT was implemented. We should see whether there are ways that the VOA can streamline the process so that, in the longer term, instead of three-yearly revaluations, which is what we are talking about today, we can move towards annual valuations, and potentially in the future self-assessment, which would simplify the process for everyone in the long term.

Councillor Watts: Thanks for the question, Jim. We have significant worries about the VOA’s capacity. Clearly, if we are going to give it more work, which this Bill does, it will need to be properly resourced. It is worth adding, even at this early stage, that this is not just about the VOA’s capacity to do extra work in the future. There is a very significant backlog of work stored up at the VOA and the appeals tribunal. It is a sad fact that there is more than £2.5 billion tied up in council reserves that could be spent on public services. That is currently being kept back to guard against the risk of appeals from the 2010 revaluation. Clearly, if that money is to be freed up to be used on public services, as we all want, we need to crack through the backlog of appeals rapidly, and we must recognise that more regular revaluations will lead to more work in the future. We think that more resource is needed at the VOA so it can get through what is already a pretty big mountain of work, and there will be more work if the Bill passes.

Adrian Blaylock: I agree with my colleague from the LGA. He is right that the VOA is struggling with its capacity, in terms of the backlog of appeals from the 2010 list. I do not think we have yet seen the impact of the 2017 list and the switch to the check, challenge, appeal system. Moving to three-yearly revaluations will certainly have an impact on the VOA’s resources, which has an impact on local government because of the provisions it has to set aside for loss on appeals. It is really important that the VOA is resourced sufficiently under the new CCA system to deal with the revaluations and the appeals, or whatever we want to call them, coming out of the more frequent revaluation.

[Jim McMahon]

Q My next question is probably more for Richard and Adrian, in terms of your member authorities and your members. It is about the impact of rate retention. Are you confident that the floors and ceilings are sufficient to mitigate a potential shift in values away from many of your member areas? We know that the 2017 revaluation led to significant shifts away from many regions, towards London and the south-east in particular. In fact, only London saw an increase across all value types; many other areas saw declines. Do you have concerns about what that might mean for members who are part of rate retention pilots?

Adrian Blaylock: It depends where we go in terms of rates retention. The consultation that happened in December and the switch to the alternative model for rates retention give local authorities certainty, in terms of a guaranteed baseline funding level, regardless of what a revaluation does. If we go down that route, I do not think it will be an issue, but you are right that, if you look at the impact of any revaluation, there are winners and losers in the different regions across the country. It is important that there is a rebalance of funding across local government so that no single authority is overly adversely affected. The safety net built into the current rates retention system seems to be working adequately for 50% retention. It probably needs to be reviewed as part of the move to 75%, and ultimately—hopefully—100%. I guess that will have to be part of the consultations about how we move to that sort of system.

Councillor Watts: I agree with that. There is a wider point, which I will stray into only briefly because it is not precisely the topic of the Bill. The risk we face on business rates is that we represent a council area that has seen a very rapid rise in valuations, which has put enormous pressure on many of our small and medium-sized businesses, and we are seeing holes in our high street for the first time in a while as a result of rapid increases in rates and rents. There is a disparity between the amount being paid locally and the amount being received locally, which at some point stops adding up for people. There is a challenge relating to the wider business rates system. Some areas are seeing very rapid rises in the value of property. Most businesses do not own the property they operate from, and therefore do not feel the benefit of the rise in its capital value; they just get a high rent bill as well as a high rates bill.

[Jim McMahon]

I recognise from the outset that this is slightly expanding the scope, but I will try to be disciplined about it. Do your members have a view about the treatment of plant and machinery in the revaluation?

[The Chair]

I think we cannot go there, given the timeframe. You were right to give a warning. Do you have another question that is in scope? Stephen Morgan, you have one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Q Do you foresee any problems with the roll-out of the business rate retention scheme and this Bill? Do you think any anomalies or complexities will emerge from those two?

Adrian Blaylock: Nothing obvious occurs. There are a lot of unknowns about rates retention—we are talking about whether we carry on with a similar model to what we use now, just with the 75%, or whether we go for the alternative model, which was favoured in the December consultation—and what local government needs is certainty of funding, and understanding of when and how the money will come. So I do not think that the Bill particularly causes any issues, but it would be nice to get some early indication of where we are going with rates retention and how that will change.

Councillor Watts: I do not think there are any in-principle reasons why the Bill creates problems for business rates retention.

Annie Gascoyne: I agree.

[Jim McMahon]

Q Is there a call from your members for a more fundamental review of business taxation, rather than the silo approach of the review of business rates?

Annie Gascoyne: You mean beyond business rates? We would see a fundamental reform of business rates as being high on our priority list—

[The Chair]

May I just intervene? Sorry to interrupt. To be in scope, a question has to be about timing, so do you want to rephrase that question to be about the timing of change? Otherwise it is not in scope.

[Jim McMahon]

The question has been answered. I need no further response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

No.

[Jim McMahon]

Q May I ask one question of Richard? Is the LGA making a specific request that the change of date from September to December be reviewed as part of this process?

Councillor Watts: We are, yes. In effect, our request is that we would welcome further conversations with the Government about getting a date. We understand the arguments for shifting it, because it is quite a long time and 30 September is quite early in the process. However, for one year out of three when that impacts on the potential local government announcement, we would like to understand more about how the Government would like to co-ordinate between this announcement in December and the local government spending announcement having to be earlier than it, because that is a change in precedent. We cannot push the local government spending announcement each year beyond 31 December—it is already too late where it is, given that local budget setting for any authority of size is effectively always concluded before the spending settlement on the basis of guesswork, then tweaked when the settlement is announced in the House.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions, I thank all members of the panel for their evidence. I invite the Government Whip to move the adjournment.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeremy Quin.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not quite sure where the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was, but a number of Tory leadership contenders were queuing up on last night’s TV debate to pledge their loyalty to adult social care and their desire to see it properly funded. Now that there is a queue of Conservatives who are finally waking up to the adult social care crisis facing this country, what assessment does the Minister make of the amount of money needed to plug the gap?

[Rishi Sunak]

We are doing that work with our colleagues in the Department of Health as we speak, to ensure an accurate reflection of the pressures as we go into the spending review. Those pressures are real; everyone acknowledges that there is an ageing demographic at the top end of social care, but working-age adults now account for half of the budget. It is right that we get the demographics right and that we go into the spending review with a robust case for the amount of funding that social care requires.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, may I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We are very supportive of more frequent revaluations. There are growing calls to make sure that that happens, not only to ensure their relevance but to remove any potential sharp cliff edges—the longer a revaluation is left, the more the valuations between regions drift.

The LGA, though, would like the Government to go further, and asks them specifically to reduce the significant backlog of appeals: there are a staggering 65,000 unresolved appeals from 2010 in the system. That is important because local councils have to have £2.5 billion in reserves, in case those appeals are successful and the risk is carried by council services. The LGA also asks for the appeal period to be capped at six months. Again, that would reduce the financial exposure for which local authorities would have to make provision through their reserves. The LGA believes that that would be more appropriate.

We must consider the impact of revaluations with regard not only to the changing nature of demand—including for retail, office and other types of uses—but to the geographical shift away from our regions to London and the south-east, as shown by the most recent revaluation. The net take for the Treasury has to be broadly the same, and the revaluation reflects the increase in value in London and the reduction in the regions.

In the 2017 revaluation, it was only London that experienced an increase in all values across all sectors: retail was up by 26.2%, industry by 15.1%, office by 21.2%, and other uses by 25.7%. Every other region, bar the south-east, experienced a reduction in retail values, including by 1.2% in the west midlands and by 6.8% in the north-east. Although office values were more mixed, Yorkshire and the Humber experienced a decrease in value of 13.25%, followed by the north-east, which was down by 12.5%. A real shift is taking place away from our regions, primarily in the north, towards London and the south-east.

Let me paint what that picture means in pounds and pence, because that is what the Treasury cares about when it comes to business rates. The square mile of the City of London alone is now valued higher than the whole of Wales. Westminster City Council and Camden Council together are worth more than the whole of the north-west of England. Greater Manchester alone is valued higher than the whole of the north-east of England. We are seeing major shifts in values across the country, focusing not just on the capital but on the city bases away from our towns.

Why is that important? As more local authorities move towards business rate retention schemes, all with varying degrees of retention and because of that different degrees of exposure, there will be an impact on those with 100% retention in particular. Councils will be asking—following the next revaluation in 2021, should the Bill go through—what safety net will be in place to ensure that councils with perhaps weaker economic bases are not disadvantaged because they have opted into a business rate scheme. That is not because they have not been working hard to drive their local base—many have been doing that, which is why they went into the scheme in the first place—but because the nature of demand in those places has changed so much.

In Committee, when we have a bit of time to secure evidence to test some of these ideas out, I hope there will be a spirit of wanting to work together to try to make the system work. We have heard some pushing demands from Members who, quite rightly, recognise that council tax and business rates are both very important property taxes which also have limitations. It is important that both are sustainable and fair on the payers.

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman provides an analysis, which I recognise, of the changes that took place during the previous revaluation. He also says that there is an opportunity for local authorities to grow their economic base. Has he done any economic analysis of how successful those areas of the country that have seen a greater fall in their valuations have been in attracting businesses, in particular where public services and Government Departments have been devolved to those areas, which can increase the economic basis of those local authorities?

[Jim McMahon]

We have done that analysis. We have spoken to local authorities that are part of the retention scheme and where they have managed to capture the uplift in growth of values. I should say, however, that in combined authority areas and city regions, where we take the locality in the round we are seeing a shift away from towns to cities. The cities are performing very well and we are seeing stability in the retail and office markets, but we are not seeing the same repeated in the neighbouring towns that can be only a mile or two up the road. In terms of net gain, a lot of them will have to bring forward their strategic plans to ensure they are developing enough big employment sites, because it will eventually come down to square footage as we see the nature of it shift.

Let us be honest: we are talking about an online sales tax. The Government have really resisted that. There are some legitimate reasons to be cautious, particularly in terms of EU legislation and what that might mean for a potential challenge, but the fact is that we have not addressed, even within the business rate regime, how completely unfair it is for the high street anchor store —John Lewis, Debenhams and so on—which brings in footfall into town centres and supports the other retailers. The Amazon big shed on the edge of the motorway pays a fraction of the business rates to occupy that space, when it is actually a more productive space direct to the consumer. There is a lot of room to go here, not just to rely on an internet sales tax, but to get around a table, work through the detail cross-party and really test what areas are not controversial. Most people who understand this recognise that the system has to catch up with the changing times. That offer has been on the table for a while and perhaps one day it will be taken up.

Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor.

The Government have made significant reforms to the business rates system since our wide-ranging review in 2016. Responding to the needs of ratepayers, we are building a system fit for the 21st century. The tax system must keep pace with the way business operates today, and that means a modern, online system that makes it easier for businesses to manage their bills in one place.

Today’s measure is a small step towards that modern system for business rates. It will give Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the ability to carry out the early design work so that it can explore how a new system can be delivered. It does not implement or commit us to a particular approach, and the Government will work closely with local government and businesses when we come to develop detailed proposals. We need the Bill because HMRC’s statutory functions do not currently extend to the administration of business rates. As I have said, further primary legislation will be needed for HMRC to implement the outcomes of this work, so this House will have a further opportunity to look again at the project.

On the detail of the Bill’s clauses, HMRC’s functions are set out in primary legislation in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. These functions relate to the collection and management of revenue, as set out in section 5 of the Act, and do not extend to the administration or payment of non-domestic rates. Clause 1 therefore provides HMRC with the ability to incur expenditure in connection with digital services to be provided by it for the purpose of facilitating the administration or payment of non-domestic rates in England. Subsections (2) and (3) define digital services and non-domestic rates respectively. Clause 2 sets out that the amendment will extend to England and Wales but apply only to England.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor.

When we debated the Bill’s Second Reading last week, we were careful not to stray too far from what is a very narrow Bill. The benefit to the Minister was that he was able fill a speech by reading out the Bill. I shall not speak just for the sake of it; I shall cut straight to the chase.

I accept completely that this is enabling legislation to allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to develop the framework and the product offer, but there are still many outstanding questions that the Government need to answer at this stage, because they are fundamental to the approach that is being taken. For instance, will local councils retain their primary role as billing authorities? Who will underwrite the non-collection losses for businesses that opt to use the new digital system? How frequent will HMRC’s payments to local authorities be?

To what extent will local government be involved in the co-design of the system? As was pointed out on Second Reading, there is a great deal of expertise in our councils when it comes to designing systems and processes and bridging systems across different software products, and I think we can tap into that expertise to ensure that the system is fit for purpose. I am sure that the Minister does not want his CV to bear the legacy of an inadequate IT system, a fate that has befallen many Ministers who have gone before him in various Departments.

We want those fundamental questions to be answered, ideally before work starts and money is spent—and that brings me to my next point: we still do not know how much money will be spent. Oddly, a money motion was tabled but did not proceed to a Division, and there was no explanation even of the ballpark figure: not even a rough estimate of how much the new system might cost. The cost must be weighed against the benefits to HMRC and businesses, and it must be established whether we are getting value for money for the investment.

I must be careful not to stray too far from the subject of the debate, but the Bill does not address the underlying chronic underfunding of local public services. The Minister really must deal with the issue of the £8 billion funding gap, to which we have referred very often in the House.

We do not intend to divide the Committee, but if the Minister is not able to answer those questions today, it would be useful if, at the very least, Ministers could respond in writing.

[Rishi Sunak]

Let me deal briefly with the hon. Gentleman’s points. He asked some specific questions about the design of the system. As we established on Second Reading, I cannot give him the answers, not because I am trying to hide something but simply because I do not know them at this stage, and nor does anyone else. The Bill will enable HMRC to start its scoping work, and the questions that the hon. Gentleman rightly posed about the design, who will do what, and how intensive the work will be—or, indeed, how light-touch it might be—will be answered during subsequent analyses. Further primary legislation is likely to be required, so the House will have an opportunity to debate those changes.

On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point about the potential integration of the new challenge and appeal system with whatever new platform is designed. That point is worthy of consideration. Again, however, at this stage no one knows how much that would cost, how long it would take, or whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the plan of work. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me: I am not being evasive, but we are beginning a process that will answer all those questions and others.

Similarly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific figure in relation to the budget, because we do not know what the overall system will look like. What I can say is that HMRC’s initial scoping work will be done within its existing resources and budgets, will not, in general, involve the use of consultants, and will hopefully lead to a proposal which, during the spending review, HMRC can decide whether to adopt, depending on the outcome of the review.

Of course local government and, indeed, business should be extensively engaged in the process. I know that HMRC is committed to that, and the hon. Gentleman would no doubt hold me and Treasury Ministers to account if it were not the case. Typically, Select Committees would take evidence from HMRC in hearings as the system was being designed and rolled out over subsequent years, and I have no reason to doubt that that would happen in this instance.

The last question the hon. Gentleman posed was specifically about the frequency of payments. I am pleased to be able to tell him that this was also brought up on Second Reading. Currently, businesses tend to have at least the opportunity to spread their business rates payment over 10 different instalments over the year. That right is prescribed in regulation—the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989—so that flexibility is already in place and is taken up by many businesses. If there was to be any change to that, it would require this place to pass new regulations, so I think the hon. Gentleman can rest assured on that point.

I hope that answers all the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I ask Members to agree that, if we can take clauses 1 and 2 together, they stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I do not intend to talk at length, but I do wish to say that when people look at Parliament and the division that Brexit causes, they believe that our politics is in crisis. Although I know that the topic the Bill addresses is not interesting for many people and I doubt that many people will be watching, it has demonstrated that we can work across parties, and indeed that is how Parliament generally works, although it is not often seen. I accept that this is a technical matter and is not as controversial as Brexit, which I will leave for others. I thank the Minister for reaching out very early in this process, and I wish the Bill success in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important and timely debate.

We heard from the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who expressed real frustration at the lack of a consultation. We expected that before Christmas but it is still not here. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who restated a position that I firmly believe in: we should use this opportunity to reset and recast how that fund can be used. He spoke about the importance of town centres and how people feel about the future direction of their town, and the ability to include people in a more active way on decisions that affect their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) said that far too often power is held away from local people. With the best will in the world, decisions made about what is right for local areas are for nothing if local people are not involved and feel that they have no agency or control over the future direction of the place where they live. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about the importance of targeting the fund on the basis of need, and the importance of respecting our devolved nations. They cannot be bypassed—they have to be front and centre in whatever new settlement comes forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said how much regional inequalities have increased since 2010 because of successive decisions made by the current Government.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke about the perception that this is not just about money, but is a power grab by Government to retain as much power as they can centrally and not distribute it anywhere. I congratulate him on his work on this issue in the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which holds the Government to account and works in partnership to try to create a new way forward that provides an alternative.

The importance of EU structural funds has been set out in the debate, but it is worth highlighting again the importance of the £17.2 billion of investment directed at some of the most significant regions that have not shared the capital’s booming fortunes. The EU regional development fund has focused £655 million on supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. It has supported research and innovation with £342 million and invested £197 million towards a low-carbon economy. The EU social fund tackles head-on the barriers preventing people in towns such as mine from accessing the labour market and decent, well-paid and secure jobs. Almost £1 billion has been spent on developing an inclusive labour market, with more than £333 million further to develop new skills that are vital for accessing jobs and vital for the future of our economy.

There are very real concerns about the Government’s intent in this agenda. We have heard not just concerns about the places that people represent, but a significant amount of distrust in the background motives of the Government. There is little wonder why: we have seen nearly a decade of austerity targeted at the most deprived communities, where vital public services have been taken away from areas that could least afford it and that have seen the biggest cuts. The evidence tells us that the Government are not in the game of sticking up for the most deprived communities—the very people we represent in this place. Left to their own devices, what would the Government do with the opportunity to recast the fund, and what might that mean for the communities we represent?

The same is true of education funding, skills funding and further education funding, all of which are under chronic pressure. The same continues to be true of UK capital investment spend, where our regions are held back by a failure to invest in growth. We have seen that on transport investment and housing investment; across almost every line of central Government, capital investment favours the capital of the UK. What about our regions? If we want the UK to be the best that it can be, every one of our regions must be the best that it can be—not just the cities and city regions, but our towns.

There is real fear that what might follow is a competitive process that pitches one area against the next, with rules dictated by a centralising Government who do not want to give power away and have always neglected our towns and our most deprived communities. We might see that the rules are doubly stacked up against getting the money to the very communities and people who ought to be beneficiaries.

Today, the Minister can put some meat on the bones. He can explain why there has been a significant delay in the consultation. He can outline what a future fund might look like: how will local people have agency and be involved? How will we make sure that our towns benefit as much as our cities do? How can we make sure that this is not a pot of money in isolation, but a wholly different approach to how Government spend their money—not just favouring the capital and doing it the easiest way possible, but making sure that every part of the UK gets the money that it needs?

Why has this taken so long? We are nearly three years in from the EU referendum. Had we left on 29 March, we would have been six weeks out of the European Union, but there is not even a programme in place for spending the money that should go to our regions post Brexit. The Government might have been saved by a temporary relief, but at some point they will have to put pen to paper and set out exactly what they have in mind, and make sure that local people are included. I hope that the Minister takes from this debate the fact that there is a great deal of interest, and that the MPs who have spoken are not going away. They will come back if answers do not come forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

If Members give me the opportunity to say when, I may try to provide an answer. One of the points we heard was that we must respect the devolution settlement across our United Kingdom. For me, as the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse and devolution, that means respecting the devolution settlements that this Government have brought forward, by which I mean mayoral devolution in England, which now covers 48% of the north of England.

[Jim McMahon]

I understand why the Minister does not want to go down the cul-de-sac of the Barnett formula, but can he confirm that no region will be worse off than it is under the current programme?

[Jake Berry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and I was just about to say, the quantum of the UK shared prosperity fund will be determined as part of the comprehensive spending review. That is the appropriate time for the Government to make commitments of the sort he seeks. However, he and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) are correct that the Government must come forward with their consultation—I am clear that this must happen—before the comprehensive spending review to enable areas to contribute to that consultation.

We have not been sitting on our hands, as people who have listened to the debate may think. We have already engaged with more than 500 stakeholders. We have had 25 official-level engagements across the country, including with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. In addition, in my role as Minister for the northern powerhouse, I have engaged with mayors. I have talked to them specifically about how we can work together to provide evidence to the consultation that demonstrates that, as so many people have said, the impetus for investment of the UK shared prosperity fund should come from our regions rather than being directed out of Whitehall.

Having listened to contributions to the debate, I think everyone believes that it would be nice if that happened. The point is that by working with our metro Mayors, our local enterprise partnerships and authorities across England—that is certainly my role as English Minister for local growth—to create the evidence base, we can move beyond thinking that it would be nice to proving that it is how we will get the biggest return on investment. There is work ongoing in my Department, in advance of the consultation, to ensure that that hugely important argument is made, and won, when my dear chums in the Treasury are making decisions about how the money should be distributed following the consultation. I hope that answers some of the questions that Members asked. My response to the main question is that the consultation will start very shortly.

Let me move on to some of the specific points that were made. On public transport investment, Members may not have seen the most up-to-date figures, which are available on the Treasury website. They show that transport capital expenditure is higher per capita in the north of England than in London. People often talk about total capital expenditure across the north of England versus London. There are some parts of the north of England where very few people live, so it is much more realistic to talk about capital expenditure per capita, and it is higher per capita in the north of England.

Many colleagues talked about the weakness of Green Book calculations for making investment decisions, which I think is acknowledged across the House. That is why the Government came forward with a rebalancing formula in the industrial strategy. That formula looks at areas that are less developed, depending on how we define that, and at factoring future growth into Green Book calculations. Changes have been made recently to ensure that community benefit is also included in such calculations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) commented on the ring-fencing of coastal money. By the end of the current spending period, the Government will have invested £200 million directly in coastal communities through our coastal communities fund, which is about driving prosperity on our coasts. The UK shared prosperity fund must not be viewed on its own as the only support the Government give to drive regional growth. We have contributed £53 million to part of the exciting growth deal in the highlands and islands, which has resulted in things such as the north coast 500 route, which I hope to visit this summer, prospering.

Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not put the House through a rendition of “Happy birthday”—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] But many happy returns.

Perhaps this is a missed opportunity. It is a shame, really, that the Bill is so narrow, because we have a good five hours where we could have talked about the real threats our businesses face, the dangers to our high streets and the many representations made on this issue. Nevertheless, this Bill is progress. Following the falling of the Local Government Finance Bill when the general election was called, we encouraged the Government to come forward with non-controversial elements of that Bill. Clause 14 was not controversial, so I am glad to see it in this Bill.

Local councils are on the frontline of government, delivering services that people rely on and which both support and enrich our communities on a day-to-day basis. Labour welcomes the modernisation of tax collection and the move to online payment and account facilities. However, the proposal to develop an online payment system led by HMRC, as set out in the Bill, does raise some questions.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the body that represents councils, which are the billing authorities responsible for the collection of business rates. It, like me, wants confirmation that the move to develop an online payment collection facility will not change the fundamental and historical role of local councils as billing authorities with the legal responsibility for the collection of business rates. In the design of this new bridging system, to what extent have the Government sought input and representation from local government? Local government has significant experience in designing systems and processes, and it is important to draw on that to make the best of this proposal.

As the Government are investing in digital services, do they intend to streamline this online facility with the check, challenge and appeal process already in place? That would make it easier for businesses to have an end-to-end business rate system in place, marrying in one system the payment mechanism with the ability to check and appeal business rates. What payment mechanism will be in place to transfer funds to local authorities, especially in rate retention pilots? Who will be responsible for the collection of rates, and who will underwrite funds lost through non-collection?

The most critical issue is the wider sustainability of business rates and their role in funding local public services and encouraging local economies to thrive. Local government has already seen severe cuts after nine years of brutal and devastating Tory austerity.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One of the reasons that there is a reaction from businesses regarding the level of business rates is that while central Government should have been responsible for funding certain services, they have shoved that on to local authorities, which have had to put that through business rates, just like the police and fire authorities’ precepts.

[Jim McMahon]

It is a matter of fact that the Government are moving towards the self-financing of local government. That is fine if a local authority can generate money through business rates and council tax in its local economy, but if, for whatever reason—usually for historical reasons—it is not able to do that, the Government do not care if councils sink or swim. That is no way to fund adult social care or children’s safeguarding services, or to make sure the homeless get the support they need either. Quite frankly, it shows a callous disregard for the role of central Government in making sure that every area gets its fair share of funding. That is a critical point.

[Mr Cunningham]

Anybody who has any experience of local government—my hon. Friend does, as do I and many others in here—knows that three or four years down the road, though they hint at looking again at business rates, Ministers will come along and tell everybody in local government, “You’re profligate, you’re spending too much, so we’ll cap you.” As I am sure he will remember, we have had all this before.

[Jim McMahon]

The hallmark of local government across parties—this is not a party point—is that people roll up their sleeves and get on with it. They do not complain; instead, they find solutions to the difficult challenges facing the community, but that is made much harder when central Government are disconnected.

Successive Secretaries of State have failed to champion local government, which is why I welcome our shadow Secretary of State having that local government background and experience and really believing in it. I hope he will be Secretary of State in the future, leading on this from the Government Benches. It is critical that the Secretary of State should not batter local government all the time. It needs a champion to celebrate what goes on in every community and, regardless of party affiliation, to fly the flag for what has been proven to be the most efficient arm of government—they are our champions, and we should thank them for all the work they do.

By 2025, there will be a funding gap in local government of £8 billion, and by 2020 local authorities will have faced core funding cuts at the hands of central Government of nearly £16 billion since 2010. That means that councils will have lost 60p for every £1 the Government previously provided to cover local public services. Next year, 168 councils will receive no funding whatever from central Government to meet the cost of rising demand for local public services.

What impact will that have? We can talk about the big numbers, and £16 billion is a huge number and has had a huge impact, but this is really about people and communities—the streets where people live, the communities that bind people together and make places decent places to live. The cuts have had a dramatic impact on government services. Youth centres have closed; libraries have reduced their hours, and hundreds have closed altogether; and meanwhile, social care is on the verge of collapse. Warning after warning has been issued, but the Government, particularly the Treasury, have not come to the table. As a result, our councils are having to make difficult and unwelcome decisions about where to make efficiency savings, and that is hampering their ability to prioritise social good above all else.

Moving to an online payment system administered by HMRC, but with links through to local billing authorities, raises a more fundamental point about taxation on business overall. Currently, many believe it operates in a silo and that the approach to business taxation is very disjointed. While our town centres and high streets are going to the wall, the online giants are making record profits and ensuring that as much as possible is sent offshore. The Government should use this opportunity not just to introduce a digital payment system, but to undertake a more fundamental review of business taxation overall to ensure that tax is generated where the wealth is created and that our town centres and communities are properly supported. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill properly and to hearing answers to the questions posed.

Draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 General Committees

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. We have debated the issue previously, so I will not go into a lot of detail, other than to say that we are nearing the end of the process. We need to bear in mind, as I said at the start, that this is about people, place and community. When the new organisation comes into force, we need to make sure that, in its desire to re-establish its new identity, it does not ride roughshod over the historic community identities that people hold dear. The towns and villages where they live are what really matter to them.

We also cannot ignore the crisis that councils face with the future sustainability of the financial settlement. It does not matter whether it is an urban or a rural authority or one going headlong into a reorganisation. The truth is that there is not enough money in the system to fund the growing demand for adult social care, children’s services and other preventive services. We need to see an answer to that in the fair funding review that is taking place. Nobody in this room should believe that by simply reorganising local government we can solve the funding crisis that means older people are not getting the care they need, young people potentially are at risk, and the very fabric of our neighbourhoods or the community services that many people rely on are being taken away incrementally because of austerity. I accept that this is happening in isolation, but the Government need to come forward with a fair funding review and demonstrate that they have thought through the real pressures that councils will face. Of course, the bigger the council, the bigger the risk to the local community if the funding is not accurate and properly assessed.

The other thing that the Government have not addressed—this was particularly the case in the previous Committee on this topic, but I suppose they will say that this is for the local authorities concerned—is that there is still worry that several different councils are being brought together, all with different systems and processes, different ways of handling data and even different IT systems that will not necessarily talk to each other. It is important that the transition is managed in an appropriate timeframe, so that services do not fall over. We might think, “Well, what can go wrong?”, but even reporting fly-tipping on a local website requires a number of different components and IT systems to get the job from A to B and the fly-tipping removed. We might think that is something and nothing, but it is important to ensure that such community services are looked after. I will leave my comments there, in order to make way for Members with local interests.