Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing order No. 31(2)).
That this House notes the Resolutions of this House of 31 October 2006, 11 June 2007 and 25 March 2008 on an Iraq inquiry; recognises the heroic efforts of the British armed forces in Iraq who have a continuing role which this House should be careful not to undermine; further recognises that a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate, but declines to make a proposal for a further inquiry at this time, whilst important operations are underway in Iraq to support the people and government of Iraq.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that the effect of the five per cent. rise in business rates and the end of transitional rate relief will mean soaring bills at a time of deflation and recession; notes the poor take-up of small business rate relief and calls for entitlement to be made automatic in England, as it is in Wales; believes the complex and shrinking Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme should be replaced with genuine incentives for local authorities to promote business growth; further calls for local authorities to have the power to apply local business rate discounts; expresses concern about the effect of the 2010 rates re-valuation on retail premises and urges a review of the re-valuation plans; cautions that local firms will suffer as a result of the Governments business rate rises on empty property, new supplementary rates being imposed with no business say, and retrospective increases in rates on business by ports; and asserts that the Governments policies on business rates are harming local firms during the recession.
I sometimes think that opening a second half-day debate is a bit like being in the second house in repertory, but I hope that we have a better audience than is sometimes the case in those circumstances. [ Interruption. ] As the Minister says, the quality sometimes comes on later.
I am sure, however, that everyone will recognise that this is a topic of the first order of magnitude. It is a topic of such magnitude because business rates are a significant part of the existence, and success or failure, of many parts of our wealth-creating sector. The debate is timely because on 5 April, businesses throughout the country will receive a new set of business rates for the coming year. It is a matter of sadness from any point of view that many businesses will approach that day with considerable trepidation.
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): Does my hon. Friend recognise that the debate is also timely because it is a quarter day? Up and down the country, thousands of small businesses will have to pay their commercial rents or land rents to landlords. Has he heard of any assistance proposed by the Government to allow those businesses to continue in existence, because if they do not, they will not be able to pay the rates either?
Robert Neill: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Governments amendment, which I shall come to later, makes a passing and broad-brush reference to certain proposals, but I do not think that they are adequate, as I hope I shall explain. His other extremely important point is the significant impact of business rates on the viability of businesses as a whole. Local firms in particular cite rates, after rent and staff, as their highest overhead. A significant hike in business rates, therefore, can be the difference between survival and prosperity or a business going down the tubes with jobs and prosperity being lost. That is why the effect of the proposed increase in business rates, compounded with the difficulties that many businesses in the small and medium-sized sectors are already suffering, makes the debate so timely. The situation for those people is particularly grave.
Against that background, it is not surprising that troubling figures are already emerging on the impact of business rate increases on top of other costs of the economic downturn. So far, the Local Government Association reports that four out of five councils have found an increase in empty properties in their town centres. That was before this rate increase happened; 80 per cent. of councils found that businesses are being driven out of our high streets, thanks clearly and firmly to the economic failures of this Government.
The LGA also pointed out a significant increaseof 56 per cent.in the number of firms having difficulty paying business rates. That is an enormous increase, and if firms are having difficulty paying their business rates, they may well have difficulty in meeting their other obligations. Their viability is in danger. Why? It is because of the failure of the Government to do anything about proper liquidity for genuine and otherwise viable businessesreflected in their failure to adopt the proposals advanced by my party for a proper loan guarantee scheme to get credit flowingand because of the compounding of costs and regulations for those businesses. As a result, businesses are caught in a deadly pincer movement. Some eight out of 10 councils also found an increase in the number of small firms seeking business support. Those three sets of statistics from across the country are grim figures that are a serious indictment of this Governments handling of matters.
I turn to the impacts of the business rate that we seek to address in our motion, to some of the points where we take issue with the Government, and to areas where we believe that more can be done. The first issue is the increase of 5 per cent. that is due this year. That is especially hard for businesses to bear, because the methodology that the Government have adopted is difficult for many people to understand. It is based on rental values in April 2008, when the inflation index was higher than it is now. Businesses are facing an increase of 5 per cent. in rates when international price indexIPIinflation is down to 0.1 per cent. and we are likely to experience deflation in the coming year. Businesses still have to meet the inflationary increase, which is based on thoroughly out-of-date figures.
That will make it hard for many small businesses to survive, yet, to revert to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made, the Government have made no suggestions about the methodology, which could be changed and improved. Indeed, we hear the contrary from the Secretary of State, who has not graced us with her presence today. I am sorry that she is not here, because it is always a pleasure to see her and look her straight in the eye, as perhaps I can [Laughter.] If one has a unique selling point, one should not be afraid to flaunt it.
When taxed with the difficulties that businesses would experience, the Secretary of States response was,
it is essential to try to maximise the take from non-domestic rates.[ Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c.608.]
That gives it all away. The survival of businesses and the viability of local services are not the Governments concern, but using businesses as a cash cow is. Businesses are being clobbered by the increase in non-domestic rates to bail out the Governments waste. Among other things, business rates are being used to subsidise the pointless VAT cut. On what would most people prefer public money to be spent? The Secretary of States comment gives away the Governments position.
Businesses are suffering from the further complication this year of the end of transitional relief from the previous 2005 revaluation. It is likely that that will raise another £100 million, taken away from businesses that are already in difficulty. People therefore face a genuine double whammy. Again the Government have done nothingnot even expressed a hint of concernabout the impact of the cliff edge on which many businesses are perched.
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the hospitality industry, including pubs and restaurants, is especially affected? This morning, I got an e-mail from Greens restaurant in Whitby, which has experienced a rates increase this year from £2,747 to £5,531. Several businesses in Whitby have contacted me to say that their rates have doubled through the combination of the end of transitional relief and the increase to which my hon. Friend referred.
Robert Neill: My hon. Friend is rightall the surrounding evidence supports his point. Again, it is worth noting that the Local Government Associationa cross-party bodyhas identified exactly the same problem throughout the country and in all sectors as my hon. Friend identified in his constituency in the hospitality sector.
In the south-east of England, a public house has experienced an increase from £1,800 to £6,600. Elsewhere, different sorts of businesses, even small ones, are experiencing increasesfrom, for example, £10,500 to £31,500. That is a triple increaseimpossible for people to bear under current circumstances. Not only small businesses are affected. Some large organisations in our main town and city centres are also badly affected. One of the large metropolitan councils has reported examples of bills increasing from £37,000 to £123,000, and from £36,000 to £203,000. Such increases are not sustainable. My final example is not even the largest in gross or percentage terms: it is an increase from £567 to £17,096.
I speak with feeling about that, because as some hon. Members may know, many years ago my mother ran a small shop. When we looked at the situation each year to ensure that things were kept going, we needed a reasonable projection of what the increases might be. However, no one can be expected to keep their head above water in the current climate with those sorts of increases.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): When my hon. Friends mother was running her shop all those years ago, the business rate was a local tax that was set by local authorities. A Conservative Government moved it to the Consolidated Fund and it has now become a substantial plaything in national revenues for distributive policies at the centre and therefore does not reflect the needs of local communities.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |