Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill

Debate between Matt Warman and Greg Knight

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

We are always being told that debates in Parliament should be about real people, not statistics, and in that spirit, for me, this debate is about cabbages and flooding, not business rates per se.

This matter first came to my attention when the Black Sluice drainage board came to me deeply concerned about the prospect of losing £23,000 as a result of the levy. Worrying though that was, it turned out that a business in my constituency—it is incredibly rural, and in many areas business rates payments are very little, which is why I have some concerns about business rates retention, although we will gloss over that—was, although set to see its drainage levy fall by £23,000, faced with a business rates rise of well into six figures. So my drainage board—one of several in my constituency—was in a state of some confusion over the prospect of not having enough money to keep people’s feet dry, and my local businesses were in a state of perturbation at the prospect of going bankrupt.

This anomaly was a real issue for my constituents, as it was for those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). When I went to see R. Fountain & Son, the business in my constituency, I was delighted to discover not just its confidence in expanding its business, this potential problem aside, but how much it led not just Lincolnshire—a pretty difficult place to lead when it comes to growing brassicas—but the country in terms of its technology. In collaboration with the National Farmers Union, whose work on this I pay particular tribute to, it alerted me to the anomaly arising from the Tunnel Tech case and the ramifications of that case for it and others running glasshouses across my constituency.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I believe that my hon. Friend’s constituency contains two villages called Bicker and Wrangle, which I have always thought would make an excellent name for a law firm.

It was suggested earlier that there should be a compensation fund for those who had had to pay rates in the past, and also for local authorities that had suffered loss. What is my hon. Friend’s view on that, and who does he think should pay for such a fund?

[Matt Warman]

My constituency also contains a village called Old Leake, which is in the same ward as Wrangle. “Wrangle and Old Leake” surely has some comic potential as well. I agree with my right hon. Friend that businesses that have paid out—I should say that I do not believe that Fountain is in that position—should be entitled to the refund that the Minister suggested, and the Government should consider establishing such a fund if compensation is due.

Having been exempted from rates since 1929, the businesses to which I have referred were faced with a number of factors that they had previously never even had to consider incorporating in their business models. I understand that glasshouses, which are obviously of huge concern to a constituency such as mine, have been exempted since the 1990s. An issue on which businesses throughout this section of the economy have been entirely predicated was upended by the courts almost overnight.

I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) that the Government deserve some credit for seeking to clarify what might have been an important issue had the system been allowed to persist. There was real concern—not just among businesses in my constituency—when it became obvious that the Valuation Office Agency was going down this path. I began by saying that the issue was about brassicas and flooding, but in fact it is about the jobs that would have been at stake. If the Government had not intervened to clarify the position, people would undoubtedly would have found themselves out of work.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who at the relevant time had ministerial responsibility for these matters. Having visited those at R. Fountain & Son and reassured them that I was confident that such an extreme situation could only be the result of a mistake rather than Government policy, I had the extraordinary and delightful experience of mentioning that to my hon. Friend in a Lobby—he may not even remember it—and being told that the Government were already looking into the matter. It was a pleasure to be able to go back to businesses in my constituency and say that the Government would not be daft enough to increase their business rates so suddenly and massively.

To be honest, however, it was an even greater pleasure to go back to the drainage board. While I obviously care greatly about businesses throughout my constituency, the work of drainage boards in Lincolnshire is particularly and enormously valuable. They do huge service to the broader economy, and provide a great deal of reassurance through their work with the Environment Agency across the broader flooding landscape. Given that, according to the Association of British Insurers, my constituency is at greater risk of flooding than any other, I am particularly alive to that.

As I have said, my constituency is largely agricultural, and we are grateful for the business rates retention pilot. The Department is obviously aware of what must be done to ensure that business rates retention works for the areas to which it is applied, and that we do not end up losing out overall and accidentally giving more money back to the Treasury. I know that it does not intend that to happen in any circumstances.

I hope that Members will bear in mind that the Bill represents a useful endeavour to fix a problem that would have had a real impact not only on the local economy and jobs in my constituency, but on the availability of cabbages throughout the country, about which I know the House cares deeply. I also hope that, while accepting my praise for his swift action, the Minister will bear in mind that it highlights what business rates retention may well look like as we proceed with what I consider to be a worthwhile and popular policy.

Broadband

Debate between Matt Warman and Greg Knight

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered broadband speeds and advertising.

This House has considered broadband many times before and will, I am sure, do so again. It is only fair for me to begin by saying that this Government, like the previous coalition Government, have made real efforts to roll out broadband across the country. With their track record, they genuinely lead the class in Europe, and we should all welcome the additional money in today’s Budget for yet more broadband. But this debate is not about the provision of broadband itself; it is about a rather simpler fact—the price that people pay for the speed they think they are buying when they sign up to a service.

I shall draw a brief analogy. If you went to a supermarket to buy a bunch of organic grapes, Mr Owen, and you paid for those organic grapes at the checkout but found out afterwards that, in fact, you had only a tenth of the grapes that you thought you had bought and they were not actually organic, you might be rather grumpy. That is analogous to the situation with broadband advertising.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate. Is it not the case that, in effect, those who advertise in that way obtain by false pretences? They use statistics selectively and in a misleading way to obtain business.

[Matt Warman]

Elsewhere, I have called that practice a fraud on the consumer, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that current practices are simply not fair, reasonable or easily understandable to consumers. Presumably, hon. Members are here because they know that, according to the regulations, just 10% of people who sign up for a service have to receive the advertised speed, so 90% of people do not receive that speed.