Hospice Funding

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Peter Aldous

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on so ably leading this debate and setting the scene.

While it is important to recognise the great work done across the eastern region by East Anglia’s children’s hospices, in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney areas, as represented my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis) and me, there is at present a hospice vacuum. Throughout the rest of Suffolk and Norfolk, there are locally based hospices well embedded in and providing great services for their communities.

The good news is that plans are being carefully prepared to fill this vacuum and this void. A local partnership is evolving to build a local hospice led by St Elizabeth hospice, including the local NHS, councils, a community interest company, volunteers and fundraisers. For it to be successful, to open the hospice and then to run it, the national Government must join this partnership, and I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, who is currently not in her place, will in her summing up accept this invitation. The Waveney and Great Yarmouth areas desperately need a hospice. We have an ageing population and pockets of deprivation, and as Chris Whitty has highlighted, there are acute health inequalities in coastal communities that a hospice can help level out and remove.

As I have mentioned, a well-researched case for the hospice has now been prepared, though it is important to recognise the work done by so many over the years in supporting those in need of end of life care and their families—from the late Margaret Chadd, who founded East Coast hospice and had the vision of building a hospice on land bought at Gorleston, to Roberta Lovick, who founded the Louise Hamilton Centre, from which such great support is provided to patients with life-limiting conditions and their families; the James Paget University Hospital, where the Louise Hamilton Centre is based; and East Coast Community Healthcare, the Lowestoft-based community interest company that, in partnership with St Elizabeth, operates six specialist beds in Beccles Hospital, as well as providing care both in people’s homes and in care homes.

Building on the work of these local people and organisations, a framework is emerging through which a local hospice can be built. The cornerstone of this is, as we have heard, the Health and Care Act 2022, which sets out the legal requirement for ICBs to commission palliative and end of life care. The Norfolk and Waveney ICB has responded by carrying out a review of palliative and end of life care. This was completed last autumn, and it highlights the need for nine urgent and six medium to long-term actions. Last March, St Elizabeth hospice merged with East Coast hospice, and straightaway set about conducting a feasibility study into the viability of building up hospice facilities on the Gorleston site.

The study has just been completed, and the conclusion reached is that a hospice should be built in stages. Expressions of interest are now being invited from architects. That is an exciting landmark for which so many people have strived for many years. St Elizabeth is confident that it can successfully fundraise for a hospice capital appeal, but it is for the ongoing revenue cost of providing core clinical services for a full in-patient unit, as well as outreach community services, that national Government support is required. The Norfolk and Waveney ICB—indeed, all ICBs—need central Government support and a fundamental rebalancing of national policy, so that they can meet the projected growth in demand for palliative care.

It is good news that after so many false dawns over so many years we now have a coherent and well thought-through plan for filling the hospice void in the Waveney and Great Yarmouth area, but while we should be sanguine, we should also be realistic. We are not even at the starting point of the rest of England, as we have heard from other colleagues who have a hospice up and running—we do not. That is why the Government need to join the partnership that has evolved, and support Norfolk and Waveney ICB so that it can commission hospice services on a long-term, multi-year basis. I urge the Government to join us on that exciting journey.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Steve Double.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Peter Aldous

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am interested in clause 19, which sets out how the energy security investment mechanism will operate: the energy profits levy will cease if the six-month average prices for both oil and gas fall below certain thresholds. That provision follows on from the Chancellor’s announcement in his spring Budget that the energy profits levy would be extended to 2029, though it would be disapplied when energy prices return to normal. My interest in the issue stems from my role as a constituency MP—activity in the North sea energy sector is vital to the local economy—and from chairing the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group. I have no particular issue with the mechanisms in clause 19, though I am worried that the current short-term approach to fiscal policy for the oil and gas sector undermines other Government objectives—in particular, the objective of enhancing the UK’s energy security, which would bring new, well-paid jobs to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, and the objective of delivering our net-zero targets.

I acknowledge that the Chancellor has an unenviable role and faces a significant dilemma. He is, in many respects, between a rock and a hard place. He needs to balance the books, and to support those families who continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis. It is thus understandable that he looks to energy companies to pay more as oil and gas prices have risen. They have been at very high levels; however, it should be pointed out that they have now fallen back to long-term averages. There is a significant risk that in pursuing such a course, he could imperil the inward investment that is needed to create long-term, sustainable jobs in coastal communities for those very people who are struggling to make ends meet.

The North sea has been the UK’s economic saviour for nearly 60 years. Some might say that we are nearing the end of that particular story. That is not the case. The North sea is transitioning from being a source of fossil fuels to the long-term home of renewables. That transition needs to take place as quickly as possible, but in a smooth and seamless way. It requires a stable and long-term fiscal policy, which I am afraid we do not have at present. The decision to extend the levy for a further year was unexpected by industry and presents a significant further challenge to investor confidence.

Energy companies are making investment decisions on projects that quite often have timescales of the order of 40 to 50 years. The fact that in the UK there have been four fiscal changes in the past two years deters investment and deflects it elsewhere. Such businesses are globally footloose, and they will go to countries where the fiscal regime is favourable and has a large degree of certainty about it. In the past, the UK has ticked that particular box, but we are not doing so at present. It should also be emphasised that, as well as operating worldwide, those businesses have interests in a wide variety of energy technologies—not just oil and gas, but the low-carbon businesses of today and tomorrow: offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon capture, usage and storage. If they find the fiscal regime unfavourable for oil and gas, they will invariably not invest in those renewables, which are so vital for our future.

The initial feedback following last month’s Budget is that those concerns are well founded: investment decisions are being delayed and funds could well be diverted elsewhere. Offshore Energies UK, which provides the secretariat for the British offshore oil and gas industry APPG, has identified that £200 billion of investment that was awaiting the green light may not now happen. Cornwall Insight concludes that prolonging the levy

“could weaken investor confidence, at a time when the UK is seeking record levels of investment to deliver the transition to net zero.”

We are at risk of imperilling the next chapter of the North sea—an ongoing story that can not only deliver economic regeneration, but provide over the remainder of this decade 50 GW of offshore wind, 10 GW of hydrogen, and four carbon capture, usage and storage clusters, as well as supporting the home-grown oil and gas industry and helping us to meet our decommissioning commitments. In short, it could unleash an enormous amount of economic activity that can cascade right around the UK. To be fair to the Government, clause 19 does seek to address those concerns, but I urge them to map out a long-term strategy for offshore energy, building on the success of the 2021 North sea transition deal. They are now adopting a similar course in the nuclear sector. We need to get back to doing the same in the North sea.

It is appropriate to comment on the Opposition’s alternative proposal to extend the windfall tax. There is a real worry in the energy industry that that could exacerbate the worries that I have underlined. Offshore Energies UK has highlighted that those proposals could lead to the loss of 42,000 jobs and the wiping out of £26 billion-worth of economic activity. A concern that I hope the Opposition will allay is that they are looking at removing the capital and investment allowances that are vital to securing inward investment.

We are where we are, and I fear that some damage has been done. However, there is work to do to rebuild the UK’s reputation as a prime destination for investment in the energy sector, and we need to get on with that task without delay. The industry has noted the Government’s commitment to honour the sunset clause, and I urge the two Ministers on the Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)—to provide the further reassurances that are needed to reinforce that message, both this afternoon in their responses and as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

The importance of ongoing and meaningful dialogue between the Government and industry cannot be overemphasised. In the period from 2012, after the last windfall tax, up to 2021, when the North sea transition deal was agreed, that interaction was very much taking place. It has been lost over the past three very eventful years, but it needs to be restored as quickly as possible. If it is, we can still embark on a new golden era for the North sea: an era of home-grown energy transition, not an outsourced one; of reindustrialisation, not deindustrialisation; and of enhanced energy security and economic prosperity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Peter Aldous

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I bring in some of those who may not have tabled amendments, I remind Members that we are at Committee stage, so discussion is of the amendments. However, as we are also discussing clauses 1 and 2 stand part, there is perhaps a little more scope.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Bill is of particular interest to me because the oil and gas industry has played a significant role as a major employer in the Waveney and Lowestoft area for nearly 60 years. Moreover, the offshore wind industry and other low-carbon energy technologies, such as nuclear and hydrogen, will provide exciting local job-creating opportunities for generations to come. Dame Rosie, I also chair the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Peter Aldous

Committee of the whole House
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the mover of amendment 4, I remind the Committee that, while I am in the Chair, I can be addressed as Madam Chair or Dame Rosie, but not as Madam Deputy Speaker. We always have to remind colleagues of this as we move into Committee.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 64 (Hereditaments) of the Act—

(a) omit subsection (2), and

(b) in subsection 4(3), after “subsection” omit “(2)”.

(2B) In section 65 (Owners and occupiers) of the Act—

(a) omit subsection (8), and

(b) omit subsection (8A).”

The intention of this amendment is to abolish liability to non-domestic rates of advertising when a right is granted permitting the use of land for advertising (section 64) or when land is used for advertising or the erection of an advertising structure (section 65).

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 5, page 3, line 3, leave out “one year” and insert “five years”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the delay in uplifts to business rate bills.

Clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 16, line 3, leave out from “(b),” to end of line 4 and insert “omit “fifth””.

This amendment would require local non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.

Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert “in every fifth” substitute

“no less frequently than in every third”.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert

“”on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”

substitute

“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert “omit “fifth””.

This amendment would require central non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.

Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert ““in every fifth” substitute

“no less frequently than in every third””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.

Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert

““on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”

substitute

“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

“(ii) the year beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning 1 April after that date”.

This amendment would make every year from now on a relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.

Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

“(ii) the period of three years beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning on 1 April from 1 April 2026 onwards.”

The intention of this amendment is to move towards each single year being the relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 16, line 15, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (4), for “different from what it would be” substitute “less than it would be””.

The intention of this amendment is to effectively abolish downwards transition.

Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

“(c) in making these regulations the Secretary of State shall ensure that no ratepayer pays a higher amount in business rates than the amount derived from multiplying the uniform business rate by the property’s rateable value.”

The intention of this amendment is to remove downward transitional phasing.

Clauses 6 to 12 stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 21, line 31, leave out “paragraph 4G” and insert “paragraphs 4FA and 4G”.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 14.

Amendment 14, in clause 13, page 22, line 26, at end insert—

“4FA The definition of a person (“P”) for the purpose of paragraphs 4C to 4E does not include a person who is in receipt of relief of 100 per cent with a chargeable amount of nil.”

The intention of this amendment is exclude businesses who have nothing to pay from the duty to notify HMRC and the VOA.

Amendment 20, in clause 13, page 23, line 35, at end insert—

“4LA Paragraphs 4K and 4L do not apply if P is eligible for small business rate relief (for example, because the rateable value of the hereditament for which P is or would be a ratepayer is less than £15,000).”

This amendment would exempt businesses in receipt of Small Business Rate Relief Exemption from annual reporting if there is no change to report.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 27, line 44, at end insert—

“(5A) After paragraph 5ZF (inserted by subsection (5)) insert—

“Rebate in case of failure by valuation officer to provide confirmation

5ZG Where the valuation officer has not provided confirmation to P of a change following a notification by P that will affect the valuation of a hereditament within 60 days of the valuation officer receiving that notification, the total amount of non-domestic rates payable on that hereditament is reduced by—

(a) £100, and

(b) (b) a further £60 for each day until the confirmation is received by P, up to a maximum of £1,800.””

The intention of this amendment is to impose reciprocal penalties on the VOA for failure to notify ratepayers on changes in their rate assessments.

Clause 13 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 14, page 32, line 37, at end insert—

“(e) after paragraph 2C insert—

“2D(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a hereditament consists wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable; and

(b) the right is not severed from the occupation of the land.

(2) For the purposes of determining the rateable values of the hereditament under paragraph 2 above, the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to be let shall be estimated as if the adverting right did not exist.

(3) In this paragraph “advertising right” means a right to use any land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements.””

The intention of this amendment is to provide that the rateable value of hereditaments which consist wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable to be calculated as though the advertising right does not exist.

Clauses 14 to 18 stand part.

Amendment 18, in clause 19, page 39, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A)”.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 19.

Amendment 19, in clause 19, page 39, line 17, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 13 may not be brought into force until at least 6 months after guidance has been published by the Valuation Office Agency on the requirement this Act will place on business ratepayers.”

This amendment is to ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect.

Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.

New clause 1—Valuation Office Agency performance targets—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of the date on which this Act is passed prescribe by regulations performance targets for the Valuation Office Agency to respond to requests for updates to the central and local non-domestic rating lists and to challenges to the valuations on those lists.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the Valuation Office Agency to report at least annually on its performance in such detail as the Secretary of State may require in or by virtue of those regulations.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any reports made under subsection (2).

(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument and are subject to negative procedure (annulment by either House of Parliament).

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force until an impact assessment has been laid before Parliament.”

This new clause would require annual reports from the VOA on its performance against targets to be set by the Secretary of State.

New clause 2— Non-domestic rating: retail sector review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the retail sector.

(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.

(3) The review must assess the impact of non-domestic rateable values on competition between different parts of the retail sector, for example—

(a) stand-alone businesses operating from a single shop premises in a village, town or suburban high street setting,

(b) chain stores with multiple premises in city centres and out-of-centre shopping malls, or

(c) mainly online operations based on making deliveries from very large warehouses or fulfilment centres.

(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”

This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the retail sector.

New clause 3—Non-domestic rating: hospitality sector review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the hospitality sector.

(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.

(3) The review must assess the consistency of approach to setting of non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style, including—

(a) public houses,

(b) restaurants

(c) live performance theatres, and

(d) exhibition spaces.

(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”

This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the hospitality sector.

Amendment 25, in schedule, page 47, line 2, at end, insert —

“18A In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2268), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).

18B In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2005/758), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).

18C In the Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/2303), omit regulation 4 (Advertising rights).”

These consequential amendments would be required to remove references to advertising rights following the abolition of liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights effected by Amendment 4 to Clause 1 of this Bill.

Government amendments 21 to 24.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Aldous]

I shall start off where I left off in the Bill’s Second Reading debate. By way of background, the Bill is to be welcomed, although it is important that it is viewed as the start of the process of fundamentally reforming business rates and not the endgame. It probably would have been preferable to have heeded the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and for the Government to have brought forward a new consolidated business rates Bill, rather than to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988. That would have sent the message to businesses both large and small that real change was on the way. However, we are where we are and we must ensure that, ultimately, this Bill paves the way to reducing business rates to an affordable level, putting the business rates system on a long-term, more easily understood footing and removing those barriers to regional growth.

We must have in mind the ultimate end goal, which should be to get the uniform business rate multiplier back down from in excess of 50p in the pound to the more affordable 30p in the pound, which is where we started when the system came in in the early ’90s. To get to that, we need annual valuations, the abolition of the multitude of complicated reliefs and to digitalise the Valuation Office Agency. The Bill moves us in that direction—although perhaps a little too tentatively. Moreover, the duty to notify, which takes up much of the Bill, adds a bureaucratic burden on businesses and there are some unintended consequences that we should avoid. We must have in mind the need at all times for increased transparency. The amendments that I tabled have those considerations in mind.

Any adjustments to the business rates system should be guided by two principles: reducing the regulatory burden on businesses and, as I said, reducing the uniform business rate multiplier. We should look at the Bill with those considerations in mind and aim to move towards a sustainable system that provides a long-term revenue stream that businesses can find bearable, which has not been the case so often in recent years.

A properly functioning property tax system is critical to achieving a vibrant and sustainable economy. For most of this century, an outdated and unresponsive business rates system has placed enormous strain on many businesses, particularly those in the retail and hospitality sectors. Moreover, that strain has not been shared equally across the country. That illustrates how the current system is a hindrance—a logjam—to levelling up. We need non-domestic rates to be more responsive to changes in the economy so as to ensure that the system does not place an undue and unfair strain on businesses. If we can achieve that, we shall be more able to attract long-term investment into our towns and cities, and we shall be better placed to meet other vital policy objectives such as revitalising our high streets and achieving our net zero aims and goals.

Clause 5 relates to the frequency at which revaluations take place.

As I have mentioned, we need to move to the end goal of annual valuations, so that business rates are more in line with the economic outlook. I have tabled amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with that objective in mind. To achieve a responsive business rates system, valuations should be carried out as regularly as possible. The Bill is a good first step, and increases valuations from every five to every three years, but it should provide the flexibility for a future Government to require more frequent valuations —ultimately, every year. Annual revaluation could bring bills more in line with commercial property values, rather than lagging many years behind. Even with a three-year list and a two-year antecedent valuation date, occupiers will be paying business rates bills in early 2026 that are based on valuations from nearly five years beforehand.

Annual revaluations are essential if the Government are serious about modernising the business rates system. They take place in countries as diverse as Hong Kong and the Netherlands, and thus there is no reason why they should not take place in England and Wales. To conclude on this issue, the enormous administrative burden placed on ratepayers by the new duty to notify would certainly not be worth the distress and inconvenience it will cause if it does not ultimately result in the introduction of annual revaluations. In that context, I urge the Government to give full consideration to these amendments.

Clause 13 sets out the requirement for ratepayers to provide information—this is the new duty to notify, which, as drafted, places an unnecessary burden on businesses. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 have the objective of reducing that burden and imposing penalties on the Valuation Office Agency.

Amendments 18 and 19 relate to clause 19, and would ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect. The new duty to notify will place an onus on all ratepayers to provide the Valuation Office Agency with any information that they reasonably believe could impact on the business rates valuation. This is an enormous additional ask, not least for the 700,000 businesses which, up to now, have not been subject to business rates and might be completely unaware of what is proposed. The duty requires ratepayers to notify the VOA of changes to their properties within a 60-day window, and carries the risk of financial sanctions and even imprisonment if they fail to comply.

As a former chartered surveyor, I cannot see how such a burdensome duty on all commercial property occupiers—including, as I have said, current non-ratepayers—can be justified as necessary to administer a move to three-yearly revaluations. This duty might be bearable for businesses if it assisted the VOA in administering the move to annual revaluations. For small businesses, it will cause more pain than the gain that will be derived from moving to three-yearly valuations.

The new duty will leave many ratepayers wondering what might qualify as a notifiable change. The VOA is yet to publish any guidance; thus many businesses will take no chances and will notify the VOA of any changes to their properties. The VOA will hence be hoist with its own petard, as it will be flooded with paperwork.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises without any rating expertise, will turn to rogue rating advisers for help. Business rates advisers do not require a licence to practise, and many unscrupulous operators will see the new duty to notify as an opportunity to take advantage of small businesses.

While the ratepayer has a short period in which to notify the VOA of any changes to the property, as the Bill stands, the VOA has no such obligation. It can, in effect, respond to notifications at its leisure. I therefore propose a reciprocal provision that places on the VOA a 60-day timeframe in which to respond to notifications, with rebates to the ratepayer equivalent to the fines set out in clause 13 that accompany a failure to comply.

Clause 6 is a short and simple but nevertheless extremely important clause, which gives effect to the removal of downwards transitional phasing, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 17 November last year in his autumn statement. That was a positive step, but clause 6 as drafted does not permanently remove the threat of downwards phasing, which is a punitive tax that unfairly penalises occupiers whose rateable values have fallen. It is wrong to force those whose property values have fallen to subsidise those whose property values have risen.

The clause as it stands simply removes the requirement for transitional phasing mechanisms to be revenue-neutral. That means that the Government no longer need to fund any upwards transitional mechanism with a corresponding downwards transitional mechanism. However, that means that a downwards mechanism can be easily introduced by a future Government without any parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 11 and 12 would plug that loophole and permanently abolish downwards transitional phasing. If any future Government want to reintroduce it, they should come to Parliament and make the case for it, rather than bringing it in through the back door.

Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, which, from my perspective, is inequitable and unfair to businesses. As it stands, clause 14 exempts Government legislation from qualifying for the pursuit of a material change of circumstances. That would remove a vital check on Government and would allow future Governments to legislate with impunity at the expense of businesses right across the country, leaving them no recourse to challenge legislation that interferes with their ability to do business.

A material change in circumstances gives ratepayers recourse to pursue relief on their business rates when circumstances outside their control hinder their ability to do business. Clause 14 exempts Government legislation from being a qualifying reason for a material change in circumstances. I anticipate that the Government have included this clause because they want business rates to be a predictable source of revenue, even if their own legislation or action undermines the very rateable value of the properties occupied by businesses.

During the covid lockdown, to prevent the spread of the virus, the Government forced a number of businesses to cease trading. However, instead of accepting that there had been a material change of circumstances for those occupiers and allowing appeals to be launched, the Government introduced a locally administered compensation scheme. With clause 14, the Government are seeking the freedom to introduce any legislation at any time that might alter the rateable value of a property. That is both unprecedented and wrong.

Clause 14 can be viewed as a power grab that sets a dangerous precedent and tells occupiers that they will have to accept the detrimental impact of legislation on their ability to do business, with no legal recourse. Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, restoring the ability of ratepayers to claim a material change of circumstances, regardless of how the change in circumstances arose.

Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would amend and add to clauses 1 and 14 and part 1 of the schedule. They address a niche issue, albeit an extremely important one. The out-of-home advertising industry includes adverts on billboards, walls, digital posters, street furniture, bus shelters, buses and railway stations, which we see every day as we go about our lives and probably take for granted. The industry provides an important form of income for local authorities, and it is estimated that almost half the revenue generated goes back into local communities. These amendments would abolish the liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights.

The removal of business rates on advertising rights from the rating lists would have three advantages. First, it would increase the value and level of services provided by local authorities. Secondly, it would remove a competitive disadvantage to growth that impacts the out-of-home advertising industry, but that does not apply to its rivals—broadcast, print and online media. Thirdly, it would reduce the high level of inefficiencies relating to advertising rights applied through the Valuation Office Agency, local authorities and the out-of-home advertising industry.

As drafted, the Bill will directly and adversely impact the industry’s ability to invest in local communities. That runs contrary to the Bill’s objective of reducing barriers to business investment. In 2023, business rates charged on advertising rights are an antiquated, out-of-date and ineffective tax. Advertising rights are the only remaining right attracting liability for non-domestic rating. The liability to non-domestic rating in respect of sporting rights was abolished by the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would remove that anomaly.

In conclusion, I have enormous respect for the Minister and for his co-sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Although Treasury Ministers are not currently present on the Front Bench, I am mindful that the Bill has been drafted from a Treasury perspective, gathering in all that money. That is incredibly important—don’t get me wrong—but I suggest we also need to look at the issue through the prism of business.

Whether large, medium-sized or small, businesses need confidence, certainty and a fully reformed business rates system that takes on board some of the amendments I have put forward. A fully reformed system will mean that businesses will know where they stand, and business rates will not be the elephant in the room. People will be able to invest in, build on and expand their businesses with a degree of confidence, leading to increased profits. What that will do—joy to the Treasury—is increase taxation. The Bill makes a start and provides an opportunity for us to turn the vicious circle of business rates into a virtuous circle.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Peter Aldous

2nd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with the hon. Lady. This is a specialist area of valuation. When I was practising as a chartered surveyor, I quite often got called in because the client, the business owner, had gone down the line of paying money upfront to someone who had sent them a circular—they may have paid them £1,000 or £2,000—and that person had suddenly disappeared. I often got called in to try to sort out that type of situation.

At the current time, with the publication of the new rating list, thousands of businesses are being flooded by solicitations from charlatan rating advisers who are taking advantage of the confusion created by the complicated rating system. There is a significant risk that many businesses, particularly SMEs, will have neither the understanding nor the capacity to meet the duty to notify. They will increasingly fall prey to such bad advice, and this could have a devastating impact. The Government should therefore consider some sort of licensing to protect businesses from the scourge of cowboys looking to take advantage of the duty to notify.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I have now reached my conclusion. Taking into account that we have been awaiting legislation on the reform of business rates for the whole of the 13 years that I have been an MP, this legislation is indeed welcome. For too long we have been carrying out reviews and searching for holy grail solutions that involve the abolition of business rates, but my personal view is that those do not exist. As I have said, the Chancellor should be commended for the positive announcements he made in his autumn statement, some of which are included in this Bill. The Bill should be viewed as a step in the right direction. However, as currently drafted, it contains a number of false steps that are likely to have unintended consequences. It is also vital to recognise that this is not the end of the reform of business rates, but it is the end of the beginning. I am happy to support the Bill this afternoon, but it has defects that need to be addressed as it progresses through this and the other place, and I hope that the Government will take on board the concerns that I and my colleagues across the Chamber have highlighted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.