Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Tomlinson and Mike Wood

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is totally right that the objective of No. 10 North is to drive good growth in every postcode across the whole country. Too many places and too many communities have been left behind for too long because power and decision making was hoarded in Westminster. Members on the Labour Benches know that the route to growth everywhere is getting it out across the country. Members on the Opposition Benches, it seems, want to keep hoarding power and decision making here in Westminster.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

We have heard again what we have had in response to a number of written questions. The Minister either does not know or will not tell us how much No. 10 North will cost, how many people work there and how many of them actually turn up to work—it is almost as though this has not been properly thought through. Does the Minister understand why, with so little information and so little transparency, so many people feel that this is a gimmick rather than a strategy?

[Dan Tomlinson]

When it comes to the efficient use of taxpayer money, I would like to point out to the House that the hon. Member—he is, of course, welcome to submit as many questions as he likes—sent 371 questions, at a cost to the taxpayer of potentially around £80,000. Of course, we are willing to have debates in this place and on the Floor of the House, and my hon. Friends in the Cabinet Office will continue to answer questions, but in the end we need to make sure that the Government are driving good growth across the whole country. No. 10 North, bringing together businesses, leaders and senior politicians from across Government, is the right route for doing just that.

[Mike Wood]

We would not have had to table so many written questions if Ministers had actually answered our first question, instead of expecting us to come up with precisely the right form of words to leave them with no way of getting out. Surely it cannot be right that it requires a freedom of information request to discover how much it costs for a replica door at No. 10 North, but the Minister refuses to answer legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister at least—if he does have this information, which the Department surely does—finally commit to publishing the total budget for No. 10 North, the number of staff and special advisers who are going to work there, and attendance statistics?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I think it would be best for hon. Members, rather than getting in a flap about No. 10 North, to back what we are trying to do to drive good growth, opportunity and devolution across the whole country. It is the right thing to do. The previous Government passed on to us a country that was the most geographically unequal advanced economy in the whole world. We are setting out to turn that around for the people of this country. Of course, the details on employment and the costs of No. 10 North will be published in the usual way, along with the accounts for the Cabinet Office.

Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

Debate between Dan Tomlinson and Mike Wood

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It is some of the most impressive I have seen in Westminster Hall, as you managed to keep this unruly lot to time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this debate and for his contribution on the importance of rural pubs.

I represent an urban seat here in London—it is at about midday on the clock from central London—but it has a plentiful supply of green belt, and I have 12 farms in my constituency, even though it is within Greater London. So I have some understanding of the situation for rural communities. I also grew up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), as was mentioned earlier. I spend every Christmas eve doing carols at the Three Horseshoes, so the owners have to look out for me this year. It is a fantastic pub. We want to make sure that pubs like that, and pubs in all the constituencies mentioned today, have the support they need.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for mentioning the pubs in his constituency, including the Golden Cross—I hope that England can get a golden cross in this evening and that we can score some goals. [Interruption.] Thank you, one and all. I thank all Members for their contributions and for sharing the stories of the businesses in their constituencies. Pubs are so important to so many communities, particularly rural communities. The Government have rural rates relief for pubs that are the only pub in villages with populations of 3,000 or less. There are a couple of thousand businesses across the country that make use of the rural rate relief scheme, which covers shops as well. I encourage all Members to make sure that local businesses are aware of that scheme, which was also in place under the previous Government. I know that it is welcomed by those businesses that use it.

I will deal with the topics that were raised in turn. We are reforming the business rates system and have implemented permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, such as pubs. That is funded by a high-value multiplier on the 1% of the most expensive properties, which includes large distribution warehouses used by online giants. That change will mean that the tax rate paid by the smallest businesses on the high street will have a wedge of a third compared with the tax rate paid by the online giants. That is a permanent change, not a temporary relief that will jump up and down. Those changes are worth nearly £1 billion a year for the 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that are the lifeblood of our high streets.

Members, particularly Liberal Democrats, talked about the need for a significant change to the way that pubs are valued. As I mentioned, this Government are the first in a very long time to commission an independent review of how pubs and hotels are valued for business rates purposes. In the weeks after the Budget, we heard very clearly from businesses that they had concerns about the opaqueness of the methodology. Some who spoke about business rates for pubs mentioned the feeling of running to stand still, which Members mentioned: their turnover goes up, but then their business rates bill goes up, too. We have been clear that, as was set out in law in the 1980s, it is right for business rates to reflect rents, and we will not separate out pubs entirely. The question is: how can we best value pubs and communicate their value through the Valuation Office Agency to individual ratepayers?

[Mike Wood]

I am sure that one of the messages the Minister will have heard from pub owners is that the unique way that pubs are valued for business rates—through an assessment of their fair maintainable trade—means that if they invest in their own business, one of the first things that happens is they face a higher bill, long before they have started to repay the money that they invested. Will the Minister consider addressing that with a business rates holiday to provide space for businesses to recoup some of their investment before it is taken off them in business rates?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I love an intervention like that one. We are looking at exactly that. Last year, in a call for evidence on how we can improve the business rate system to support investment, we set out that we would look at improvement relief. At the moment, it does give a relief if a business invests, but only for a short time. That is under active review as a result of the call for evidence, where we heard that businesses were interested in the extent to which changes to improvement relief could support them and their investment decisions. I would happily receive further representations on that from Members.

Business Rates

Debate between Dan Tomlinson and Mike Wood

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

One of my favourite things to do is to meet my hon. Friend to discuss a whole range of matters, so I will happily discuss this issue with him too. We have been in correspondence on this business already, so I hope that he passed on the messages from me about the need to check that there is a difference between the increase in the RV—the rateable value—and the increase in business rates bills. I hope to be in one of the fastest-growing cities in the country before long.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

This U-turn delivers some much-needed temporary relief for a lot of pubs, but it does not deliver the permanently lower bills that the Prime Minister promised. It also does nothing at all for the other hospitality firms in our constituencies—the cafés, restaurants, clubs and guest houses that are facing crippling rate rises because of this Government’s choices. Mr Speaker, is it not a sign of the incompetence of this Government that they cannot even get their U-turns right?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I do not think that was a question for me. It was a question for you, Mr Speaker.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Debate between Dan Tomlinson and Mike Wood

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the engagement that she has carried out with businesses in her constituency, as a strong representative of the businesses and people of Tamworth. The Government set out some significant reforms in the Budget. We lowered the tax rate that is paid by businesses on our high streets by 5p compared with what it would otherwise have been. That means that the tax rate paid by businesses on our high street is a quarter lower than that paid by the very largest businesses, which can afford higher taxes. That is why we rebalanced the system, transferring £1 billion of extra tax revenue from the largest businesses to high street businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The tables to which the Minister refers show that the median rateable value for pubs and wine bars is increasing by a third. He visited the Prince of Wales, a pub in his constituency, to help it reopen last spring. Its rateable value is going up from £49,200 to £62,500, which will push it into the higher band and higher bills. When we have the inevitable U-turn, will he ensure that it genuinely delivers lower business rates, and not just for the Prince of Wales in his constituency but for all hospitality venues across the country?

Clause 1

Debate between Dan Tomlinson and Mike Wood

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Many Members wish to intervene. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood).

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Minister says that pensioners who only receive the new state pension will not have to pay income tax. Can he say whether pensioners paid the old basic state pension, but who were contracted out and have alternative provision that brings them up to the same level as the new state pension, will have to pay income tax?

[Dan Tomlinson]

As the Chancellor has set out—more detail will follow later this year—those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay income tax over this Parliament. I am aware that Members would like to see more detail, but it would be premature for us to set out the impacts of the policy at this stage, because the details will be forthcoming later this year. I therefore say that new clause 15 should be rejected.