Planning for the Future

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Planning for the Future White Paper.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. There is a great deal to consider in the White Paper, which takes as its starting point the idea that the lack of progress in building the homes we need in this country is largely due to our system of planning controls and approval. I should declare an interest at the outset. I have been happily married to a town planner —a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute—for 18 years, which just goes to show that not all politicians are at loggerheads with town planners. I can see by the number of people who have applied to speak in the debate that the issues raised in the White Paper have generated a great deal of interest. As an MP for an urban constituency that none the less has more than half its square mileage covered by a national nature reserve I believe I have as much insight as anyone into the balances that need to be struck in our planning system between preserving our environment and building more homes.

The White Paper proposes a number of reforms to how planning permissions are granted. Among them are a proposal that development land should be divided up into different zones—growth, renewal and protected—each with different approval rules. That proposal will remove the ability of locally elected councillors to scrutinise individual applications on their merits. Engagement with local communities will instead be only in the development of the local plan. In the White Paper it is envisaged somehow that that approach will engage groups who have previously been excluded from planning decisions, although it does not give details of how that will be achieved.

There are many other contentious proposals in the White Paper and I am confident that each of the points will be fully debated during the sitting, but I want to make two specific points. The world faces a climate emergency—a fact that the Conservative Government have belatedly woken up to. Having spent a decade trying to cut the “green crap”, in the words of their former leader, the Conservatives have recently made encouraging moves towards recognising that the climate crisis is real, our environment is degrading, and it is high time our Government got on and did something about it.

Among the most urgent challenges facing us, not just as a nation but in partnership with other nations across the world, is that of cutting our carbon emissions. I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. That commitment was underlined by the Prime Minister’s announcement of his 10-point plan last month. There was also an announcement on renewables in yesterday’s energy White Paper. However, all those announcements are missing the details of the actual plan to get there. Where are the policies? Where are the interim targets? Where is the funding?

The areas that need to be tackled are well known. We need to decarbonise our transport, power generation, agriculture and industry; but above all we need to decarbonise our housing. We need a step change in how our homes are built, how we heat them and how we cook our food. There are two key approaches we need to take to combat carbon emissions. The first is to upgrade existing homes with better insulation and sources of heating and power. The second is to ensure that all new homes are built to net zero carbon standards. That standard was ready to go in 2015 when the Liberal Democrats left government but was rejected by the Conservatives in 2016. The Government are now returning to it, but promise only a 75% decrease in carbon emissions by 2025. A million homes have been built since 2015. In itself that is hardly suggestive of a planning system that impedes development. Those homes have been built without a zero carbon homes standard. All of them will need to be expensively upgraded in the future.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my near neighbour for giving way. She mentioned going back to existing buildings. Is she aware of the Architects’ Journal campaign to retrofit? That could be an idea. Does she share my concern that often design is sacrificed in all this? There was a report last year by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, but it feels as if there is a possibility of ushering in the slums of the future. We need to emphasise more retrofitting stuff—and beauty, properly.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady makes some interesting points. The Liberal Democrats are absolutely committed to supporting policies for retrofitting—or upgrading, as I prefer to call it, as it is a slightly more future-focused look. I believe that the particular value of that policy is that it will benefit our lowest-income families the most. They are the ones who are living in the worst housing and who will benefit most from the reduction in heating bills that will result from, for example, better insulated homes. I am glad that she mentioned building design, because that is precisely the point I am making. If we can design our buildings from the start to achieve a net zero carbon output, those benefits would be there from day one and could be seen both in reduced carbon emissions and reduced heating bills.

The planning White Paper is a missed opportunity to do much more to embed this net zero carbon ambition into our planning policy and thus facilitate the step change that we need to see in our new housing developments. It is only through the constraints applied by the planning system that we can hope to see net zero carbon homes built by private sector housing companies that want to build cheaply and quickly.

The legislative framework already exists if the Government would only use it. The proposed planning reforms should bind together the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Climate Change Act 2008 to confirm that local planning authorities have a clear and specific duty to address climate change in their planning decisions. Carbon reduction would then become a material consideration in the planning process, enabling local authorities to reject applications that would not seek to achieve net zero carbon in the resulting developments, and the law could enable local authorities to go further if they wished by allowing them to put carbon reduction targets in their local plan.

The failure of the White Paper to explore opportunities to achieve net zero carbon in our housing is indicative of the Government’s failure to provide a proper plan to achieve their overall target of net zero carbon by 2050. However, it is not just a climate emergency that we face; we are also confronted by an environmental emergency. The threat to our natural environment has never been greater and the Government must do much more to tackle it. There could not be a better opportunity than a planning White Paper to make proposals about how we balance our need for housing and economic development with our need to protect our green spaces and wildlife.

There is a very real environmental pressure in every part of the country and the Government urgently need to set policy on it and provide a clear lead. However, in proposing a zoned approach to development, they are heading in precisely the wrong direction. By allowing the automatic granting of planning permissions in growth and renewal zones, the planning process will no longer be able to mitigate against environmental damage in those locations or restrict development where environmental damage cannot be mitigated.

I would struggle to think of a single part of my constituency that could be designated as an unrestricted growth zone, where development would need to take no account at all of environmental impact. The proposal to introduce such zones rides roughshod over the many small decisions that can be made by those who know their local areas and can arrive at the best solution for the local population and the local environment.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Government-commissioned research from University College London has found that homes built through permitted development rather than by going through the planning process are also of worse quality. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is also a very regressive step rather than a progressive step?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because it highlights the fact that the more we weaken the planning decisions made by local authorities at local level, the more we risk allowing unsuitable development, including architecturally displeasing development, environmentally damaging development and development that is not primarily designed to meet the needs of the local community. That is why bypassing local authorities is the wrong approach.

The planning White Paper proposes to bypass much local authority planning involvement in the mistaken belief that it is local nimbys who are blocking development. In my constituency, it is local people who have provided many of the ideas for local authority action that have improved our environment and guided planning policies. Local authorities, especially Liberal Democrat-controlled ones, are often willing to go much further than the national Government in reducing carbon and improving our environment. In Richmond and Kingston, for example, the councils have introduced new cycle lanes to encourage people to reduce the number of car journeys they make, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure to encourage the switch to cars with lower emissions. Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are also planting trees, installing solar panels on the roofs of council buildings, switching council vehicles to electric, and insulating council-owned homes. In each case, they are responding to the needs of their own environment and that of their local population.

When the public inquiry into the handling of the coronavirus is completed, I believe that it will clearly demonstrate that some of the response could have been more effectively delivered by local authorities or neighbourhood groups. We have seen the weaknesses of a centralised test and trace system, for example, and even today the Government are setting central rules for school openings that might be better decided by local education authorities.

The same is true for planning. A group of concerned local residents, whether elected representatives or volunteers, are much better placed to decide how their street should be adapted to keep pace with the challenges of modern life than a few unknown Government workers in Whitehall. If all bodies making decisions about future developments can be tasked with the responsibility of achieving net-zero carbon and protecting our environment, then the ingenuity and enthusiasm of our local authorities, and the residents they serve, can take us a lot further towards the Government’s 2050 goal than any amount of top-down diktat. It is time for the Government to show they are serious about climate change and the environmental emergency, and that starts with some serious revision to this planning White Paper.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We have had a few drop-outs, so I will allow five minutes per speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you, Ms Ghani. It has been a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his comments. He did not fulfil my every Christmas wish, but this has nevertheless been an entertaining and interesting debate, and I value everyone’s contributions. We have heard from representatives of the rural south-west, the urban north, and even the urban south-west, and the theme I am really getting is that planning decisions are incredibly difficult. There is a balance of competing interests; we all know that, and we are all plugged into what is going on in our constituencies.

I also heard that everybody agrees that those decisions are best made at a local level, to take a full account of all of those different factors, and I believe that is the biggest pushback against the planning White Paper in its current form. I repeat what I said at the beginning: it does not make enough progress towards the Government’s plans for net zero. The Minister just said it himself: he is only targeting a 75% reduction. Another point that has come across very strongly is that the White Paper does not give local councils enough powers to deliver the affordable homes that are so desperately needed in every region. However, I thank him very much for his response. Thank you, Ms Ghani, for your chairmanship, and I thank all Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Planning for the Future White Paper.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I am afraid I cannot, because we have not got very much time.

This Bill will amount to more money being spent in Scotland. That is a fact. As a result of the Bill, no powers are being taken away and the Barnett consequentials will not be affected. Jobs will be safeguarded as a result of the Bill. It does amuse me to hear Members of the Scottish National party defending and supporting amendments being put in the other place. I hope the Scottish National party one day will come in here and stand up for democracy and the democratically elected Chamber of this United Kingdom. When will the Scottish National party defend the democratic will of the British people?

I seriously urge SNP Members to reconsider their support for the Lords amendments and to stand up for the Bill because it is good for Scotland. But I know they will not. Frankly, the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government do not care that the Bill protects jobs and is good for business and for the country because it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is why they do not like the Bill: it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is the truth of it. They do not want the internal market to succeed. They do not want it protected. They do not want the United Kingdom to succeed, and they will sacrifice Scotland’s prosperity, Scottish jobs and anything else, as long as they achieve their aim of undermining the United Kingdom and achieving separation.

As if to make my point, on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” today we heard from Mike Russell, the Minister for constitutional affairs in the Scottish Government. Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West—I congratulate her on her election, by the way—he is a member of the national executive committee of the Scottish National party. He said that the Scottish National party will not vote for a Brexit deal even if one is achieved. The SNP would vote against the deal. It has not even seen a deal, but it would rather say no, because it thinks that will further the cause for separation. SNP Members want the United Kingdom to fail, and that is why they are against the Bill this evening, and that is why they will vote against the Brexit deal if we get one in the coming days.

We want to level up the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend the Minister has set out, that is why we are disappointed that their lordships have in amendments 48 and 49 attempted to remove the power of the UK Government to intervene to provide financial assistance across the United Kingdom. It is a fact that formerly EU assistance powers now rest with the UK Government. It is right that through the UK prosperity fund, and with consultation with the devolved Administrations, we have the same powers now that the European Union had previously.

I have great respect for my hon. Friends and, indeed, some Members across the aisle for supporting the Lords amendments tonight. I disagree with them, but they have principled objections to the Bill, as do many of their lordships. Although I respect the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West personally, I am afraid I do not respect the position of the Scottish National party, which, as ever, is opportunist, divisive and seeks only to further the aim of breaking up our country, with everything that that means. I will back the Government today because this Bill binds our country closer together and is good for trade, good for jobs, good for people, good for Scotland and good for our entire United Kingdom.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

This was a controversial piece of legislation on Second Reading, so it is no surprise to find that our noble Friends in the other place have made historically substantial amendments to it. It is probably a sign of the remarkable times we are living in that the Government should attempt not only to table legislation that effectively breaks the law, but to do so in such a way as to destabilise a critical bilateral negotiation, the outcome of which will have a major impact on the lives of every single UK citizen.

According to announcements made while we have been here in the Chamber, the Government have so far been unable to conclude our negotiations with the European Union over a future trading relationship. To proceed with this legislation when these critical discussions are at such a crucial stage ought to be unthinkable, were it not for the fact that the Government have routinely ridden roughshod over every convention, broken faith with every promise and undermined every pillar of our society when they threatened to stand in the way of Brexit.

I feel somewhat relieved therefore that their lordships have inserted some normality into proceedings by taking as their first principle that legislation and legislators should not break the law. The Liberal Democrats wholly endorse their amendment that removes the whole of part 5 from the Bill, and we oppose the Government’s motion to reject the amendment.

Since 2016, the Conservative Government have repeatedly ducked the difficult choices required following their decision to implement the referendum outcome in the most damaging way possible. Many of us thought that these choices would finally have to be confronted once Brexit stopped being a right-wing dream and became a reality, but it comes as no surprise that the Government will break the law and destroy our international reputation in order to delay unpleasant reality for a little while longer.

We do not know what unintentional consequences will be unleashed by reinserting this clause into our national legislation, but if we as a nation break treaties, act in bad faith and undermine our international relationships, we should expect there to be a price to pay. This is a recklessly foolish action at a time when we urgently need to build and strengthen our links with other countries, not just because we need new trade deals, but because we urgently need co-ordinated global action to defeat coronavirus and fight against climate change.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. We have wrapped our arms around the economy, but clearly it is very difficult to do things at pace to cover everybody. We will always make sure that we reflect on what happens, to help as many people as we can and try to fill the cracks as best we can.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I, too, express my sympathies to all those employees of Debenhams and the Arcadia Group who find themselves out of work so close to Christmas and in such an uncertain time. Will the Minister’s Department work with local authorities to support them to offer more flexible rates terms to new businesses that want to come in and set up in the large voids that a lot of town centres will be experiencing in their retail spaces? Those voids affect town centres and communities. What can the Department do to work with local authorities to lower the barriers to new entrants into the retail sector?

[Paul Scully]

There are plenty of things on which we can work together with the sector and, indeed, the whole gamut of British high street businesses, including by talking about getting the rent balance right between landlords and tenants, as well as rates, as the hon. Lady says. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is joining me on tomorrow’s Retail Sector Council call that I mentioned, to talk about the fundamental business rates review. I hope we will be able to work with local authorities to get that flexibility.

Planning and House Building

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Let me start by declaring an interest: my husband is a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

I particularly wish to speak about the parts of the White Paper that propose to phase development areas into three categories—“growth”, “renewal” and “protected”. That proposal gives rise to great concern in Richmond and Kingston. I cannot think of any part of my constituency that would fit neatly into any of those categories. My constituency contains some beautiful neighbourhoods of great architectural and historical interest, and all of its neighbourhoods have their own distinctive features. We would like to see some of those preserved and some regenerated, and there absolutely is space for growth, but it would be difficult, even in the most environmentally and historically sensitive sites, to say that no possible development could be permitted in an area. Equally, I cannot think of a site where unrestricted growth, with plans going unanalysed, would be at all desirable. Any kind of development can be agreed only by considering each site on its merits, which is why I am really opposed to the idea of adopting this phased approach to development.

I welcome the White Paper’s emphasis on local plans, which are good for local communities. I agree that local authorities should do more to get local communities engaged in that. In Richmond Park, we have already embraced the opportunities offered by local neighbourhood forums and their recognised role in developing neighbourhood plans. I wish to pay a particular tribute to the North Kingston Neighbourhood Forum, which I have been a member of in the past, and its incredible chair, Diane Watling, and to the very successful neighbourhood forum that was built up in Ham and Petersham. They have made a great contribution to local planning and thinking, and more of that sort of thing should definitely be encouraged.

We heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about some of the issues with our current planning system that stem from private developers getting permissions that they then do not build. That provides part of the evidence of market failure in some aspects of our private sector housing development, and if we were able to encourage more public sector housing development, that could provide the competition we need to see prices driven down, and improvements in carbon standards and in building quality. That is much more the sort of change we need to see in our planning, rather than the ones proposed by this White Paper.

Above all, I wish to emphasise that taking decisions away from local communities makes it much harder to co-ordinate local services. In Richmond Park, we have a proposal for a development on the old Stag brewery site in Mortlake involving 1,275 homes. The massive issue we have with that is that it is no longer going to be decided by the local authority, because it has been called in by the Mayor, and the local authority no longer has oversight of what kind of development is taking place in its area. It cannot think about the impacts on schools, health services and transport, and the development will be difficult to integrate without that overview.

The proposal to allow building upwards without permission will be a massive problem in my constituency, where we have some beautiful views. Turner painted one of the views from the top of Richmond hill. We have so many views that we want protected and we need the powers in our local authority to prevent building upwards—I am very opposed to that aspect of the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that Knowsley has received £30 million in additional un-ring-fenced spending to deal with pressures resulting from the pandemic, on top of the £10 million increase in its core spending power this financial year. More widely, Knowsley received £51 million to support councils, businesses and the community. He will be interested to know that to prepare for local outbreaks we have provided a £300 million grant to all upper tier authorities to develop strong and effective local outbreak plans. In relation to ongoing engagement, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester last week and I believe he is meeting the Secretary of State tomorrow. We are, of course, happy to continue those discussions.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

For what reasons he plans to introduce the future homes standard in 2025.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

Our future homes standard reforms propose an ambitious uplift in the energy efficiency of new homes. The homes will have at least 75% lower emissions than current standards. That is real action toward a cleaner and greener built environment. Furthermore, ahead of 2025, we have consulted on a meaningful interim increase in the requirements of part L of the building regulations, which will act as a stepping stone to a full uplift.

[Sarah Olney]

If I cannot persuade the Minister to be more ambitious in his deadline, perhaps I could encourage him to use the time to be more ambitious in his target. Instead of a target of reducing carbon emissions by 75%, will the Government set a target of net zero carbon for new builds?

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. It is important, first, that Sir Wyn Williams engages with the sub-postmasters, led by Alan Bates, as part of the group litigation, to explain how he intends to investigate and take evidence, and I hope that they would therefore engage. I have talked about the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu are ready to comply fully with the investigation, but if there are important people with important evidence that is not coming out, for whatever reason, there are mechanisms available to the chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, to look at that further and to re-evaluate.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Two post offices in my constituency are threatened with closure because of the difficulty of recruiting new sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses. What impact does the Minister think the appalling case of Horizon has had on recruitment? Is he anxious about the future of post offices, particularly rural ones but even those in urban constituencies such as mine? What is the Department doing to work with the Post Office on this issue?

[Paul Scully]

Yes, I am anxious, because it is important that we keep the network up at the target level we set of 11,500. The hon. Lady is right that some of the difficulty is due to the situation gone by; some of it is due to the ongoing complexity of the Horizon system and resource availability. I am glad that the chief executive, Nick Read, comes from a business where he is used to dealing with people as stakeholders, not just as employees, so engaging in a more positive future relationship with postmasters. She is right to talk about rural and urban areas. In London, although clearly we do not want to lose post offices, it is relatively easy compared with some rural areas to get to the next post office, but that is not an excuse to diminish the network in London.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are currently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates, and as part of that exercise we are considering the frequency of future revaluations. When deciding whether to have more frequent revaluations, we need to strike the right balance between more up-to-date assessments, which would flow from such a reform, and the uncertainty it could create, with more regular changes to bills, while also taking into account the time it currently takes to process changes and the impact that any changes that might be required would have on the current system. I certainly understand, however, the point that he has continually made about annual revaluations and how that could further improve the system. I am sure that will be considered.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the revaluation moving from April 2021 to April 2023, but I wonder whether there is a danger that those properties that might have a substantial revaluation downwards will be paying over the odds on their rates for two further years, at what we all know is going to be an incredibly tough time. I am thinking in particular of retail businesses and a very challenging trading environment. Will he consider changing the date from April 2023 to later in 2021, particularly given the comments he has just made about the need for more regular revaluation?

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I know it is a matter in which she takes a personal interest and that she has raised it with Ministers. The point stands that we have to have a system that takes into account the impact of the pandemic and, as is the case with the current system, the time it takes the VOA to go through the process. We think that this is the measure required at this time.

We took the step to postpone the implementation of the next revaluation so as to give certainty to ratepayers and to ensure that the next revaluation reflects the changes in the market conditions as a result of the pandemic. The Bill will therefore set the implementation of the next revaluation date in England and Wales as 1 April 2023. On revaluation based on the rents of 1 April 2021, we have, of course, already set that out in secondary legislation.

Business rates is a devolved policy area, but with agreement from the Welsh Government the Bill does also apply to Wales. As in England, the next revaluation in Wales will be implemented on 1 April 2023, and the date of publication of Welsh draft rateable values will also be changed to 31 December. Entirely different legislation applies in Northern Ireland, which has only recently implemented a revaluation from 1 April 2020, and Scotland, where I understand the Scottish Government have also committed to implementing their next revaluation on 1 April 2023. There is, therefore, a good degree of agreement across the UK that the next business rates revaluation is moved, to better reflect the impact of the coronavirus. Notwithstanding some of the points raised, I hope that is accepted across this House.

As I have said, this is an exceptional step and the Government remain committed to frequent revaluations of business rates. The fundamental review of business rates will look at not just the frequency of revaluations but how they are done, and will report on those aspects of the business rates system in spring. However, this is a step that we can take now to improve business rates bills, and that is why we have brought this Bill forward so quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I value this opportunity to raise the issue of business rates and their impact on the retail sector. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) raised many similar points, but I wish to talk in particular about the value of retail during this incredibly difficult time.

Our retail sector has been essential in helping many members of my community through this difficult period, which has shown the value of a strong retail sector in every town centre to the building of communities. Many of us who have been holed up at home for an extended period have valued the opportunity to get out and about and have face-to-face contact again. I think more of us value that than ever before. For that reason, although this is a very difficult time for the retail sector, I believe it has a strong future, because we cannot replace the value of that face-to-face contact with an online purchase; it is a tremendous boost to one’s wellbeing. We have all become much more aware of the issues of isolation, people living alone, and how the town centre helps to build a strong local community.

Another point that I wish to make about the retail sector is that it has always been a strong source of employment for many people—local employment is so important for many people who find it difficult to access city centres. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the retail sector is a major employer of female workers; that is so important. Research shows clearly that having more women in employment has a strong impact on reducing the number of children in poverty. That is why it is so important to support the sectors that support female employment.

The rates holiday has been essential to helping retailers survive during the pandemic. Like all Members, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed those measures from the Treasury, but I urge the Government to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to reform the existing structure of rates to better reflect the underlying trading environment that many in the retail sector are having to face. Yes, we should to push the revaluation back for the relevant businesses, but perhaps to later in 2021 rather than 2023. We might assume that more businesses to be found in, for example, the north and the midlands will face a reduction in the value of their properties. It would be better for them to take advantage of the reduction in rates sooner rather than later, especially given the challenging trading conditions everybody is going to be facing. I echo what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said about more regular revaluations and how that would support our retail industries in a fast-moving property market.

As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, this is a critical point for the retail industry, and it would be great to see whether we could take the opportunity to rebalance the burden of business rates away from high streets, in recognition of the fact that the retail market is changing in favour of digital outlets, which militates against those retailers that are still based on our high streets. I mentioned the value of high-street shops and maintaining our high streets; we need to see the Government reflect and support that in their rates policy.

I welcome the business rates review, to which we plan to contribute, but I hope it can be done speedily so that we see rates reform take place sooner rather than later, to better support all those businesses that are relying on rates reform to help them through. Will the Minister consider a reduction in the uniform business rate from 50p to 30p, to better reflect how much lower is the volume of retail going through our high streets as people move to digital and online?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That kind of change to the multiplier would probably cost around £12 billion a year. Does the hon. Lady have any idea of where she would get the money to fill that gap?

[Sarah Olney]

That is an important point and I very much hope that the business rates review will look at it. There is no doubt that online retailers are not currently paying their fair share. Lots of solutions to that problem have been proposed, although I do not think this is the right forum to debate them. There are pros and cons in respect of proposed digital sales taxes, but nevertheless it is a policy area that seriously demands to be looked at. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that high street retail businesses having to bear the brunt of property taxes when they no longer get the lion’s share of the retail market is a situation that cannot continue.

Finally, I just wanted to make the point that we are all expecting a major economic dislocation as a result of the unwind of the furlough scheme and the other measures that the Government have put in place. We are anticipating high levels of unemployment, but one way to mitigate that is through people starting up their own businesses. There are opportunities in the retail sector for those who are looking to start up their own businesses, particularly in constituencies such as mine. We have seen a rise in home working, which has meant that, for the high streets in Richmond Park, there has been a rise in footfall, as people are now at home during the day, instead of perhaps travelling into the city, which is what they would have done previously.

Certainly, speaking to local retailers, I have been quite surprised to find how many of them have thrived over the past few months. They have diversified and found new ways to get their goods to customers. Certainly, the trading conditions are quite strong on our local high streets and, as I say, I believe that that represents opportunities for those who may find themselves out of work in the near future, but I urge the Government to do what they can to lower the barriers to new entrants to the retail markets, so that we can really make the most of these opportunities for new retail businesses on our high streets. That is why I urge the Government to do what they can to address the current rate structure for new businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have quite significant interests in the business rates system, in terms of my own business, so hon. Members should take that into account.

To touch on the comments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I absolutely agree with his point about the business rates loophole for holiday cottages, and I hope that the Treasury is listening to that. It is an obvious loophole to close, and it affects North Yorkshire like it affects the Lake District.

I very much support the Bill. I sat on the joint Treasury Committee and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into business rates. We looked very carefully at the frequency of revaluation. We took evidence from a number of different sources. Some nations do the revaluation annually, not three yearly, and that would be better from a business perspective. It would give a more current perspective on the trading environment, although we should bear in mind that all business rates revaluations are fiscally neutral. Some people would benefit from a reduction in their business rates valuation, but that would have to be made up elsewhere by the multiplier changing to come back to the £30 billion a year that business rates raise.

I do not know whether hon. Members have a solution to that problem— I have heard a couple of speeches from Opposition Members who say that the business rates system is not fit for purpose, yet only one solution, from the hon. Gentleman. He suggested, potentially, a land value tax, but that has other inherent difficulties because it is, again, a value-based tax. Business rates are a valued-based tax. It has a correlation with the rental value of a property, which is, of course, inherently tied to the capital value of the premises. As Ronald Reagan once said, “There are simple solutions, but there are no easy solutions.” We might all want reform, but finding reform that works and is fair is difficult—I will, however, suggest something before I sit down. The other issue with the current system is that reliefs and changes brought in as a transitional phase mean that those who should benefit from the revaluations do not do so for some time, in order to try to help with people who are “going up in value”. It is far from a perfect system at the moment.

My first hustings took place in the village I have lived near all my life. One question from the audience was about a local retailer where many of us had shopped—Craggs electrical, a good local white goods retailer selling TVs and the like. It had just closed down after many years in that community. Mrs Craggs was in the audience and the questioner said, “Mrs Craggs’ business has just had to close down because of the situation. She cannot pay her business rates. It is just unaffordable. What are the Government going to do about it?” The reality is that Mrs Craggs’ business was closing down not because of Government business rates, but because of the different shopping trends of all the people in that room; all those people were applauding and saying we should take some action, but the reality is that fewer and fewer of us are buying that kind of stuff from shops. So it is not about what the Government are or are not doing; it is about shopping trends.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) mentioned, before the crisis, 20% of shopping was done online but that figure has risen rapidly to 35%, which is making the whole system difficult. Most businesses look at the rent and the business rates when they first take on a premises, and then plug that into their cash flow and decide what they can afford to pay. That is what a good businessperson should do. It is not that the business rates system is anachronistic; the pace of change is the problem. At some point in future, when all this has settled down, businesses will say, “We can afford to pay this rent and these rates”, but the difficulty is being caused by the pace of change.

[Sarah Olney]

I am listening carefully, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise on this subject, as I know he has studied it long and hard. We have talked a bit about the divide between digital and high street retail. Does he agree that there is a social good to be achieved in supporting high street retail and that the Government should perhaps express a preference for it over digital through the tax system?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Community is very important to me and our shops are part of those communities. It is dangerous when the Government start picking winners—I do not think that should happen. The forces of free markets and a market economy are the best things to ensure that prices are kept low and levels of services are high for consumers. That is what is most effective. So what we have to try to do, of course, is create a fair and level playing field, and let businesses come in to fill that gap and provide services that people want. That is what we should be looking to do.

In its review of business rates, the Treasury talks about different options, including an increase in VAT, changes to corporation tax and an online sales tax. It seems to land on the online sales tax as the solution, so let me talk about a couple of things that it sets out in that consultation. It sets out not that an online sales tax will replace business rates, but that it will exist alongside them—that is a key thing to understand—and that it will potentially lead to a reduction for retail. So there will be two systems coming together.

I have heard a few Members talk about retail in this debate, but the changes in consumer behaviour are not just about retail. Uber Eats and Deliveroo, for example, deliver to people’s houses often not from takeaway premises on the high street but from mini-establishments off the high street. Travel agents, insurance brokers, banking—all those things are changing because of consumer habits; people do not visit shops anything like as much as they used to. Looking at the problem purely from a retail perspective is wrong; doing so does not understand the problem.

Another issue is what is online? One of my fantastic local butchers in Thirsk is Johnson’s, an order-in butcher’s, which has wonderful meats, but does not seem particularly the type of business that would go online. I visited them during the crisis, because they had set up a delivery service and offer click and collect, as well as traditional shopping. They have even set up a little bot from which you can order, which talks to you using artificial intelligence—very clever stuff and really innovative, which was great; but how would you assign an online sales tax to those different categories? It would be hugely complex for a business to work out what was bought purely online, what was bought on click and collect and what was bought by customers walking into the store. It would make the system more complicated. The more we try to simplify the tax system, of course, the more complicated we make it. There are some inherent flaws in an online sales tax; it is so very difficult. The problem of distinguishing between online, click and collect and physical shopping is inherent in lots of different businesses, John Lewis being an obvious example. It is not clear how such a tax would operate without making the system more complex.

Simple and easy are two different things. The simple solution, which will not be universally popular, is to look at sales tax. We already have a sales tax; it is called VAT. The simplest thing to do would be to raise VAT. We could not just put a hole in the business rates system—some 30 billion quid—without replacing it with something, certainly not given where the public finances are today. Putting 2p on VAT, would raise £12 billion a year; 4p on VAT would raise £24 billion a year. We could also look at the threshold system of VAT, which is a real deterrent for businesses to grow. If we want a simple solution that is effective and crosses all the different sectors, it is there. It is fair and would keep the tax system as simple as possible.

I urge my very good friend the Minister on duty, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and the Treasury to think about the full extent of the problems, as well as the potential quick wins. When compared with an online sales tax, VAT is a much better system to operate.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is right. Those on the Government Benches know that a referendum is coming; we should just get on with it.

This Bill gives Westminster direct spending control in devolved areas in Scotland—in health, education, housing and transport—and the people of Scotland know from long and bitter experience that the Tories cannot be trusted to spend money in Scotland. The Tories will look after their own interests. They will never support Scotland’s interests, as tonight demonstrates. The passing of this Bill gives the Tories free rein to bypass Scotland’s Parliament and the democratic priorities of the Scottish people.

The democratic principle of the right to choose our own form of governance is at the heart of what is at stake if the Tories force this legislation through tonight. They can try to deny it all they like, but it is the Tories themselves who are breaking the constitutional settlements that have been democratically supported across these islands. This legislation rips apart Scotland’s claim of right, which enshrined the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. That claim of right was debated on an SNP motion in the last Parliament, which was passed without objection.

It is a long-held principle that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people of Scotland, not with Westminster. That historic right has its roots in the declaration of Arbroath and formed the basis of the determination in the case of MacCormick v. the Crown by Lord Cooper, when, as Lord President of the Court of Session, he gave his opinion that

“the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”.

The principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland is under attack in this Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are plenty of reasons to oppose this legislation that do not necessarily involve the case for Scottish independence?

[Ian Blackford]

The fact is that, as a consequence of the attack on the powers of Scotland’s Parliament, people in Scotland are making the determination that they wish our country to become independent as soon as possible.

This Bill undermines the settled will of the people of Scotland, who voted in a referendum on the basis of our Parliament having control over spending in devolved matters. It is that fundamental—it is that serious. This is a defining moment. The UK Government are attempting to block the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide Scotland’s future.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas]

What I am clear about, which is why I said at the beginning I was more nervous until we got to this part of the debate, is that there is very little risk that we will breach any international law or even that this Act will be needed. I am confident that we will continue to work for the free trade agreement, and I am confident we can avoid that, and, if and when it comes to it, I am confident that it will be Parliament that triggers these provisions or not.

Returning to our fishermen, they have followed our lead and they are confident that, as a country that abides by the rule of law, international law will be on their side, so we must press ahead, but with great caution; I agree with the comments made on that. People expect their MPs to work in their best interests and the UK interest first and foremost. In my view, the motivation of every colleague who votes in favour of the Bill is to do just that.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill.

In part 1, which deals with the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition of goods, the Secretary of State proposes to award himself the power to vary the statutory requirements included in the mutual recognition principle by statutory instrument. The Bill states that he has only to consult with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than to receive their consent. I put it to the Government that that undermines the ability of the devolved legislatures to set standards for the goods being sold to the citizens in their nations.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Lady so early in her speech, but she hits on a key point. There is a world of difference between consulting and consenting. Any respect agenda must be based on the latter as opposed to the former.

[Sarah Olney]

I entirely agree. I was going on to say that the Secretary of State also awards himself the power to vary the statutory requirements in the non-discrimination clause, such as on transportation and inspection of goods or regulation of the markets, in the same way. Is it not the case that, should the Secretary of State find that such requirements no longer suited the needs of English producers, he could change them, to the detriment of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish producers, without the express consent of their Governments?

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that this is a UK Government—a Government for all four nations. As a Welsh Member, may I ask her also to reflect on how the Bill changes the relationship with the devolved Administrations from the way it operated with Brussels, where, of course, the DAs were consulted by the member state rather than consent being reached?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member touches on quite an important point. I do not believe that it is in the scope of the Bill to address this, but of course we have devolved Assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, yet no similar provision exists for just English matters. That presents a constitutional anomaly, which arises in situations such as this. That is why I made the point that where the interests of English producers are reflected, it is only by the Secretary of State, who should be acting for the whole of the UK. It is precisely that principle that the Bill seeks to undermine.

The plans for mutual recognition of qualifications are welcome, especially the exclusions for areas such as law and healthcare, where there is already a great deal of divergence across the four nations, but it is concerning that the exclusions do not extend to education. As was pointed out earlier, there is already substantial divergence, which could disadvantage our children and young people.

The overriding concern is that the Government in London could quietly amend these requirements and exclusions without the consent of the devolved Administrations, or even a further vote in Parliament, to accommodate new trade agreements with international partners. The Trade Bill also completed its passage through this place untroubled by any attempt to impose parliamentary scrutiny requirements on it. That leaves the Government free to negotiate any kind of trade agreement they choose with any international partner and accept whatever conditions that partner wants to impose—access to our markets, reduction of the standards we impose on goods sold in this country, reduced professional standards and oversight, or changes to any one of dozens of other conditions that we have actively chosen to impose for the health and welfare of our citizens.

Back in December, this Government won for themselves the right to implement Brexit in any way they chose. As a second choice to remaining in the European Union, I would have hoped for ambitious plans to manage a just transition away from carbon-emitting industries, with the creation of new green jobs and a highly skilled workforce. I would have hoped for a United Kingdom that looked to be a leader in promoting human rights, international development and the battle against climate change. Was it too much to hope that the promised sovereignty, which was so precious that everything had to be sacrificed to it, would be granted to Parliament to help steer the course of our independent future?

Instead of a Brexit that underpins our Union, supports our businesses and promotes the United Kingdom as a global leader, we have this sordid Bill. It promises a Brexit that diminishes and disempowers our nation and its constituent parts. It shames us on the world stage, presenting us as a country that, far from being a beacon of democracy and probity, hoards power in the hands of unelected advisers and breaks international law when it suits its purpose. It heightens division between our nations instead of binding us together in a unity of purpose that will strengthen us on the global stage.

It has been suggested that this is some clever negotiating tactic in the discussions with the EU on our future trading relationship.

If that is the case, the Government should stop playing games and apply themselves to providing for the very real challenges faced by business as we anticipate the end of the transition agreement at the end of December. What progress has been made in recruiting the additional 50,000 customs agents who will be needed to complete the estimated 220 million extra import and export declarations in 2021? What progress has been made towards negotiating a replacement for the Dublin agreement, which enables us to return migrants to the country where they first claimed asylum? What of provisions for data sharing between the EU and the UK, or the sharing of information between our security services? Our businesses are already operating at a time of heightened uncertainty—which increased as we learned today of new restrictions on activity—and they need urgent action to resolve these issues.

Business and Planning Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I rise to support these amendments. On Second Reading, I called for a restriction on alcohol off-sales to 11 pm, so I am delighted that that amendment has been accepted. We need to strike the right balance between getting our economy up and running and the interests of residents, who in certain parts of London have been subject to a lot of anti-social behaviour—in particular, in Notting Hill in my constituency. These amendments strike the right balance, and I commend them to the House.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I can only echo what the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said about anti-social behaviour, which has been an absolute plague on communities across London and, I am sure, elsewhere. In my community in Richmond Park, we have had behaviour the like of which we have not seen before. It has been an enormous burden for local people.

I welcome the Lords amendments. I am slightly disappointed that the amendment that my colleague Lord Paddick put forward about serving alcohol in open glass containers was not adopted, because that would have had a significant positive impact on the situation that many people are experiencing.

To add to what I said on Second Reading, I urge the Government to think again about the number of police officers in London. We in Richmond are certainly finding that, because police officers are always focused on violence reduction and that is a particular issue for some of the inner London boroughs, we are missing out on the increase that we need for neighbourhood policing in places such as Richmond, which would do much more to keep a lid on some of the antisocial behaviour we are seeing. We have heard about the extra officers that are coming, and I really hope that they are coming very soon, because we would like to see them in Richmond.

I echo what the Minister said about the passage of this Bill, its speed and the constructive nature in which everyone has engaged with it. This is going to be a great piece of legislation, and I support the amendments.