Business Rates

Debate between Chris Curtis and Dan Tomlinson

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have set out a package of support for hotels and all other businesses. It is worth around £2 billion this year and £4 billion over the next three years. If there are hotels in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that are facing significant increases in their rateable values this year, the increases in their bills will potentially be many multiples lower, because bill increases are capped at either £800 for small businesses or at 15% or 30% for the largest. It is really important that we distinguish—I am not saying that he is not doing so, because I am not sure of the detail—between the change in rateable values and the change in bills. That is important, and it sometimes gets lost in this discussion.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I welcome the engagement from the Minister and today’s fantastic announcement, and invite him to come and have a pint at the Dolphin in my constituency, where I used to pull pints. Just down the road is William Cowley, a business that has been in my constituency since 1870. It produces the vellum on which much of the history of this nation has been written, including royal weddings, births and deaths; royal patents; freedoms of the city; and many Acts of Parliament. It is worried about its viability going forward, particularly after the revaluation of business rates. Will the Minister agree to meet me to have a discussion about how we can better support heritage businesses going forward?

[Dan Tomlinson]

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Chris Curtis and Dan Tomlinson

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.

If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.

[Chris Curtis]

Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.