Business and Planning Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I rise to discuss new clause 6, which stands in my name. The Bill has been very rushed. It was announced on Thursday in the business of the House. We had to lay amendments by Friday, and I thank you, Dame Eleanor, for allowing a manuscript amendment today in order to get the new clause put forward.

As the Government rush into this legislation—I think there are questions about why that is—it is important that we make sure there are points of review and reflection about how well it is working. To put it more charitably, I am trying to save the Government from themselves. I think there is a lot of support across the House for the new clause, but in the very short time between Thursday and now, it has been hard to marshal all that and enable people to come and express their views.

The Minister may be able to answer this, but why has the Bill been quite so rushed, given that we have been in lockdown since 23 March and we knew that was coming for some time before then and given that we knew these sectors would be among the hardest hit? One would have thought that somebody in the Government would have been working up a Bill and stress-testing it before now, so that it was not such a surprise to Members of this House and sectors out there.

Local government has been caught rather by surprise. Of course it has been involved. I am not saying to the Minister that the Government have not spoken to local government. It would be extraordinary if he had come to the House from his Department and not done that. But there has not been enough detailed discussion about the impacts. We have heard, and I will not go into the detail again, about some of the impacts in constituencies such as mine and other urban constituencies with a high density of licensed premises, where antisocial behaviour has already been happening as a result.

We are already seeing problems, so there is a warning sign for the Government. The reality is that once off sales are allowed, as the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan said, at the same hours as on licensed premises—almost with a sweep of a pen, with a very short period for councils to object—we will see an awful lot more sales off the premises at all hours of the day and night. We also have the big issue about the resources involved from the police and local councils to police it.

It is easy to say, as the Minister did, that the police have certain powers and there are powers for local authorities, but the issue is the resourcing. We cannot just do all of that in one go. A lot of licences are being applied for. There are more than 1,300 licensed premises across my borough as a whole. How many licensing officers are needed to do that work? The police have other things to do with their time—certainly that is the case in my constituency, where they are dealing with serious crime issues, as well as antisocial behaviour and managing and policing social distancing and covid-19 regulations. There is a lot on everyone’s plate. We want to support businesses, but a three-month review after this has been in place would give the Government the chance to come back and either reassure us that it is all fine everywhere, or, if there are problems, look at ways of addressing that. The Minister has heard today from the Labour Front Benchers that there is strong support to get the economy going, and backing to make sure that businesses can survive the next period, as we still live in the pandemic. That is really important, certainly in a constituency such as mine with so many licensed premises, but we have to get that balance so that residents do not lose out.

This is a very mild amendment. Earlier, the Secretary of State rejected it because I had discussed a rolling amendment—I just say to the Minister that I had very little time to draft it and get advice about how to make it fit. I did not have time to discuss it in detail with the Government, otherwise I would have, and I know that other Members around the House agree with it.

I will not push the amendment to a vote today, but I am hoping that in the other place, they will have more time to think about, listen and reflect upon it, and that, in the meantime, the Government will also have time to reflect on it. Perhaps the Minister can give me some indication of whether this is something that the Government are willing to reflect on—to build in, simply, a three-month review point, so that three months after the Bill becomes an Act, the issue would come to the House again. A Minister would come to explain what is happening and we would have a debate about how this is working in our constituencies up and down the country, in the four nations of the UK, and we can make sure that we are getting it right. If there are problems then, the Government would have my backing to bring in certain powers to ensure that the antisocial behaviour that I fear this may herald is tackled, and I am sure that the Government would have the backing of other Members.

It would be helpful to hear from the Government about their thinking on this very mild amendment. We pushed for a review of the covid-19 legislation, which was pretty draconian. That was accepted by the Government and I propose this review in a similar spirit. I do not think that this will provide uncertainty for businesses. A review, when there has been such cross-party support in general for a proposal that supports businesses, is unlikely to completely reverse it, but it may allow for amelioration of some of the worst impacts if they materialise, as I fear they may in my constituency, or it may allow for different approaches to how the measures are applied in different nations of the UK, different regions or different cities.

They key thing is that if we have the review, it would give the Government and the House an option to look at this again. I think that something as draconian as this—the biggest change in licensing rules for decades—warrants a review. Some of these licences will be granted for a year if they pass through on the nod. A lot of them will go through very fast because of a lack of resources in local authorities. I urge the Minister to take my suggestion for this amendment constructively. I will not push it to a vote today because I recognise that, although the Bill is rushed, the amendment is also rushed. I hope, however, that the other place will consider it, that the Government will approach it thoughtfully and that when the Bill returns to this place, we can consider having a three-month review.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I shall speak to new clause 1, which I will not push to a Division because, for reasons mentioned by others—not least the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—I accept the premise of the Bill. It is about boosting the economy and creating flexibility so that people can begin to make a living again within the confines of the important safety restrictions that there are. However, I am very much looking to the Minister and the Government to be very clear that they will accept the terms and the general approach of my amendment, which seeks Government support for the hospitality and tourism industry beyond the current date set, which is the end of October, when the Government’s financial support schemes currently run out.

We welcome this Bill, rushed though it is, and understanding the necessity of that. We also welcome the support that the Government have given to the sector and the economy more widely. Undoubtedly the furlough scheme, the grant schemes and, more recently, after a lot of lobbying by myself and plenty of others, the discretionary schemes delivered through local authorities have helped to save thousands of companies from bankruptcy and protected millions of jobs. I am grateful to the Government for that.

Westferry Printworks Development

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am going to come on to the issue of the proportion of affordable housing that was included in the scheme. The timing of the decision is a further issue on which I am seeking clarification from the Secretary of State. He could easily provide that if he published the documents behind it. I hope that he will, and that Conservative Members will all be voting for that when this debate concludes.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Secretary of State’s behaviour, viability assessments are used by developers around the country to frustrate the affordable housing targets of local councils and planning authorities. South Lakeland District Council, Lake District National Park and Yorkshire Dales National Park do their best to provide affordable housing in a place where average house prices can be well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds, but viability assessments are often used to frustrate that process. Would it not be better if the Secretary of State were to stand up in the interests of affordable housing and not in the interests of the developer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

No; I wish to make this point, because it is important. The hon. Member for Croydon North also propagated another inaccurate story that is more serious and disappointing, and that is the one in respect of the application to build a new holocaust memorial for the United Kingdom in the grounds of this building. There has been a suggestion that in that case I used my powers as Secretary of State to call in the application. That is incorrect. The Secretary of State is the applicant for the holocaust memorial, and there is a clear Chinese wall whereby another Minister in the Department who has no interest in that application takes the ultimate decision. That is exactly what we did in that case, so I strongly urge Members from all parties, as well as the media who have reported on that issue, to tread carefully. We should not bring something as important as our national holocaust memorial into this party political discussion.

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very decent with his time.

The Secretary of State has made the case that he felt the need to intervene in this case to deliver housing. Does he understand my frustration and the frustration of many other Members present? In my part of the world, we have London house prices without anything like London wages. We regularly look to his Department to intervene to help to deliver affordable houses, yet his Department allows developers to get away with viability assessments that get rid of affordable housing. I wish he was also tough in cases when it comes to the Lake district and other parts of the country.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has asked to call in applications; he certainly has not come to see me about any applications during the past 12 months of my tenure, but I would happily meet him in the appropriate way if he wishes to do so. My record as Secretary of State is clear for all to see in the range of applications that I have considered and the difficult decisions that I have consistently made, which affect Members from all parties and their constituencies. If one does this job properly, one gets homes built. One does not necessarily make friends, and I make no apologies for that. Each decision must be made on its merits, but if we want to tackle the housing crisis, we need to build homes.

Housing and Planning

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough, who made an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate.

Like everybody else, I feel there is a whole range of issues that we could address when it comes to housing and planning, so I will be specific and talk about planning and regulation relating to those homes that are not typically lived in. In my constituency, roughly a minimum of 7,000 properties are not lived in. They are second homes, boltholes owned by people who can afford more than one home. It is not their principal home. That is not even beginning to count the number of holiday lets, which are an important part of the tourism economy in the lakes and the western dales.

We also have a more recent development with the rise of Airbnb. I want to be very clear that Airbnb, like all technology, is neutral; it is what we do with it that gives it moral value for or against. I can think of many advantages of affordable holidays for people, and I can think of advantages for people who have holiday lets on the platform. It is also a way of making good use of space.

There is a lot that is good about Airbnb, but there are some problems as well. Research conducted for The Guardian just a few weeks ago showed that one in five houses in the Langdales, in Ambleside and in part of Windermere were on Airbnb. Many of those will be in estates that would not typically house second homes or even holiday lets, so it is clear that there is a movement out of the full-time, affordable family market into homes that are being used simply for rental. That is deeply troubling, and I would like the Government to look at it.

I would also like the Government to understand that although in a free society people should be allowed to use their money however they wish, the excess of second homes in communities such as mine can become deeply problematic. When we think that probably 80% to 90% of homes in certain Lake District villages are not lived in all year round, it is no surprise that beautiful places such as Dent and Langdale—wonderful communities at opposite ends of my constituency, one in the lakes, one in the Yorkshire dales—have school rolls of less than 30. Why? Because the majority of the homes that could send children to those schools are owned by people who do not occupy them or add much in the way of economic value to the community.

So what would I like the Government to do? I would like them to tackle this matter, as they have been promising for many months now. I ask the Minister in particular to address this. The Government have had a consultation, which closed in January 2019. They have still to act upon it and say whether or not they are going to close the loophole, as the Welsh Assembly have done, that allows some second home owners to game the system and avoid not only paying business rates, but paying council tax altogether. A conservative estimate in my constituency is that second home owners using that loophole are costing local council tax payers in the south lakes at least £3 million a year.

Will the Minister close that loophole, as the Welsh Assembly have? Will he also look at changing planning law, so that having a second home is actually a separate category of planning use from having a first home, so we can regulate the amount of second home ownership in places such as the lakes and the dales? Will he allow councils to look at raising council tax in certain areas, to create a disincentive and allow a redistribution of income in national parks in particular?

Finally, will the Minister look at the Airbnb market, recognising its value and the contribution it makes, but also recognising that a lack of regulation, health and safety applications, insurance and other things may make it an unfair competitor, added to the fact that Airbnb seems to be taking away houses from the affordable market for local families in the lakes? Those issues are a challenge that a Government ought to be addressing.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I appreciate you calling me to speak, Mr Speaker.

I begin my brief remarks by paying tribute to the Grenfell survivors and their families bearing the weight of bereavement. They have fought for justice in the face of suffering that I cannot begin to imagine. Their dignity and determination continue to be awe-inspiring, and I uphold them in my prayers. On top of that, I honour the bravery of the firefighters. The personal risks they took are utterly humbling and we should be clear that any systematic failures in how the disaster was handled detract in no way from the phenomenal courage and hard work of firefighters on the ground.

The new building safety regulator must have the widest possible scope to ensure that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. It must, for example, look at all building materials. We need a complete review of the content and implementation of building regulations, including provisions for the use of sprinklers and cladding in tower blocks; local councils’ ability to check the details of developments prior to and during building or renovation; the ability to update building regulations as new products, processes and techniques become available and to use the regulations to enforce changes, where necessary, in buildings, based on updated knowledge of new products, processes and techniques.

It is unacceptable that thousands of families are still living in unsafe high-rise buildings. Smaller, often privately rented buildings in places such as south Cumbria can be, potentially, lethally unsafe, with their residents living in fear of what might happen or—more likely—in ignorance of the risk they are in. So I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement in his statement yesterday that from next month those responsible for failures to remove cladding would be named and shamed, but we cannot rely on that being sufficient when so many of those living in their properties may not have the means to take action. The Government must establish deadlines for the removal of the cladding. If that does not happen, they must step in and change the buildings themselves, and even present landlords with the bill. If they cannot be trusted to provide safe buildings, they cannot be trusted to be landlords. That may seem a radical step, but two and a half years after this tragedy is enough time to start the remediation of the work. It is not enough to ask them to remove it and pass on the responsibility; the Government must ensure that that happens. It is nothing less than a matter of life and death.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State referred to the Government’s absolute duty to ensure that action continued to be taken as quickly as possible so that a tragedy such as the one at Grenfell could never happen again. I commend him for his ambition, and plead with him to take those steps to enact the recommendations so that he can be true to his word.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Esther McVey)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to these Benches. She will be a terrific addition to this place, and I am delighted that she is dedicated to the green belt and supporting her constituents. That is only right, and the Government, too, are committed to that. Planning inspectors are appointed to independently examine plans. Given my quasi-judicial role in the planning system, it would not be appropriate for me to speak on this matter, but I cheer my hon. Friend on in all she does for her constituency.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The Government’s consultation on closing the loophole that allows second home owners to avoid paying any council tax whatever by pretending to be a small business ended 12 months ago. Will the Government take action to protect communities in south lakes and elsewhere, or have they decided not to bother?

[Esther McVey]

We will absolutely help communities like the hon. Member’s. The Government have removed the requirement to offer council tax discounts on second homes amounting to 75% of the full rate. He is quite right: the consultation closes on 16 January, and then we will make decisions on it. If he would like to discuss his suggestions with me, I will gladly meet him.

Building Safety

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Tim Farron—one sentence.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Given that naming and shaming has been set out by the Secretary of State, could he be more explicit about what sanctions he will be using against the individuals and organisations that fail to comply with making these buildings safe for their residents?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. In the first instance, we will be working with local authorities, which have such powers available to them. We will be supporting and guiding them to take robust action, but if we reach the end of the year and there are still building owners who have failed to participate—which would be shameful given that taxpayers’ money is available to them—I will consider all options available to us to ensure their compliance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the housing revenue account cap and our desire to see more council homes built, but he is right to say that we also want to see a general increase in housing supply. Last year’s figures show that more than 222,000 homes were delivered, the highest number for a decade. As my hon. Friend says, there is more to do, but I should emphasise to him that the number of first-time buyers is at an 11-year high.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The Government are failing to meet the housing needs of young people in the south lakes, while ignoring the simple fact that thousands of local houses are sitting empty as second homes. Will the Secretary of State agree to change planning and tax regulations, so that we can limit second home ownership and give our young people the chance of a place to call their own?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the broader issue of the need to increase supply. We have made reforms to ensure that there is clarity in the planning process, and through the schemes that I have mentioned. However, if the hon. Gentleman’s challenge is that there is more to do, yes, there is, and that is why we are determined to see that increase in supply. I think that is the best way to address the issues that he has highlighted in relation to his own constituency and others across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I commend her for the work she has done to champion the military covenant, which every local authority has signed. The Minister for Defence People and Veterans and my Department have just written to councils, to encourage them to have a covenant champion. It is through such practical measures that we want to ensure that the covenant pledges are upheld.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

T7. Given that waiting for the social care Green Paper makes Godot seem prompt, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the Opposition parties, as well as leaders of the all-party Local Government Association, to use the LGA’s excellent Green Paper as a starting point for fixing our broken social care system?

[James Brokenshire]

I continue to have discussions with the LGA and others to underline and champion the importance of sustainable local government finance and delivering good-quality social care. We also have discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care. It is right that we reform and challenge, and I will be taking that forward in terms of the spending review.

Housing Associations

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the accountability and role of housing associations.

I am pleased to see you presiding, Mr Owen, and to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue. I thank the National Housing Federation; Grenfell United; the Deputy Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Councillor Rachel Blake; the House of Commons Library; the Charity Commission; the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership; and Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association for their briefings ahead of the debate, as well as Jenny Symmons in my office for pulling them all together.

I do not believe that what I will say today is at all controversial, which might reassure the Minister. There are more than 1,400 providers of social housing in the UK, and roughly one sixth of our households live in a housing association or council property. There is clearly agreement that the status quo on oversight needs changing.

On Monday, the Minister and I attended an event at Speaker’s House to mark the second anniversary of the Grenfell fire. A speaker for the group, Ed Daffarn, made the point that the regulator had let them down. We all know that disastrous decisions were made in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower that led to the tragedy, and Ed identified that a key issue was the lack of regulation.

In the wake of Grenfell, the Government’s Green Paper on social housing, released last year, promised to create “safe and decent” homes,

“empowering residents and ensuring their voices are heard so that landlords are held to account”

and

“improving and speeding up how complaints are resolved”.

Those commitments were very welcome; however, we are yet to see the fruits. One of the biggest areas that needs tackling in the sector is the lack of clear regulation and accountability for housing associations. Solving that problem would surely lead to the delivery of safer homes, empowered residents and an effective complaints procedure.

I often find it confusing what the exact roles of the social housing regulator and the ombudsman are. Where are the lines of responsibility? It is unclear what the demarcations are in the roles of the two bodies, which causes serious problems not only for residents who need to report concerns, but for me. Currently, the social housing regulator seems to oversee financial regulation and value for money, and in extreme cases consumer standards, but does not handle routine customer service oversight. That lands in the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman.

However, residents can turn to the ombudsman only if their complaint is rejected by the housing association in the first instance. Even then, many residents do not know that they have that option. I have been informed that even if a resident does know that they can escalate their complaint to the local government ombudsman, it can take at least a year for their case to be dealt with due to the huge remit covered and the high volume of complaints.

There is also the issue that two ombudsmen cover housing. The local government ombudsman technically covers social housing, but the housing ombudsman supposedly covers all housing. That leads to confusion about which body to turn to, and sometimes residents turn to both, which is a waste of time and resources. Labour’s Green Paper, “Housing for the Many”, makes it clear that the way forward is to have a single housing ombudsman who takes responsibility for the regulation of all housing, and who completely covers customer service and complaints handling. That dedicated service could deal with complaints in a shorter timescale, and would cut out confusion and restore authority to residents.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, owing to their status, neither housing associations nor private landlords are required to respond to freedom of information requests? Given that, tenants might therefore have no access to fire safety reports or other such important information?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to that point later.

For residents, be they social renters, key workers, people with shared equity or leaseholders, accountability and transparency are key. For public sector home owners or renters, responsibility for their home maintenance is generally clear, but in the private sector it is not. A recent example of such confusion is the Barking fire on Sunday. There appears to be a complete lack of information on who owns the freehold. Responsibility for the failings therefore cannot be allocated. How are residents supposed to feel confident in their homes when no particular company or individual will take responsibility for their safety and welfare? A clear system of regulation for housing association homes would go some way to making residents feel comfortable and protected.

Domestic Abuse

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Lady and the work of her Select Committee in ensuring a good evidence base, and in taking that evidence and presenting it in the way the Committee did. We have responded to that today. The statutory duty will do much to ensure a focus on commissioning, resources and delivering against the need in individual communities.

The right hon. Lady makes a valid and fair point about co-operation within and between areas. There have previously been problems, so we have given firmer and clearer guidance on people’s ability to access services in an area even if they do not live in that area; somehow that was previously a barrier, which it should not have been. It is important that we remain vigilant and conscious of such problems as we approach the consultation and what we learn from it.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I support very strongly. It is very timely, of course. A recent Women’s Aid report showed that about a third of domestic abuse services have been forced to reduce the support they provide in the past few years, and that one in 10 refuges received no funding whatsoever from local authorities in the past 12 months.

The Secretary of State refers to partnership with police and crime commissioners. Will he provide additional funds for police authorities such as Cumbria to reverse the cuts in police numbers in order to identify and protect victims? Will he say a little more about what assessment he has made of the impact on other local services, because councils inevitably raid important other budgets to subsidise new statutory services if they are not properly funded and, indeed, ring-fenced?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about the investment that was provided last November and the bed capacity it has given, and about other services that have been provided in that way. There is clearly much more to do, but the number of available bed spaces for victims has actually risen since 2010. Again, I want to see that there is proper, assessed support for the needs that are there, which is what the statutory duty is all about.

Police funding is obviously a matter for Home Office colleagues, but I would point out that more than £1 billion extra has been made available to the police during this financial year.

Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

It is important to remember that the Bill is much narrower in scope than the design of the business rates system and how individual businesses pay the bills they are given. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the high streets Minister, is looking forward to winding up the debate, and he will be able to give the House chapter and verse on every single initiative the Government have undertaken to support businesses on the high street. In sum, there has been £13 billion of relief since the 2016 Budget, and a third of all businesses no longer pay any rates at all.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. On that point, however valuable and commendable many of the proposals he mentions may be, does he not feel that this is somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns, or indeed many of our town centres burn? There have been calls for a reduction of around 25% in high street business rates, and that could be funded by making sure that the tech giants pay their fair share of corporation tax.

[Rishi Sunak]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am loth to get drawn on to topics that are much broader than the very narrow scope of this Bill. However, I am happy to reiterate that I do not think the £675 million high street fund my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the high streets Minister introduced earlier this year is a case of fiddling while Rome burns. The Government are committed to the vibrancy of our high streets through various initiatives that will be outlined in my hon. Friend’s winding-up speech.

Indeed, the Bill is also an important measure; it is a measure that businesses have called for. Given the statutory nature of HMRC, it is impossible to move forward without this short piece of legislation. The reason for that is that businesses today receive separate business rates bills for each non-domestic property they occupy. Large businesses with property in different areas may receive bills from a number of local authorities responsible for issuing bills and collecting payment. It is worth bearing in mind that there are over 300 different billing authorities today, each with its own system of billing for business rates. While I pay tribute to the good work carried out by local authorities in administering business rates locally, the Government’s clear view is that reforming the system to more closely link with the wider management of business taxes led by HMRC could unlock long-term improvements to the current system.

Members will appreciate that implementing any reform of this scale takes significant time and that it is critical that the Government engage with businesses and local government in developing and designing any new digital system; indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton brought that up in Committee during consideration of the previous Bill. I am pleased to tell him that the measure before us today will take many years to come to full fruition. The current intention announced by the Treasury is that any new design of the system will not come into force until after the next revaluation, in 2024. What we are doing today is therefore just a very small first step on a journey that requires an enormous amount of engagement and consultation.

The main measure in the Bill allows HMRC to expend resources on beginning to explore designs for a new digital service for business rates. That is necessary because HMRC’s current statutory functions do not include activity in connection with the administration of business rates. To be clear, the legislation we are considering simply permits HMRC to begin the necessary design and engagement work for a potential new digital service. It does not implement any reforms to the current system of business rates administration.

That is important because, as I have noted, the Government are clear on the need to engage with businesses and local government to seek views on any specific options for reform. For example, the local government sector will want to ensure that any changes are fully compatible with the local retention of business rates and with plans to increase rates retention in the future. Equally, business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Independent Retailers Association and the CBI will be keen to engage in future design work to ensure any reforms deliver benefits to businesses and minimise any burdens. Members should also be aware that any practical reforms to the system are likely to require further changes to legislation and, as such, there will be opportunity for full scrutiny of any proposals once the design work has concluded.

The Government’s efforts to improve digital tax services are already helping businesses seize the opportunities that digital technology offers. They are giving businesses more control over their finances, allowing them to spend their time focusing on innovation, growth and the creation of jobs. The Bill will support this by enabling HMRC simply to begin exploring potential options to link business rates with the administration of the wider tax system. It will also enable HMRC to undertake the necessary engagement with stakeholders to ensure any reforms work for business and for local government. While the Bill is just a small paving measure, it supports some potentially significant long-term improvements to the current system. I commend it to the House.