Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for the constructive and positive way he has approached the Bill, from the early conversations about the technicalities to his contributions in Committee, and I repeat his thanks to the Committees that have worked in the background on this. It is clear that a lot of work has been done to engage and to iron out the wrinkles in the Bill. I hope this reinforces the offer we made some time ago that, where measures are not controversial and have the support of the sector, we will work constructively to take them through Parliament. I hope this will be the first of a number that local government wants to see come forward.

I do not know whether it is in order to refer to a previous stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not in his place, took something of a liberty in the Legislative Grand Committee in trying to hijack a debate that affected English parliamentarians and English constituencies for what is an age-old debate about English votes for English laws. It almost belittles the detailed work done in many Committee sittings, where the hard work of making law has been happening but in a more constructive and mature way. I would not want us to lose sight of that. People watching on television—if anyone was watching it—might have been left with the inaccurate impression that Parliament was not doing its job and that this is a superficial way to pass laws, which is not the case at all.

Turning to the Bill, we support the measures relating to the staircase tax and the Supreme Court ruling. We recognise that it was a quirk of the system when the matter went to court and that it was not the original intention of legislation, but there remains concern about the financial impact on local authorities. In private meetings and in Committee, we requested a breakdown of the implications for each local authority in the country, but we have not to date had that information and so have not been able to assess the impact of this financial change on each local authority.

The Government will say that that is because the Supreme Court ruling meant that some local authorities were, for a short period, financially better off than had the ruling not been given, but many councils set their budgets based on that financial information, so some will face a net loss when, because of this change, money they were expecting from business rates does not come in. For some, the loss might be very minor, but for others it could be significant, depending on the make-up of properties within their local authority area. It would therefore have been reassuring to see that list today.

The agreement between central and local government is that, where central Government makes a change to the financial settlement and rules and regulations that has a net effect on local government budgets, councils ought to be compensated. Local Government and the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as vice-president of the LGA—are concerned about what it means when the Government make changes that can materially affect the financial base of local authorities but then do not provide financial compensation. Notwithstanding that, we recognise that the Government have heard the calls from business and ratepayers and have taken action. That should be welcomed.

Empty properties are a big issue. There are around 200,000 empty properties in this country at a time of a housing crisis. We know that 120,000 children in this country are without a permanent home and living in temporary accommodation. So the housing crisis is very real. Part of the problem with the Bill is that it addresses some types of empty property but not others. About 20% of properties in parts of London are empty. They are owned by wealthy individuals and institutions that will not be put off by a 100% additional council tax payment requirement, because that is pennies in the scheme of the wealth they hold. It might affect small landlords and people renovating properties, but it will not necessarily affect the part of the UK that arguably has the biggest housing crisis, and that of course is London. If the Government come forward with new proposals to address the problem of foreign individuals owning properties they have no intention of ever living in or allowing others to live in, the shadow Housing team would be open to a discussion on that.

I am aware that there is a housing debate to follow and that a great many Members have applied to speak in it. I repeat my thanks to the Government for being constructive and for engaging in the process at an early stage. I also repeat the offer of what we know local authorities want: far more cross-party working on matters that affect local government as a whole.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank all Committee members for being here promptly to discuss this technical but important Bill, which I hope will not detain us for too long.

Clause 1 delivers on the commitment made by the Chancellor at last year’s autumn Budget to address what became known as the staircase tax. The clause will restore the previous practice of the Valuation Office Agency from before the Supreme Court decision in respect of contiguous properties in the same occupation or ownership. We discussed on Second Reading the background to why the measure is necessary, and I have provided more detail about the measure in correspondence with the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government. I will not repeat that background, other than by saying that the clause is welcomed by the rating surveyor profession and supported by the Federation of Small Businesses.

The clause amends section 64 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to provide that, in a defined set of circumstances, two or more hereditaments shall be treated as one. Those circumstances, which are described in new subsections (3ZA) and (3ZB) of section 64, are: where the hereditaments are occupied by the same person or, if they are empty, owned by the same person; where the hereditaments are contiguous—that is defined later in the clause, and I will come to it shortly—and, in respect of occupied hereditaments, where none is used for a wholly different purpose. That will restore the rule that applied before the Supreme Court decision that contiguous hereditaments are assessed as one.

In preparing the clause, we had to ensure that we replicated previous practice in respect of the meaning of “contiguous”. The clause therefore introduces new subsection (3ZD), which defines what is contiguous for these purposes. New subsection (3ZD)(a) provides that

“two hereditaments are contiguous if…some or all of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of one hereditament forms all or part of a wall, fence or other means of enclosure of the other hereditament”.

That ensures, for example, that two adjacent rooms on the same side of a common corridor separated by a wall are contiguous, but that two rooms on opposite sides of a common corridor are not. It also ensures that two buildings on the same side of a road that share a common party wall are contiguous, but that two buildings on opposite sides of a street or common access road are not. Importantly, that replicates the previous accepted practice of the VOA.

New subsection (3ZD)(b) provides that hereditaments on consecutive storeys of a building are contiguous if

“some or all of the floor of one hereditament lies directly above all or part of the ceiling of the other”.

That ensures that consecutive storeys of a building are contiguous but excludes non-consecutive storeys where the intervening storey is in a different occupation or ownership. Again, that replicates the previous practice of the VOA.

We believe that this approach ensures that hereditaments would still be contiguous, even if a wall or floor plate separating the hereditaments contained a space such as a service void occupied by the landlord. However, respondents to the consultation and the Select Committee were less certain on that point. We therefore decided to put that beyond doubt by adding the words at the end of subsection (3ZD) that make it clear that hereditaments

“are not prevented from being contiguous…merely because there is a space”

such as a service void between them in a different occupation or ownership.

Finally, new subsection (3ZC) ensures that chains of contiguous hereditaments in the same occupation or ownership will still meet the tests. For example, it will ensure that floors 3, 4 and 5 of a building in the same occupation are treated as contiguous and as one hereditament, even though floors 3 and 5 are not themselves contiguous.

The change in the VOA’s practice following the Supreme Court decision affected the 2010 rating list as well as the current 2017 list. That has led in some cases to sudden and dramatic backdated rate demands, which have been of particular concern to the estimated 1,000 small businesses that, as a result of the decision, have lost the generous small business rate relief they rely on. Clause 1(2) therefore ensures that the measure applies retrospectively to 1 April 2010 in support of affected ratepayers.

That is why it is so important that the Bill does not go beyond the objective of restoring the previous practice that applied. I am pleased to say that, by working with organisations such as the Rating Surveyors Association, we are confident that we have met that objective, which the Select Committee confirmed in its report on the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for making the effort to meet before the Committee to go through some of the technicalities of the Bill. That will save the Committee from a headache. However, there are still some questions outstanding, including about the loss of income to local authorities. The autumn Budget book said:

“Local government will be fully compensated for the loss of income as a result of these measures.”

That was stated by the Chancellor, but it is not what is being offered today. Local authorities are being told that they will not be compensated because in effect they are in no worse a position had the High Court ruling not been made. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we know from his subsequent contributions that the Select Committee continues to have those concerns.

Nor do we know yet what the impact will be across different local authorities, because that information has yet to be provided. We have not been provided with data to understand the local authority-by-local authority impact, so we do not know, for instance, how many are caught in 100% rate retention schemes, where they will have to pay costs. Nor do we know whether there are particular concentrations of properties in local authorities or whether they are spread evenly throughout the country, where such an impact would be marginal. We should endeavour not just to make legislation that we believe to be in the public interest—of course, that is important—but to make good legislation, with a solid, tested evidence base and with any necessary questions asked at the appropriate time. I would say now is the appropriate time to ask such questions. Let us see the detail on the local authority-by-local authority impact, particularly as the Government do not seem to be honouring the commitment they made in the autumn Budget.

The other, broader point—I will be careful not to stray too far from the Bill—is that the Government have taken into account what the business community told them and the Bill reflects that. I welcome that. The Government have been flexible and considered the impact of unintended consequences, which is a measure of good government. It is not a measure of bad government that could be perceived as, for instance, a U-turn. I recognise that our politics sometimes supports that type of language. In that context, I find it difficult to understand why other concerns raised following the revaluation and technical fall-outs of the business rate system have not been taken into account, such as the impact on cash machines in convenience stores.

In my town of Royton, the last bank is due to close. It will be the sixth bank to close in the town centre. The convenience store stepped up and provided a cash machine, so that people in the town could access money to do their shopping and, of course, support the market on the precinct, which relies heavily on cash transactions. A cash machine in the town is very important, but the turnover of that cash machine now contributes to the rates liability of the premises. A convenience store that would previously have been under the small business rates relief threshold, and would probably not be paying business rates at all, will in some situations now pay business rates because the turnover of the cash machine takes it over the threshold.

Good government means taking into account the impact of that and recognising that if convenience stores are stepping up when the banks are pulling out of towns, they ought to be supported, not be at a financial disadvantage as a result. That is just one example, but there are others that have been raised by the business community, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores. We ought to reflect on that.

I would welcome some detail on that, even if provided at a late stage, after Committee, and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee would too. Many of these issues are not politically contentious—that is the spirit in which we made our previous offer and in which we are working today. There is broad support for them in the community, and we ought to work together to try to see them through. There were a number of items in the Local Government Finance Bill, which fell when the election was called, that need to be progressed, because local government is asking for them to be progressed. We ought to get together, see which of those elements have cross-party support and take them forward sooner rather than later.

[Rishi Sunak]

Let me put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for, as ever, the constructive way in which he approaches our discussions on this and other measures.

To turn to his first point on compensation for local authorities and what was said in the Budget document of last year, the reference to compensation in that document specifically related to the switch to the consumer prices index in business rates indexation and the extension of the pubs relief scheme. I fully appreciate that the document could have been clearer on that point. As a result, my Department issued a letter to all local authorities two days after the Budget to make it clear that local government would not be compensated for this specific tax measure. As we have previously reiterated, we consider those extra revenues to be a windfall that came as a result of a Supreme Court decision.

The new legislation will ensure that the position is restored to where we were beforehand, so there should be no net loss to local authorities. That said, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rates retention. We are aware of his point—that under the rates retention scheme, some local authorities may see a small impact on their overall retained business rates. That would potentially occur in pilot areas, where the percentage of rates retained locally is different in the year that the refund will be paid, compared with the year in which the authority first received the windfall from the Supreme Court decision. We have previously said that it is very hard, if not impossible, for us in the Department to quantify that impact, but officials believe that it is small. That said, we are considering the points made in the submission by London Councils and the Greater London Assembly on that issue.

On the broader support for businesses through the business rate scheme, I am delighted that hon. Gentleman welcomes our support of small business. This is one measure, but there are others. I point to the Budget last year and the year before that, where we doubled small business rate relief, which was widely welcomed by businesses, including the FSB. We took almost 600,000 smaller business out of rate relief. In addition, there was a £435 million package to target ratepayers who face the steepest bills as a result of the revaluation. That included something that was warmly welcomed in my constituency and I am sure many others: the £1,000 pub discount voucher, which has also been taken up.

Lastly, we brought forward by one year the indexation of business rates from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which is worth some £2.3 billion over five years. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will agree that that shows strong support for small business. Another measure that the FSB has welcomed, and which was part of the Local Government Finance Bill that fell at the last election, was business rates relief for plant nurseries—a measure that was also the result of a Supreme Court decision that changed settled practice and which had cross-party support. He will be aware that we recently laid a written ministerial statement recommitting the Government to legislate to reverse that decision. Indeed, that decision will be made retrospectively, so that plant nurseries will be exempt from business rates and treated as agricultural property. I look forward to working with him on that, and hopefully getting his support when the time comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Higher amount for long-term empty dwellings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The Labour party supports the Bill, but our manifesto suggested going further. Rather than a 200% premium, there would be a 300% premium and consideration of bringing the empty period to a year. There is a reason for that: the housing markets across the country are very different. The Bill will not address the problem of the concentration of empty homes in London. Figures provided by the House of Commons Library show that 20% of City of London properties are empty. In Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea, one in 10 properties are empty.

Such properties are owned by people who think nothing of paying twice the amount of council tax that a usual resident does because they have the financial means to pay it without that having an impact on their pocket. I am not sure that this measure goes anywhere near where it needs to go to address the region of the country with the largest housing demand. We know about the housing pressures in London and that many of the properties are held by property investors, a number of which are foreign-based. The measure will not address that, and the Government have not made a determined effort to address it.

It is bad enough that properties that have been in the community for some time are being bought up, but it is a scandal that brand-new properties—whole tower blocks in some cases—are built, but in the evening there are no lights on because not many people live there. They are built but held as investments with no intention of people living there. The Government need to think about what financial measures they can use to encourage owners of properties in that very particular market to bring them back into use. We build houses for people to live in, not for wealthy institutions to hold with no intention of anybody ever living in the property.

In some housing markets—we experience this in the north of England—empty homes are the result of a broken housing market. The Labour Government introduced the housing market renewal project to address a fundamentally broken housing market in which there was no latent demand from local people to buy the properties, and those who were able to buy a property did not want to live in the areas where properties were empty. When the housing market renewal scheme was cancelled in 2010, the Government turned their back on those areas.

Some areas have been brought back into use, and many local authorities are introducing innovative schemes. In Liverpool and Stoke, local authorities are selling empty properties for £1 as a way to encourage people to get on to the housing ladder. We know from reports that the people who have benefited respect the schemes. The properties would not have been on the housing market had it not been for those schemes, so it is a double win. The initiative enables empty properties to be brought back into use and gives somebody the chance to get on the housing ladder when in other circumstances they would not be able to afford to do so.

In other areas with similar housing characteristics, a number of properties were earmarked for demolition under housing market renewal—the properties were purchased and the windows boarded up—but the Government removed the money in 2010. The boards came off the windows and the properties were sold to private landlords. Taxpayers are paying through the housing benefit bill for what is generally substandard accommodation in areas with a broken housing market, and are doing so for properties that generally do not meet the decent homes standard. In Greater Manchester, 40% to 50% of the £350 million a year we pay in housing benefit to private landlords is for properties that do not meet a decent standard.

The country could use that money better to provide decent, safe properties with good solid tenures where people enjoy living, in areas where there is a high-quality environment and the roads are safe, and where play areas provide a safe place for children to play, not just terraced streets that were built to support mill workers. Now that the mills have closed, those houses are just not desirable for many people. The Government need to take a broader view of how empty homes affect different parts of the country, and they must bring forward more active proposals for London, given how wealthy investors are holding properties. We also need a plan for areas where the housing market is weak. These measures will go some way to addressing that problem, but they will not address the inherent weakness in the local housing market where the owner-occupier element is weak.

We need a genuinely joined-up plan. This is not about a sticking plaster to support local authorities that have had their budgets cut dramatically, or about raising tax; this is about bringing empty homes back into use. The Government’s response, particularly since the empty homes fund was deleted, seems to be: “Well, if local authorities bring homes back into use, they will be the beneficiaries because they will get a new homes bonus payment”. However, the new homes bonus payment is retrospective, and we would be expecting local authorities to find money from their base revenue budget to bring empty homes back into use at a time when many of them cannot afford to pay for social care and children’s safeguarding. The Government need to come forward with a plan and funding to support local authorities to bring empty homes back into use. Taxing people who own those properties is one element of that, but in some cases direct grant funding will be needed to bring accommodation back into use.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman as always for his thoughtful comments. The two substantive points he mentioned were whether the level of the premium is too low at 100%, and whether two years is too long as a measure for an empty property. On whether the premium is too low, we need to strike a careful balance between providing a strong incentive for bringing empty homes back into use, and not disproportionately penalising homeowners who may be struggling to sell or rent out a property or to complete any major renovations that might be required. We believe that doubling the premium cap strikes the right balance. Scotland and Wales also have a premium of 100%, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

On whether the qualifying period for an empty home should be less than two years, it is worth noting—I know this from the correspondence that the Department receives—that some owners of empty homes face circumstances that make it difficult for them to bring their empty homes back into use quickly. That could be a renovation or the time taken to put something on the market with a difficult set of conditions. There may also be delays as a result of the probate process, for example. Again, I think the two-year period strikes the right balance.

[Jim McMahon]

Any scheme, even with a 12-month qualifying period, can have exemptions that take into account individual circumstances. There is already a scheme to deal with properties that are under probate, which is clearly outside the control of the executors who are trying to dispose of it. That can be managed. However, a number of landlords own properties and have no intention of letting them out. They will simply flip them over into different names to avoid paying the tax, and a more concerted effort to deal with such issues is important. The truth is that it would be much more difficult for people to keep flipping the property if we had a 12-month period—they can currently do it every 24 months.

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are exemptions. For example, there is a six-month council tax free period for probate, and then the clocks starts. The problem is trying to define ex ante the individual circumstances in which it might be fair to have a period of more than one year. That is why we believe two years is the right amount of time—it provides flexibility but also serves somewhat as an incentive to bring homes back into use—but I understand his point, and why people would take a different view on what the right period should be.

On the broader strategy for empty homes and local authorities, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are examples of individual local authorities coming up with good, innovative ways to tackle to problem of empty homes. He mentioned some, but I am aware of examples in Bolton and Kent where local authorities have come up with successful ideas, whether loans, discounts or other schemes, to bring empty homes back into use. That is why our approach is the right one. He might disagree with the quantum of funding but, at £7 billion, the new homes bonus is substantial and acts as an incentive to local authorities to come up with schemes to bring homes back into use. They will be financial rewarded—I appreciate that that will be after the fact, but that is as it should be—for success in bringing empty homes back into use. That serves as a carrot, which is the right approach. Rather than the Government telling each local authority exactly what to do, we provide a framework for rewarding good behaviour and let individual local authorities innovate. Hopefully, increasing the premium today will serve only to improve the situation.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, in the long term, we should not rely on that as a source of funding. We would rather not have empty homes, and want to ensure that everybody who wants a home has one to live in. The fewer empty homes there are, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Extent, interpretation and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

We are already investing some £67 million in the Humber and the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership, and I note that £20 million of that is going into my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will be aware that we committed in the industrial strategy to work on a business case for a Grimsby and Cleethorpes town deal. I hope that, in demonstrating that success, we can put our northern power towns at the heart of the northern powerhouse.

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

There is no surprise that the lived experience of people in Shields is of growth not happening, because when the northern powerhouse was launched in 2014, Government capital spending per person was £543 higher in London than in the north-east. London has seen its investment increase to £1,352 per person but, instead of the Government’s closing the gap, the north-east saw a cut in capital spending that increased the gap by 17% to £634 per person. How can the Government credibly claim to be the champions of the northern powerhouse when the evidence says that the money has not followed?

[Jake Berry]

I am certainly not going to take any lectures on the northern powerhouse from the hon. Gentleman, because after his election he described it as the “northern poorhouse”. Unlike Opposition Members, the Government are behind the north, not least by investing £13 billion in northern transport—more than any Government in history, including the Labour Government.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Happy St George’s day to you and to the rest of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for meeting me last week to go through some of the Bill’s more technical aspects, which will save other Members the headache of hearing some of them today.

The Opposition broadly welcome both of the changes in the Bill. Clause 1 seeks to address the Supreme Court’s decision on the staircase tax, relating to how unconnected units occupied by the same business are treated. The measure will put businesses in no worse position than they would have been before the court ruling. Clause 2 will give local authorities the power to increase council tax on homes that are deemed to be long-term empty.

While the Opposition support clauses 1 and 2, we need assurances from the Government that they will not cause detriment to local authority finances. That is particularly the case with clause 1, which will reinstate features of business rates valuation practice that applied prior to the Supreme Court case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has been clear that the effects of the provision on individual local authorities ought to be quantified and supported. The Government have not been clear about how individual local authorities will be affected or about those that will be picking up the tab as a result of the reforms. It has therefore been difficult to give the measures adequate scrutiny at this stage, so we hope to explore some of them in Committee.

Some wider issues also need consideration. The Federation of Small Businesses has illustrated the problems facing smaller firms that necessarily operate in large premises but do not qualify for small business rate relief. For example, childcare providers require space by the nature of their activity, but that takes them above the small business rate relief threshold. Far more also needs to be done to protect the high street, and town and city centres. Business rates are a significant cost and can be the difference between surviving or failing. We recognise that a taxation system cannot sit in isolation and must support the Government’s broader policy objectives, and we have seen some of the largest corporations get away without paying their fair share of tax while premises—the property-based businesses that are the lifeblood or foundation of many of our communities and are essential for town centres to thrive—are taxed through business rates before they earn a single penny.

Turning to clause 2, we welcome the move to bring long-term empty properties back into use by incentivising the owners of such homes to act, but we are also keen to tackle the shortage of available housing in some areas. It has been Labour policy for some time now—the Government’s policy falls short of this—to see 300% council tax charged under the measures that are being put forward today. There are currently 200,000 empty properties in England, and we have seen homelessness increase steadily over the past eight years. As we speak, 120,000 children have nowhere to call home. They are staying with friends and family, and many of them do not have a bedroom of their own. Meanwhile, the evidence of rough sleeping and homelessness is plain to see in towns and cities up and down the land. Councils, particularly in London, which has the highest concentration of empty properties, are battling to meet their statutory obligations and housing duties due to increasing demand, rising unaffordability and the effects of eight years of Government cuts to local authority revenues. It is absolutely right that owners of empty properties pay a premium if their property is suitable to let but they fail to do so. However, any move must form part of a wider strategy to bring empty homes back into use, including positive, proactive support to get homes back on the market.

We welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of some of the faults in the system and their move towards adopting Labour’s policy on empty homes, but they could of course have gone further. Housing is one of the most pressing issues facing this country, and eight in 10 people think the Government ought to do more to address the housing crisis. We know that, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has launched a Green Paper on affordable housing—a framework to change the country’s approach to affordable housing—as part of a new national mission to solve the country’s housing crisis. From planning to funding right through to delivery, we need a comprehensive, joined-up strategy to tackle the housing crisis.

The Conservative-chaired Local Government Association —I declare an interest as one of its vice-presidents—agrees that there is more to be done. It would like the Government to go further and give councils greater power to borrow, to build and to deliver the homes that we need—not on a case-by-case basis, but by trusting local authorities to understand their areas and to get homes built quickly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like me, my hon. Friend has experience of local government, and he will know that if the Government are serious about dealing with this country’s housing crisis, they would free local government to build social housing on a major scale. That would determine the Government’s level of commitment. So far, however, they have not shown that commitment. There are families in my constituency in Coventry who cannot get accommodation, which is a terrible situation for people to find themselves in.

[Jim McMahon]

Absolutely. In some areas, the housing crisis was a significant factor in why people voted to leave the European Union. People do not feel confident about this country’s future, and housing is a vital part of that. If people do not have the security of a home or a secure tenure, they will rightly be nervous about what the future may bring, so the Government need to do much, much more. However, the idea that they can command and control from Whitehall and expect every community to benefit has been disproven time after time. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we should empower local government to get on. Councils know their areas. They have the local partnerships and know the sites. They have planning departments that need greater support. If they were given the resources, they could do far more, but this must be about giving them independence and freedom, not making them wait for the Government to offer crumbs from the table, which is how many councils feel.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I agree with much of that principle, but that is what local plans are for, and we have cross-party support in my patch of Swindon. This Government are empowering local communities to shape future development if they choose to engage with the opportunities.

[Jim McMahon]

I accept that point, but we also need to accept that local plans are limited in that, by and large—of course they do more than this—they are about land supply to support the number of housing units that will be built. They do not discuss the mixture of tenure or go into detail about the funding plan that will support the proposals. A local authority could identify, based on its population and demographics, that it needs a certain proportion of affordable or social housing, for example, but there will be no funding plan to deliver on that. A local plan could sit on a shelf for 10 years, but if the council’s ability to borrow is curtailed, it cannot lay the bricks to build social housing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I know my local area and the council knows the area too, but it is constantly under the cosh of funding cuts. It does not have the capacity and it needs it to be freed up.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is generous in allowing me to intervene again. If the Government really believe in local democracy and want to encourage a property-owning democracy, they should do what used to be done. Local authorities used to give out mortgages and build houses for sale, and they used to build social housing. That is how to do it if the Government really mean to tackle the problem, and that is what they are not doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair point and, bringing it back to the Bill, we will see the rigour that local authorities apply to understanding what clause 1 means for their base funding requirements and what clause 2 means for how much money can be generated to support bringing more rental homes back into use. We know local government will deliver because, time after time, it has really stepped up and done what is asked of it.

Finally, the Bill feeds into the wider debate about the viability of local government finance. Issues such as the staircase tax have raised important points, but we need to move away from the uncertainty and the reliance on favourable Government decisions to fund local services. Any new responsibilities must be backed up with the resources to guarantee that councils can meet their statutory duties.

By the end of the decade, local government will be facing a funding gap of £5 billion which, time after time, the Chancellor seems to be wilfully ignoring. I understand that Ministers have been trying to get an audience with him, but they have failed. The consequence is that our councils often face financial uncertainty.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), my boss, says, you cannot empower local government if you impoverish it.

Local Government Funding

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all Members who have participated in this debate. It is fair to say that local government finance is not always the thing that enthuses people, but what we have learned today is that finance is there for a purpose: to deliver essential public services—or, in the words of the Secretary of State, “vital services on which we all depend.” To be fair though, that is probably where the Secretary of State’s understanding ends. He gets the principle, but not the true impact of austerity.

The best preparation for this debate would have been completely wasted because it would have missed the gift that keeps on giving, which is that the Secretary of State’s testbed for local government seems to be the sinking of the Titanic—a vessel that went out 106 years ago not fit for the journey ahead, without enough life rafts for the people on it and completely misunderstanding that there was an iceberg ahead and the damage that it would cause. Now, Northamptonshire might be the tip of the iceberg in local government terms, but the truth is that many councils are really struggling beneath the surface.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). The thing that ran through all those contributions was the human and community cost of taking money from public services. We hear that 64% of the Government grant has been taken away in Liverpool. That is not just a number on a balance sheet. It was money for essential services that existed to support a community that needed support to grow, develop and prosper. But that rug has been completely pulled from under the people of Liverpool.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East that local councils have very little clarity about what is heading towards them beyond 2020. It is true that many came forward as part of the multi-year settlement, but it is also true that the fair funding settlement is sending shivers down the spine of many local councils because they know exactly what it means. We saw it with the deletion of the area-based grant in 2010, when money directed at areas of high deprivation was completely taken away. Over recent years, the introduction of the transition grant and the rural services delivery grant have targeted mainly Tory shires. We know what fair funding really means to the Government.

[Maria Caulfield]

I have to disagree. As I said in my speech, rural areas have had 45% less funding per head of population for decades. The rural services delivery grant goes some way, although not all the way, to redressing that balance.

[Jim McMahon]

Well, actually, it does not. I will give the hon. Lady an example. If a county area that had a strong council tax base was given £1 in central Government funding and 90p of that £1 was taken away, the area was treated favourably in the transition grant and the rural services delivery grant. If a metropolitan area had £100 and £50 was taken away, far more money that was delivering public services in that area has been taken away—£50 versus the 90p taken from the rural area—because the starting point is very different.

We cannot compare an area with a strong council tax base of high-value properties due to the way in which that area has developed historically—nothing to do with the local authority—with a post-industrial town where the council tax base is predicated on low house values. In my area, 87% of properties are in band A and band B, so there is a very low starting point. That is why far more is needed in council tax from those areas to generate the same amount of money.

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. Perhaps he should come to see the areas of deprivation in Newhaven in my constituency. There are no high-cost properties there. Perhaps he needs to look at rural areas in the round.

[Jim McMahon]

This ought not to be a fight between areas of high deprivation in our urban core and recognising that some services cost more to deliver in rural areas. Labour is calling for a genuinely fair funding settlement that would take into account deprivation, differential service delivery costs and the very particular circumstances of our coastal communities, which feel very much left behind. But we have no faith at all that that is where the Government are going. The Government are trying to redistribute a diminishing resource; we are seeing the redistribution of poverty under this Tory Government. The money just does not exist to fund public services where the demand is growing, which is in adult social care and children’s safeguarding.

We heard earlier that Basingstoke and Deane is a paradise of local government where residents have seen no impact of cuts whatever. That is unless, of course, they remember the 46% reduction of net expenditure on pest control, the 45% reduction on environmental protection, the 33% reduction on food safety, the 66% reduction on recreation and sport, the 27% reduction on open spaces or the 17% reduction on street cleaning.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Gentleman clearly loves my former council very much. Would he agree, then, that actually only 6% of the budget comes from council tax, while the rest comes through well-managed finances and excellent use of our resources? We have created thousands of jobs whereas his party in that council has backed the wrong policies, turned down the economy and chosen to back vested interests in the unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

It is true that this district council has increased spending in some areas, but unfortunately that is because of homelessness. One of the few budget lines that has increased is homelessness spending, which has gone up by 21%. As a result, the neighbourhood services that most people in the community would believe they pay council tax for have seen huge reductions. That council, which has no responsibility for adult social care or children’s services because those are delivered by the county council, has had to take money away from neighbourhood services. Yet this is meant to be the council that we hold up as a paradise of public services under the new settlement.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the difference between a county council, a district council and a county area. Would he then welcome the fact that Hampshire is now getting more money as its core spending power than it had in the past? Will he reflect on why the Labour party voted against that?

[Jim McMahon]

Most people who understand local government finance recognise that the budget lines in total net expenditure include huge sums of money that the local authority has almost no control over in its everyday spend. For instance, education services are included in controllable spend, but the local authority has no freedom or flexibility at all to direct where that money goes. Since the disbanding of primary care trusts, the public health transferred spend has been included as part of core spending power for local government, but there are new pressures and responsibilities that councils are expected to deliver on. The Government have tried to offset cuts to basic neighbourhood services and the lack of funding in children’s services and adult social care through the smoke and mirrors in their calculations.

Let us see what this means in practice. Across England, since 2010, there has been a 54% cash reduction—not even a real-terms reduction—in spend on support for public transport routes. These are the neighbourhood services that our communities rely on. Tory MPs who will not support this Opposition day motion should think about the community bus services in rural areas that have been cut because the money simply is not in the system to provide those routes. Recreation and sport, essential for a healthy and thriving population, have had a 44% cash reduction; open spaces have had a 23% reduction; and trading standards, which provide essential community security, have had a 34% reduction.

In the last reshuffle, the Tories were like rats fleeing the sinking ship, but who would guess that rats are being protected because pest control has been cut by 49%? Only rats are safe under a Tory Government, it seems—that is, if they are not in one of the areas that has had to hike up the charges. In areas of deprivation, low-income families who cannot afford to pay the charges to keep away vermin are absolutely excluded from living in a safe and clean environment.

[Mr Jayawardena]

rose—

[Jim McMahon]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman; he is very keen.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I have two points. First, pest control still supports those on income support who need help, and indeed some of the older people in our community. Secondly, does he welcome the fact that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council spends over £600,000 on community transport and public transport schemes?

[Jim McMahon]

What I know is that in Greater Manchester we have lost 1.2 million miles of public transport routes because of central Government cuts to vital subsidised routes. That is the real impact. There is not a single Conservative Member, whatever they say, who can put their hand on their heart and say that the cuts have had no consequences for community life in their areas, because they absolutely have.

Earlier today, we had a debate on the review of the Manchester arena attack. For those of us who were affected by that within our communities, it was a very difficult moment. I ask the Government what assessment has been made of cuts to emergency planning budgets, because £21 million has been taken from those budgets since 2010—a 36% reduction.

Later, we will have a debate on the money that has been taken from our frontline policing. Councils also provide essential infrastructure to make sure that people can live in decent, safe and thriving communities. We have seen a 40% reduction in crime reduction spend by local authorities and a 66% reduction in community safety services—that is the people who go round parks and cemeteries to make sure they are safe and the CCTV operators who can capture evidence and hold criminals to account. That is where the money is being taken from. When we have the policing debate, we will hear about the absolute frontline impact of the cuts, but we also need to think about the council services that have been snatched away through austerity, because that has been the real impact.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I cannot give way again. I will happily share a drink with the hon. Gentleman in the bar later and compare Basingstoke and Deane with Oldham, but that is as far as we need to go today.

If the Tory Government are determined to see Britain through Brexit, it has to be based on strong foundations. Essential to that are strong, high-performing public services. In many of our areas, not only have our economies been left behind but our public services have been completely fragmented and fractured as a result of Tory austerity.

What we say today is: enough is enough. Local government has taken the brunt of austerity, but it cannot carry on. We know the deficit, which has been identified by the LGA and the National Audit Office. All we ask for is that we see from this Secretary of State the same energy that the Defence Secretary showed when he went out and publicly demanded money for his Department and that the Health Secretary showed when he demanded money for the NHS.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. In line with the Local Government Association— the cross-party organisation representing local government —we are keen to see more progress being made on giving local authorities more sustainable forms of income. Where they play an active role in growing their local economic base, they should see the value in doing that. We have not yet seen a real assessment made of the implications of the 100% retention scheme through the initial pilots with the first wave of local authorities. We know that the Government hold limited data on what that means, and we know that there are significant capacity issues within the Department itself. Between 2011 and 2017, there has been a 39% reduction in full-time equivalent staff working on the 100% retention scheme, so we are not convinced that the Department has the proper capacity to see this through and to monitor, evaluate and importantly to ensure that any risks are mitigated in then allowing a new wave of applications to come forward.

Local authorities are also concerned that London was given the option of no detriment but the same offer was not made available to new authorities applying to the scheme. Authorities outside London will quite rightly ask why we have one rule in place for London, while authorities outside London are being asked to apply to a different scheme with different rules and safety nets in place. I would be grateful for clarification on that.

As to the scheme’s risks, we know that local authorities have had to prepare for the eventuality of ratings appeals. Businesses that do not agree with their ratings position make the appeal in the right way, but under this scheme the risk of that falls partly to the local authorities. In cash terms £2.8 billion has been put aside by local authorities as part of a first tranche of rate retention to prepare for the eventuality that those appeals might be successful. That is £2.8 billion that could be used for public services at a time when local government services are under significant pressure.

We have not yet seen evidence that the Government have had a thorough piece of research done to understand what this would mean if it were rolled out for the whole of England. We know that the Government have approached local authorities who would be in a net position, so they have taken away the equivalent grant that the local authorities are getting in cash terms for the rates that they are able to retain. However, we are unable to say what that means for the country. Cherry-picking a local authority that has no cash difference to the Treasury is okay, but some local authorities will always require more in grant funding than they can generate in business rates in the local authority area. We have not seen what the Government’s approach would be for that.

We have also not understood why we have pilots running on the one hand with a number of local authorities, while on the other hand we have the promise of a fair funding review to be carried out, but we have not had much detail on how the two will talk to each other. The Government need to be clearer on this. What lessons will be learned from the pilots that have been undertaken so far? What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure lessons are learned from the next wave of local authorities? How will that be hard-wired into the fair funding review to ensure the total amount of money that is available to local government to deliver local public services is sustainable in a 100% retention model? If the Government provide that information, we would be happy to sit down and scrutinise it.

What assessment have the Government made of the benefits and risks of the growth and decline of business rate bases at a local level? At the moment, the business rate bases that local authorities are in receipt of are generally historical. They have developed over many years—50 years, 100 years, and for some towns and cities many hundreds of years. The Government have provided very little evidence of how individual local authorities have by their own actions fundamentally changed the business rate bases in their areas. The Government are saying to local authorities, “If you are responsible for a geographical area and an economy that has done well historically, you will be able to capture that growth,” without any evidence that the local authority has actively contributed to the growth. The local authority of another town or city may be working hard to try to grow the local economy, but due to its historically low tax base and its weak economy at a local level, it may struggle to make ends meet and keep afloat. Some towns and cities have to work twice as hard to stay still, while others have accelerated growth just because of their local circumstances. It would be good to hear what the Government’s approach is to ensuring that a genuine rebalancing takes place across England as part of that strategy.

Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2018

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I attended an event in Manchester on Friday, where the Minister was on a panel debate with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and a number of other Members, and we talked about the impact of High Speed 2 and investment in transport in Greater Manchester. During that debate, I noticed that the balance of power in the relationship between Greater Manchester and Government has changed. On the face of it, perhaps that change is subtle, but it is important.

I think back to when we were negotiating the first devolution deal and the establishment of a combined authority, and the relationship was one of subservience where Greater Manchester would ask Government for powers. It was anyone’s guess as to how certain powers and areas of investment were arrived at, but, by and large, the councils in Greater Manchester waited for Government to tell them what Government were willing to do. On Friday—I give credit where it is due—I noticed that the relationship is one of mutual respect—and also mutual challenge, which is important if devolution is to develop as our great cities need. It is important to recognise how things have moved on.

I found it interesting how different the remuneration discussions were for when the Mayor was brought in, compared to those for councillors. Most people recognise that Mayor of Greater Manchester is a significant role—in my view, it is on par with being a Minister in terms of power, responsibility and accountability to the electorate—and in that context there was a big discussion about how much that person should be paid, which was slightly odd to me, because at that time I was a council leader and Eric Pickles was telling us we were volunteers and boy scouts. The Government need to go back and look at the role of councillors in the new devolved settlement, because, just as Parliament can be disconnected from our towns and cities, I see that within a combined authority the Mayors or the chairs can become very much disconnected from the ward councillors representing their communities at a local level.

There is also an issue about retention and how we attract decent talent to local government to serve as local councillors. The decision to take away councillors’ pensions was a backward step—I acknowledge that the Minister was not in government at that point. That change was very popular with the public as they like taking pensions away from councillors because they are not always quite sure what councillors do.

My view is that councillors play a very important role. Many make sacrifices in respect of their careers and their families, and many give up promotions at work to spend additional time supporting the work of their local authority. Within this new devolved settlement, the requirement on those councillors will increase even further: they will have to contribute to the combined authority and to its sub-groups. Government ought to be proactive and look again at what we view the role of councillors to be in this new settlement. Are they volunteers? Are they there to be appreciated but not really taken too seriously? That was the tone when Sir Eric Pickles was in charge. Is it different now, because we recognise that power is being distributed further down? Will this new settlement reflect that?

On the housing investment fund, clearly any investment in housing is important, but the investment in that fund came at the same time that the housing market renewal scheme was cancelled in Greater Manchester. For those who do not know, the housing market renewal scheme was a programme of demolition, clearance and rebuilding of new, good-quality homes to replace substandard terraced housing that was built during the industrial revolution. In 2010, the housing market renewal scheme was cancelled completely. That meant that money that was due to go into that new housing stock was taken away overnight.

The money going in through the housing investment fund is a shadow of that for the housing market renewal scheme. I mention that in particular because although the housing investment fund has its role to play, we need to reflect the fact that it is about commercially viable sites for developers that are creditworthy and that are charged at a commercial interest rate. If the site is commercially viable, the developer is creditworthy and it will be a commercial interest rate, why does the developer not just go to a bank and borrow the money on the open market in the way that would be expected?

What is the role of Government in this new mix? It ought to be about addressing those sites where there is a commercial viability gap. For towns such as Oldham and many areas and communities in Greater Manchester, there is pressure to build on the green belt, through the Greater Manchester spatial framework, because we need units to be built, but the community wants the brownfield, old industrial sites that do not have value to local communities to be redeveloped. The cost of remediation and taking away contaminated material is so high that for developers it just does not stack up. I urge the Government to look at how they can do more to make sure that funding is provided for bridging the viability gap in those types of scheme.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendment) (Regulations) 2018

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the Minister on his 10-minute speech on what is, essentially, narrow legislation. Nevertheless, it is important that we make progress and resolve the business rates issue.

Rather than give a set speech, I want to try to probe some areas where the Government have not been clear about what capacity and resources have been provided to make sure that the appeal system can work effectively.

We know that the SI is about the financial penalty and that it is a split payment of £200 or £500 depending on the size of the applicant. First, what consideration was given to a different schedule for levying penalty fees? For instance, for a large business rate occupier such as a big supermarket, whose rating could be £1 million a year, will probably be paying £500 a day for their consultant to lodge the application. If that consultant is giving false or misleading information on their behalf , it seems slightly out of kilter for the penalty to be what is effectively their day rate. Compare that to a small business, which would pay the £200 penalty, and is trying to navigate the system alone. It could make a very genuine mistake but be found by the office to be perhaps misleading, and that would be a significant and disproportionate penalty.

The question is less about the principle of bringing in penalties, which is now very commonplace across Government Departments. However, an explanation of the rationale behind the split payment would be welcome. By that, I mean that we should move beyond referring back to the Enterprise Act 2016 as a reference point and make the case for why £500 is appropriate.

The second point refers to capacity in the valuation office. We know that there have been IT problems and gremlins in the system, but we cannot get away from the fact that the office has had significant staffing reduction since 2010. In terms of head count, the number of people working for the valuation office now is 546 lower than in 2010, when they are expected to implement a brand new system. We all know that the introduction of a new system requires a double run—existing creaky old systems need to be run, and the capacity is also needed to bring in a new system and implement it. I am not sure that the Government have provided the adequate resource to do that when 500 fewer people are working for the valuation office today than in 2010.

I also wonder whether the Government have reflected on other Government Departments making appeals against their rating valuation. For instance, up to 100 NHS hospital trusts are appealing their ratings liability to their local authorities. At the moment, they are being supported by a company called Bilfinger GVA, which is being paid a percentage fee of whatever is saved in that potential successful appeal. At the moment, councils have had to put £1.6 billion to one side in the likelihood that those appeals are successful, and face an ongoing pressure of £250 million a year. So, £1.6 billion a year is potentially needed for back-dated payments over six years and £250 million every year going forward if they are successful. On the back of that, a company that will be taking a percentage fee from the potential saving.

We know that Government money is Government money. Wherever it is placed within different Departments, it is still public money that will be used for public good. When the Treasury give the NHS money to pay its business rate bills and it is transferred to the local authority, that is still Treasury money that is being funnelled through to fund public services at a local level. If a private company is taking a percentage fee of 5%, 10% or even 20%, that is a net reduction in the money that is available to fund public services in an area, whether it is at local government level or within the NHS.

Have the Government given any thought to having a different approach for Government Departments that make ratings appeals to the valuations office? How can it be right that we are having a net reduction in the money that will be available for public services because money is going out to consultants? Surely a better way of doing that would be either to have a restriction on the ability to use external consultants charging a percentage fee on any potential savings, or to have some kind of mediation service within Government to resolve these issues between different Departments. That would, for me, feel like a potential way forward.

Have the Government considered that? When I first raised the question in November 2016, although I had a holding reply quite soon after that, it took six months for the Government to come back with their substantive reply, which said only that they were looking into it. I am still no clearer about what action they are taking, and whether they consider this to be a significant issue, both in terms of the principle behind it and the particular issue of NHS trusts making appeals. If the Government believe that it is an issue, will they support the Local Government Association and its campaign to make sure that the issue is addressed? I should declare an interest as vice-president of the LGA.

Finally, we know that the gremlins in the system are still there. I respect the Minister for acknowledging some of the technical issues that have occurred, but I come back to the capacity issue. If the Government really want this to work, they need to present an invest-to-save model. If they are going to put a new system in place, which they believe will be fundamentally more efficient and deliver a better service, they ought to be able to provide the upfront capacity to deliver that on the ground, and ensure that it comes in in a smooth and managed way. At the moment, the evidence does not support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I would be delighted to write to you, Mr Rosindell, and to other members of the Committee on that point. Before I confirm that, however, in the short term, I urge hon. Members to ensure that riding stables in their constituencies appeal to their local authorities for discretionary relief, as I have encouraged my auction marts and riding stables to do. The Chancellor announced a £325 million fund to deal with cases that were not captured by the other reliefs put in place around the time of the revaluation.

[Jim McMahon]

On the unintended consequences of the revaluation, the Association of Convenience Stores has raised the matter of the introduction of cash machines in convenience stores. When high street banks close in a precinct, village or town centre, so there is no cash machine, and a convenience store steps up to provide one, the turnover of that cash machine goes towards its rateable value. Will the Government look at that as part of their review?

[Rishi Sunak]

I do not have the full details on that issue, but I would be happy to look into it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the VOA makes decisions independently of Government, according to its guidelines, so it would be inappropriate for a Minister to interfere on an individual case. On his broader point, however, if the system is not picking something up properly, I would be happy to look at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley talked about the appeals process and how exactly it will work. In the old system, everything automatically turned into an appeal. In the new system, there will be two stages before an appeal—check and challenge—which anybody can avail themselves of. First, the appellant will ensure that the basic details of their business rates valuation are correct. Secondly, they will engage with the VOA to discuss that. Those two stages will hopefully mean that there is less reason to go to a formal appeal—although the appellant will still have the right to do that—which should reduce the incidence of spurious appeals.

I hope that I have covered all the points made by hon. Members and that I have assured the Committee that the Government are providing appropriate safeguards to ensure the fair operation of penalties, particularly through the right of appeal. It is clearly in everyone’s interest to ensure that the appeals system is underpinned by accurate information. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2018

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the Minister on his 10-minute speech on what is, essentially, narrow legislation. Nevertheless, it is important that we make progress and resolve the business rates issue.

Rather than give a set speech, I want to try to probe some areas where the Government have not been clear about what capacity and resources have been provided to make sure that the appeal system can work effectively.

We know that the statutory instrument is about the financial penalty and that it is a split payment of £200 or £500 depending on the size of the applicant. First, what consideration was given to a different schedule for levying penalty fees? For instance, a large business rate occupier such as a big supermarket, whose rating could be £1 million a year, will probably be paying £500 a day for their consultant to lodge the application. If that consultant is giving false or misleading information on their behalf, it seems slightly out of kilter for the penalty to be what is effectively their day rate. Compare that to a small business, which would pay the £200 penalty, and is trying to navigate the system alone. It could make a very genuine mistake but be found by the office to be perhaps misleading, and that would be a significant and disproportionate penalty.

The question is less about the principle of bringing in penalties, which is now very commonplace across Departments. However, an explanation of the rationale behind the split payment would be welcome. By that, I mean that we should move beyond referring back to the Enterprise Act 2016 as a reference point and make the case for why £500 is appropriate.

The second point refers to capacity in the valuation office. We know that there have been IT problems and gremlins in the system, but we cannot get away from the fact that the office has had significant staffing reduction since 2010. In terms of head count, the number of people working for the valuation office now is 546 lower than in 2010, when they are expected to implement a brand new system. We all know that the introduction of a new system requires a double run—existing creaky old systems need to be run, and the capacity is also needed to bring in a new system and implement it. I am not sure that the Government have provided the adequate resource to do that when 500 fewer people are working for the valuation office today than in 2010.

I also wonder whether the Government have reflected on other Departments making appeals against their rating valuation. For instance, up to 100 NHS hospital trusts are appealing their ratings liability to their local authorities. At the moment, they are being supported by a company called Bilfinger GVA, which is being paid a percentage fee of whatever is saved in that potential successful appeal. Councils have had to put £1.6 billion to one side in the likelihood that those appeals are successful, and face an ongoing pressure of £250 million a year. So, £1.6 billion a year is potentially needed for back-dated payments over six years and £250 million every year going forward if they are successful. On the back of that, a company will be taking a percentage fee from the potential saving.

We know that Government money is Government money. Wherever it is placed within different Departments, it is still public money that will be used for public good. When the Treasury gives the NHS money to pay its business rate bills and it is transferred to the local authority, that is still Treasury money that is being funnelled through to fund public services at a local level. If a private company is taking a percentage fee of 5%, 10% or even 20%, that is a net reduction in the money that is available to fund public services in an area, whether it is at local government level or within the NHS.

Have the Government given any thought to having a different approach for Departments that make ratings appeals to the valuations office? How can it be right that we are having a net reduction in the money that will be available for public services because money is going out to consultants? Surely a better way of doing that would be either to have a restriction on the ability to use external consultants charging a percentage fee on any potential savings, or to have some kind of mediation service within Government to resolve these issues between different Departments. That would, for me, feel like a potential way forward.

Have the Government considered that? When I first raised the question in November 2016, although I had a holding reply quite soon after that, it took six months for the Government to come back with their substantive reply, which said only that they were looking into it. I am still no clearer about what action they are taking, and whether they consider this to be a significant issue, both in terms of the principle behind it and the particular issue of NHS trusts making appeals. If the Government believe that it is an issue, will they support the Local Government Association campaign to make sure that the issue is addressed? I should declare an interest as vice-president of the LGA.

Finally, we know that the gremlins in the system are still there. I respect the Minister for acknowledging some of the technical issues that have occurred, but I come back to the capacity issue. If the Government really want this to work, they need to present an invest-to-save model. If they are going to put a new system in place, which they believe will be fundamentally more efficient and deliver a better service, they ought to be able to provide the up-front capacity to deliver that on the ground, and ensure that it comes in in a smooth and managed way. At the moment, the evidence does not support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I would be delighted to write to you, Mr Rosindell, and to other members of the Committee on that point. Before I confirm that, however, in the short term, I urge hon. Members to ensure that riding stables in their constituencies appeal to their local authorities for discretionary relief, as I have encouraged my auction marts and riding stables to do. The Chancellor announced a £325 million fund to deal with cases that were not captured by the other reliefs put in place around the time of the revaluation.

[Jim McMahon]

On the unintended consequences of the revaluation, the Association of Convenience Stores has raised the matter of the introduction of cash machines in convenience stores. When high street banks close in a precinct, village or town centre, so there is no cash machine, and a convenience store steps up to provide one, the turnover of that cash machine goes towards its rateable value. Will the Government look at that as part of their review?

[Rishi Sunak]

I do not have the full details on that issue, but I would be happy to look into it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the VOA makes decisions independently of Government, according to its guidelines, so it would be inappropriate for a Minister to interfere on an individual case. On his broader point, however, if the system is not picking something up properly, I would be happy to look at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley talked about the appeals process and how exactly it will work. In the old system, everything automatically turned into an appeal. In the new system, there will be two stages before an appeal—check and challenge—which anybody can avail themselves of. First, the appellant will ensure that the basic details of their business rates valuation are correct. Secondly, they will engage with the VOA to discuss that. Those two stages will hopefully mean that there is less reason to go to a formal appeal—although the appellant will still have the right to do that—which should reduce the incidence of spurious appeals.

I hope that I have covered all the points made by hon. Members and that I have assured the Committee that the Government are providing appropriate safeguards to ensure the fair operation of penalties, particularly through the right of appeal. It is clearly in everyone’s interest to ensure that the appeals system is underpinned by accurate information. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the important work that prevention plays. Nobody wants to see a child in need in those circumstances, which is why this Government have committed almost £1 billion to the troubled families programme over this period in the spending review. As recent results have shown, that is reducing the number of children in need after heavy intervention from their key workers in the programme.

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

Last week, the respected National Audit Office published its report on the financial sustainability of local authorities. It made clear the significant challenges faced by councils and the vital services that they deliver. Can the Secretary of State prove that he is on the side of local councils and place in the House of Commons Library any submissions that he has made to the Chancellor ahead of the spring statement?

[Rishi Sunak]

I also read the National Audit Office report with interest. I was pleased to see that it made very positive comments about the Department’s work in getting to grips with the challenges across local government and making sure that the sector is properly resourced and looks forward to the reviews that are being put in place to improve funding and business rates retention.