Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will do my best to keep standing—if nothing else, it will make me speak for a lot less time than I might otherwise, which will be a relief to everyone. I both congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and thank him for securing this important debate. He speaks from personal experience, and he spoke very movingly and powerfully about the situation we are discussing today. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic.

Politics is often about addressing the great matters of state. We often talk about war and peace in this House. However, politics is also about making people’s everyday lives that little bit easier. One of the things all MPs discover is that we learn a lot from our constituents—certainly if those constituents are from Yorkshire, as the Chairman will appreciate. I was profoundly moved after a meeting I had with a group of my constituents in 2017. I had called in at the Dales School in Morton-on-Swale near Northallerton, and a group of parents of the most severely disabled children at the school wanted to talk to me. They told me about the difficulties they faced as families when they went out. and explained how a lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities meant that visiting the majority of leisure attractions and destinations across the country on a day out, which most families would take for granted, was nigh-on impossible for them.

I vividly remember one mum putting in front of me a magazine with all the events and attractions happening across the region in the summer holidays. She had gone through them and crossed out 99% because they did not have the facilities that her child required. As a parent myself, I looked at that list, saw all the places she had crossed out and realised that those were the very places I had taken my two young daughters to, to help them fall in love with Yorkshire after we first moved there. I reflected on the huge unfairness of that situation and how it compounded the difficulties that that family and many others faced—difficulties that most of us will never encounter—and how most of those places were just off limits for them. As I sat there, I felt that the situation was just not right.

Another parent, Andrew, spoke—similarly to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—of the physical difficulty and the indignity of having on occasion to change his 10-year-old daughter Aniela on rough ground behind a shed or on the dirty floor of a public bathroom, because those were the only places available to them in the circumstances. I admit that, going into my meeting with those parents, I had complacently assumed that we had largely resolved the issue of access to and provision of disabled toilets in this country. I had not realised, until I met and listened to them, that for young children or adults who require the help of a carer to use a toilet, a disabled toilet is not sufficient. They need a Changing Places facility with a bench, a hoist and a privacy screen.

After that meeting, I vowed to those parents that I would do whatever I could to raise and highlight the issue, which I began to do as a Back-Bench MP in Parliament. Fortuitously, a year later, I was lucky to be appointed Minister for Local Government. In that role, I was inspired by my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague. As Minister for disabled people, which was one of his first ministerial jobs, he was instrumental in bringing into law, under John Major’s Government, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That legislation enshrined in law the principle that institutions must make reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people.

Twenty years after the introduction of the 1995 Act, I felt that we needed to renew that spirit to address the issue of Changing Places. As a junior Minister, I therefore set about changing building regulations to make it mandatory to install Changing Places facilities in new large public buildings such as shopping centres, cinemas and theme parks.

At about that time, I happened to meet Zack Kerr, a young campaigner with cerebral palsy—I am sure the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford knows him well. Zack told me then:

“Life can be difficult enough in many ways, but when there are no accessible toilet facilities where I can be hoisted safely from my wheelchair and changed in privacy and with dignity, I face the choice between staying at home or restricting my social life because of my needs...that’s just not fair.”

Zack rightly also pointed out the need for Changing Place facilities at motorway service stations, so that families could travel freely across the country. I am glad that, when the Conservatives were in Government, we made £4 million available not just to install Changing Places at motorway service stations, but to make a better start on installing them in NHS hospitals.

In 2020—fortuitously or not, depending on your point of view—I then became Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my first Budget, I launched the £30 million Changing Places fund, which match funded the cost of installing the toilets in existing buildings, where the need is, as we have heard, significant. I am delighted that over the subsequent years, the fund has made possible almost 500 different Changing Places facilities across the nation, including in Leyburn and at the Dales Countryside Museum in Hawes in my constituency.

As we have heard, more than 2,500 Changing Places are now installed across the country. We should take a moment to reflect that that is three times as many as there were a decade or so ago, when I first became aware of the issue. Now landmark attractions such as Alton Towers, Madame Tussauds and the Tower of London, as well as most Premier League stadiums and cinemas and shopping centres right across the country, all have that vital facility in place. Of course, the job is not done. We need more Changing Places facilities; almost a quarter of a million people rely on them.

We have made real progress, and it is worth taking a moment to thank the people who deserve praise for that. The consortium, as we have heard, is now run by PAMIS and the Centre for Accessible Environments, but previously, when I was in post, it was run by Mencap and Muscular Dystrophy UK, supported by many others. They deserve enormous credit for their co-ordination and campaigning on this issue. So do the tireless campaigners up and down the country—families with severely disabled children and other family members, like dad Andrew Newton and his daughter Aniela, who came to see me all those years ago.

Certainly for my part, as I reflect on my political career, it will remain one of my proudest achievements to have played a small part in supporting all their efforts. Every time a parent gets in touch to say they have been able to enjoy a family day out that most of us take for granted, I feel a real sense of pride. We all know there is much wrong with our politics, but this issue shows the value of our constituency system: communities are able to raise issues directly with their elected representatives and see them turned into action. It also shows the benefit of working across party lines over years to make changes, and to make people’s lives that bit easier.

I associate myself with the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I know the Minister will have listened hard to what he said about the need for capital funding for existing buildings, and I am sure she will do what she can to make colleagues in Government aware of that issue, and to make representations to them. I know she will do that because all of us here are deeply committed to ensuring that these families can enjoy more opportunities and the better quality of life that they deserve, and most importantly, have the chance to live with dignity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for introducing a topic that, as he said and as we all know, touches the very core of human dignity, equality and basic compassion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) as well; I thank her for her contribution.

It was also a pleasure to hear the story told by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) of how he was approached by his constituents and how, as he rose up the ministerial ladder, he used his position to ensure that the very things that his constituents had asked for were delivered. I wish to put on record my thanks to him for using his position for his constituents and all our people, because ultimately, we all benefit from that £50 million to which he referred.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am not sure what is going on, but whenever she turns up, I seem to turn up as well. Westminster Hall has been well used this week on numerous occasions by both of us, and by many others as well. However, we seem to be featuring in similar debates.

When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, I will knock on any door and speak in any Chamber to ensure that they are not forgotten. That is why today is so important. I secured a debate just a few weeks ago about stoma care facilities and public toilets, but today we are talking about something slightly different: Changing Places toilets. We are not talking about standard disabled toilets; we are talking about life-changing essential facilities that provide an adult-sized, height-adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilet and room for two carers—the physical room for them to be able to help.

Without those facilities, thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I would not like that, which is why I am here to speak up. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his moving contribution and his personal story. We all agree that personal stories carry weight. Today, he shared his with us all, and I thank him for doing so.

The Government previously announced magnificent capital funding pots for Changing Places toilets across England. But as the Member for Strangford, I will tell the story from Northern Ireland—it is not a great story but a disappointing one; maybe not for my constituency but certainly across Northern Ireland—to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind.

An estimated 7,000 people across our province rely entirely on Changing Places facilities to live a normal life, yet the figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst-performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision, with a shocking lack of options outside major city hubs. Campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland—it almost makes me cringe to say this—still have no registered Changing Places facilities, leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that are meant to care for them, which leaves me incredulous. I followed up with the Northern Ireland Minister in relation to the stoma debate, and I will do the same now to reinforce the need for change.

I am very fortunate that my constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North Down have been able to record the data: out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the borough, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. When looking for true, fully compliant and registered Changing Places toilets, the list shrinks even further. I commend—and I mean this, because I know that it has been doing many things—Ards and North Down borough council. I had the distinct honour of serving on it for some 26 years, and it has shown real leadership: it was the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure that all council accessible toilets were stoma-friendly. That is the good news story I shared in the stoma debate in this place about four weeks ago.

The council has successfully put standard Changing Places facilities into key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatic and Leisure Complex, the Comber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex. My council has moved mountains to make sure that those things happened, but local councils cannot carry the weight alone on strained ratepayers’ money.

If a family want to enjoy the beautiful shores of the Ards peninsula where I live, or visit Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Cloughey, the facilities simply do not exist. Those places are nearly off-limits for those who, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, want to take their family out, even if it is only two hours down the road and back again. Families are forced to cut their days short and rush back to Newtownards or Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner—we are talking about dignity here—which is a crying shame in this day and age.

While Northern Ireland has introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets in any new major public buildings such as shopping centres—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred to that—the Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints and have explicitly stated that they lack the central capital budget to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs and some town centres.

I am ever-mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities and that she always tries to give helpful answers to our questions, but will she take up this cause with the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ringfenced resources to expand their Changing Places network? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I presume that the £50 million earmarked for the project had Barnett consequentials.

[Rishi Sunak]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important point he made earlier. I was coming on to say that of course I absolutely welcome a dialogue with him, but also with the consortium that has been referenced in the debate, which does such good work already. I am happy to meet with the consortium myself, but I am also confident that MHCLG and all current or future Ministers would welcome that engagement and dialogue. My hon. Friend is right that these sorts of facilities are successfully delivered only if there is a cross-governmental commitment.

Regulation and funding are part of that challenge, but we also need a joint recognition of the challenges in our communities to be able to see things delivered. The consortium is clearly playing a valuable role in articulating those challenges. It is absolutely right that MHCLG has that engagement and I am confident that it will going forward. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any letters, correspondence or meetings that we need to have as a Department in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we can continue to make the case for these facilities.

Let me address the point about specific Government Departments and the opportunities that we face now because of Government initiatives and changes, which we do not want to lose, so that we can improve facilities for those who have needs. I was shocked to hear that so many NHS hospitals do not have the provision that we are talking about. That is not acceptable, and I think that all our constituents would be surprised to hear that. I am very happy to take that away and speak to colleagues in other Departments; I think they, too, will be surprised. It is a good example of where we need cross-governmental working, and I welcome the input from Members on how we might be able to do that.

I recognise the important points made about transport. The Government’s commitment to accessible transport is demonstrated in the spending that we have committed to the railways. Because of that, there is an opportunity to make sure they are accessible, and our transport hubs will play a key part in that. I will take those two specific points away.

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend made on modernising software and maps. A needs map, if you will, feels like quite an obvious thing that we could do, which would really make a difference to constituents across the country who simply do not know if there is a facility. An ability to map out the gaps could also give the necessary encouragement to Government and local authorities to allocate the moneys that are required to set up facilities.

I recognise the strength of feeling across the House in this very important debate on ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people’s dignity and independence. I pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The very best of politics are people who just get things done. I saw that for many years in local government, when he got things done, and he gets things done as a Member of Parliament too, but nobody who knows him will say that he is a soft touch in any way. He is formidable and effective. He is my hon. Friend, but he will tell me if we are doing something wrong as a Government, as he has.

[Rishi Sunak]

I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). Before the Minister wraps up, I thank her for a very considered, informed and thoughtful response to the debate. Whatever happens next week, I very much hope that she is in a position to continue being a champion of this cause in Government, because I think she would do it very well.

[Nesil Caliskan]

That is very generous of the right hon. Member. I again thank all Members for their contributions and provide my reassurance that MHCLG will be committed to doing everything it can to meet the challenges that our constituents face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and he talks with great passion, commitment and knowledge about these issues. Interfaith work is key; we are seeing that within our communities. The Department is committed to supporting interfaith work and working with all our faith communities. We will continue to do that, because, ultimately, it is people of faith in our communities who will come together and do the hard work of bridging and bonding our communities at a time when there is huge pressure on all sides.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

I recently had the privilege of spending some time with the Jewish community of Stamford Hill. Those conversations reinforced that we must, as the Minister rightly said, do more to combat antisemitism. She cited the recent figures showing that antisemitism is at near record levels. When in government, we put in place the first multi-year funding for the Community Security Trust, and I thank the Government for recently extending and increasing that funding. Will the Minister join me in thanking CST volunteers and agree that anti-religious hatred has no place in our society?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is always a champion for Cornwall. To confirm, there were two things that drove the allocation: indices of multiple deprivation and our community needs index. For places that did not receive Pride in Place funding, within our strategy there is a whole suite of tools and levers that communities can grip in order to drive the change that they want to see. I hope we will see that in Cornwall.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

The Great Ayton allotments group received funding from the community ownership fund last year. As the deadline for disbursing the funds approaches, delays in a related planning application are threatening that funding. I thank Department officials for trying to resolve the issue, and I ask Ministers to support that flexibility, because the project means a great deal to the community of Great Ayton.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising the important work that has been done in his constituency. We will continue to work with that group, because we want to ensure that all communities have the ability to grip assets and drive the change that they want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I fully share my hon. Friend’s anger about the unfunded commitments to Hucknall from the previous Government. I know how disappointing that has been locally. I am pleased we have been able to reprioritise some funding within extremely tight budgets to give the support that she talks about. As she knows, I live only two tram stops from Hucknall, and of course I would be keen to pop on the tram and see her—and if we meet in the Plough, I would be doubly keen. Either way, I will be making sure I get to see her.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

In 2017, I met parents of children with severe disabilities in my constituency. A lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities made it almost impossible for those families to enjoy a day out, and I have been inspired to campaign for more Changing Places toilets ever since. I recently opened a Changing Places toilet just off Leyburn High Street, which will improve accessibility across Wensleydale. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone involved and commit to supporting more Changing Places toilets across the country, so that families can have both the opportunity and the dignity that they deserve?

[Alex Norris]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for Changing Places toilets, which have their roots in Nottingham. Frankly, people will not be able to access the amenities on their high streets if they do not feel they can leave their home without those facilities. I share his enthusiasm and commend him and his community. He sells himself slightly short, however, because I recall that when he was a Minister in this Department, he changed the rules and building regulations to make it easier to develop such toilets, and as Chancellor he made funding available for more as well. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise that and to praise him and the community of Wensleydale.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the ability of each local authority to fulfil its statutory care duties by the end of the 2019-20 financial year; and if he will make a statement.

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

Mr Speaker, I join you in wishing the hon. Lady a very happy birthday—what better way to spend it than at MHCLG questions.

It is the responsibility of each individual local authority to ensure that it can fulfil its statutory care duties. We have, however, supported councils to meet those duties by giving them access to several billion pounds of incremental dedicated funding for this purpose.

[Mr Speaker]

Birthday woman and man in a hurry.

[Louise Haigh]

I am very grateful for those birthday wishes, but I would be even more grateful if the Minister agreed with me that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to ensure that care workers they have commissioned are paid the minimum wage. The all-party parliamentary group on social care has heard increasing evidence that, despite guidance issued by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, care workers are still not receiving the minimum wage because they are not paid for travel time in between their contact hours. Will the Minister give me a great birthday present by announcing that he will review the way care workers are paid and that he will ensure they are paid the basic statutory minimum wage?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. It is absolutely right that those who are carrying out this vital activity in difficult circumstances get exactly what they are entitled to. I have not seen the report, but I would be delighted to take a look at it later today and to talk to my colleagues at the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to see what we can do to take this forward.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

If I had not been sitting down, I would have fallen over when the Secretary of State talked about the injection of extra cash for local authorities. This is, of course, on top of about 40% cuts in just under a decade. Local authorities are very squeezed in delivering their statutory care responsibilities and others. Will the Minister look seriously at all the work that is being done on homelessness and community building and assess the impact of these cuts in delivering wider Government policies on prevention and ensuring that people have decent homes to live in?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would echo what the Secretary of State said. This talk of cuts is simply not right. The amount of money that local authorities have to spend in this financial year is up in real terms over the last year. This was reinforced by the recent Budget, where we announced over £1 billion in incremental funding for local authorities, particularly targeted at the areas of immediate pressure in adult and children’s social care.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Alan Whitehead. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on levels of local authority service delivery of the removal of deprivation measures from the local government funding formula.

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

The Government have consulted on changes to the local authority funding formula and have heard from over 300 bodies. We are in the process of digesting those responses and will of course listen carefully to what the sector has said.

[Imran Hussain]

I am somewhat astonished that the Secretary of State and the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and keep a straight face while downplaying local government cuts. My local authority, Bradford Council, has been decimated by nine years of Tory austerity, which has stripped vital services of funding and dragged hundreds of our children into poverty. Does the Minister really think that cutting funding further and devasting our communities is an example of fair funding?

[Rishi Sunak]

As I have already said, funding in aggregate for local authorities has gone up, but it is worth bearing in mind too that funding for the hon. Gentleman’s local authority is up this year. I have noticed also that its spending power per household is higher than the average for metropolitan districts. Indeed, in Bradford’s latest accounts it boasts of the area having

“Better skills, more good jobs and a growing economy”.

This Government are backing local councils to deliver for their local communities and will continue to do so.

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

When will the Government review the empty homes premium, a hypothecated tax that is unfairly distributed between deprived precepting boroughs and shires? Hyndburn is about the 24th most deprived area in the country and collects about £600,000, the majority of which is given to wider Lancashire to spend, not the deprived area. This is totally unfair. Does the Minister recognise it as unfair and will he do anything about it?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his specific concern, but in general it is for local authorities themselves to decide how to implement the empty homes premium. They are accountable to their electors, and this is not something that central Government have any execution over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

There is a £3.1 billion gap in funding for children’s services and a £4.3 billion gap in funding for adult social care, but, eight months before the start of the new financial year, local authorities have no idea what their funding settlement will be for the coming financial year or beyond it. What is the Secretary of State doing to address this crisis in local government funding, which is affecting the most vulnerable residents in communities up and down the country every single day? Why is he being so complacent?

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

Far from being complacent, the Government are working hard to ensure that local authorities receive the support that they need, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). We know about the importance of children’s services, and the importance of ensuring that all authorities benefit from best practice from places such as Leeds, Hertfordshire and North Yorkshire. We are funding those authorities so that they can spread that best practice throughout the country, transforming the lives of children everywhere.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I do not want to assume that Ministers have seen the letter that was sent to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and me today by the director general for housing about the chairman of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service. It deals with one issue satisfactorily. May I ask Ministers to see whether the alleged social media comments that pose a difficulty can be sent to the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform to establish whether he can overcome the second difficulty?

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Representatives of nearly 50% of children’s services have said that they no longer feel able to keep children safe. Recent research has shown that private fostering, children’s homes and social worker agencies have amassed an estimated annual profit of £220 million, while simultaneously costing local authorities £20 million. At what point will the Government put the needs of vulnerable children before private profit?

[Rishi Sunak]

It is for local authorities to decide how best to conduct children’s services in their areas, and it would not be right for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell them exactly how to contract. I will say this, however. When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable children in our society, the Government have ensured, through the troubled families programme, that hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable families are receiving the targeted, intensive support they need so that their children can be kept out of care and they can stay strong together.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The crisis in adult social care is likely to become worse as it becomes harder to recruit staff from the European economic area to work in that sector post Brexit. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Home Office to ensure that the sector has access to the long-term labour supply that it will need?

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I always try to be pithy, Mr Speaker, as you instruct us to be, but this is an important matter, so we shall proceed without too much haste.

Ratepayers have told us that the current system, with revaluations of business rates every five years, has not been responsive enough to changes in the rental market. They have asked us for more frequent revaluations so that the system is fairer and more closely reflects the rents that they actually pay. This small but significant Bill delivers what business has asked for: it moves business rates revaluations in England on to a three-yearly cycle, and brings forward the next revaluation to 2021 so that ratepayers benefit from the change as soon as possible.

I am grateful for the contributions of all Members, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and thank them for their support for the Bill. In the public evidence sessions, we heard from various business groups that expressed their support. I thank them, including the Confederation of British Industry, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores. I give particular thanks to the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for not only their comments in the evidence sessions but their work with my officials to ensure that we can implement the Bill in a manner that meets with their approval.

Lastly, I give thanks to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who has been, as ever with these relatively short and uncontroversial Bills, thoughtful and constructive in his approach. I am of course grateful to the Clerks of the House and, indeed, to my team, who have managed to get this important legislation through its various stages with efficiency and effectiveness.

This is a small but important Bill that continues our support for business in this country, and I commend it to the House.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to conclude this debate, which I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has been very thoughtful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on opening it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing time for us to discuss a subject that is close to my heart. She can rest assured that the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee on local government sustainability is bedtime reading for me; I have it with me at all times. I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.

We are all here because we value and recognise the invaluable work conducted by councils up and down the country. I join all hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to our hard-working councillors, and I thank them for everything they do for our local communities. Let me also take this opportunity, on the first day of the Local Government Association conference, to thank the noble Lord Porter for his tenure as chairman of the LGA. He is a genuine giant in the world of local government, he has been a strong champion for the sector, he is respected across the spectrum, and I know he will be sorely missed.

Shortly after I became local government Minister, Lord Porter’s successor, Councillor Jamieson—whom I wish every success too—handed me a document that contained an incredible statistic. He had calculated that councils provide an amazing 800 different services. They really do touch every aspect of our lives as citizens. We heard about a range of those services today.

I will try my best to answer as many of the queries that were raised as possible. Many of them relate to areas that are not my direct responsibility but that of our fantastic Housing Minister. I am pleased to say that he has been here for most of the debate and has heard and absorbed all those queries. With his tagline “more, better, faster”, I know he is relentlessly committed to ensuring that everyone has a safe, decent and affordable home to call their own.

As I reflected on those 800 different services from where I stood, I came to see that there were three major, overarching areas for which councils have responsibility: driving economic growth; helping the most vulnerable in our society; and building strong communities that we are all proud to call home. I am pleased to say that this Government are supporting councils to do all three.

Before addressing the various points that were made in the debate through the prism of those three areas, I want to acknowledge that, of course, local government has been through a challenging period financially. I do not disagree with that; it would be wrong to do so. I agree that the balance of spending has shifted from non-statutory services to statutory services, and it is right that that is addressed in the upcoming spending review. Members can rest assured that, working with Departments such as the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, we are providing an evidence-based and robust account to the Treasury to inform those spending review conversations.

It is important to note why local government was put in that position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out excellently, it is incumbent on all Governments to balance the books. The task this Government inherited was significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, local government had a difficult set of circumstances to deal with. It made some difficult decisions and did extremely well. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in saluting not just her husband but the entrepreneurship of all local councillors up and down the country in responding to that climate. They truly have done us proud.

I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon that at this point we should look forward, and I am pleased to say that the tide is turning. This year, local councils will have access to over £46 billion in core spending power. That represents not a cut or a fall, but a 3% cash increase on the funds available last year, and a real-terms increase in money available to councils to spend on services.

We heard from Opposition Members about the burden of council tax. The Government and this side of the House will always be on the side of hard-pressed taxpayers, and determined to keep council tax as low as possible. Since the coalition Government came into power in 2010, council tax has risen at an average of just over 2% per annum. We can all remember that under the last Labour Government council tax doubled, going up at a rate of more than 6% every year. Our residents need to know one thing: if they are focused on low council tax and better services, it is a Conservative Government that will deliver them.

A recurring theme in the debate—it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and the Chair of the Select Committee—was governance. They were right to raise that issue. Like me, the hon. Lady was not here during the coalition Government, but they decided to abolish the Audit Commission and replace it with a more decentralised framework for oversight and accountability. The Secretary of State confirmed at the LGA today that the Department plans to enhance its role in oversight and leadership of the local authority governance system. His aim is to be able to spot problems more easily and sooner, to support councils and to protect our residents. The Secretary of State is committed to outlining to the Public Accounts Committee by the end of the year the specific steps that he will take in that regard. I know that that is something that many hon. Members have raised today and I hope they will be reassured by that. In conjunction with that work, the Secretary of State has committed to a review of the local audit framework. Again, he will report soon to the Public Accounts Committee on how that should be achieved.

My first theme is economic growth. The money that funds our public services has to come from somewhere, and the only sustainable way to generate those funds is to drive economic growth. Councils play a critical role in that, incentivised and supported by central Government. Our business rates retention scheme means that every authority in England stands to reap the rewards of increased growth in business rates income and will be able to use those rewards to invest in their local economy and community. Through business rates retention, councils now have access to nearly £2.5 billion in additional funds, on top of their core spending power, to fund local services.

Our successful 75% business rates retention pilots were incredibly popular, and 14 pilots are now in operation, benefiting over 100 different local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) reminded us of the importance of all councillors embarking on a journey of efficiency to ensure that their taxpayers’ money is spent incredibly well. Where we can find those efficiencies, we absolutely should.

The Government are championing authorities that are putting digital innovation at the heart of their service delivery and transformation and efficiency programmes. That has the potential to be hugely significant, which is why our new digital declaration is so important, and that ambition is backed by a £7.5 million local digital innovation fund. That is funding projects that have the potential to save money and transform services on the ground. The programme is also providing digital leadership training for hundreds of senior councillors and officers up and down the country, building the local government leaders of tomorrow.

I turn next to councils’ crucial role in helping the most vulnerable in society, and again the Government’s record is strong. We fully back councils that are on the frontline in helping those in need, supporting children, the disabled and the elderly.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the role of councils in protecting the vulnerable. Does he also recognise that since health-visiting services were passed to them, the number of health visitors has fallen by more than 2,000 nationally—which is not helping young people to get a good start in life—and addiction services have been massively reduced, which means that deaths from alcohol and morbidity from alcohol-related diseases are on the rise? Will he please undertake to review the basis of the commissioning of those services and consider returning them to the NHS, where they belong?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be right for public health responsibility to be returned to the NHS. Local government does not believe that it is right, and since local government has taken on ownership of public health, all the outcomes that I have seen have improved and been delivered more effectively. The Secretary of State recently commented on that. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, and of course it is important for delivery to be carried out well, but I think that the track record is in local government’s favour thus far.

[Mr Betts]

I take a different point of view. When public health was the responsibility of the NHS, the money was kept within the NHS budget, and increased each year in line with NHS funding. Since the transfer to local government, the funds have been cut substantially in real terms. Let us return public health funding to a level at which local government will really deliver.

[Rishi Sunak]

I think we are talking about two different issues. One is the issue of who is responsible for delivering public health, and I am strongly in favour of local government’s continuing responsibility. As for the budget, the Chairman of the Select Committee will know that it is ring-fenced. As that is rolled into business rates retention, it is of course right for there to be a proper governance and assurance mechanism.

The most recent Budget provided £650 million in new funding to help councils respond to pressure on both children’s and adults’ social care, and we have heard much about that today. It comes on top of the billions of pounds of extra funding in previous Budgets for adult social care, and it is starting to make an enormous difference on the ground. The number of delayed transfers of care has fallen by 50% since the peak, and 93% of councils agree that joined-up working with the NHS through the Better Care Fund is improving outcomes.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) set a good challenge for Governments to follow when he spoke of place-based funding. The improved Better Care fund is just one aspect, but we should clearly aim to do more in that direction, pooling budgets locally among different agencies when it makes sense. Manchester is the most evolved model in that regard, and I have enjoyed getting to know the team there and seeing the results that its work is having.

My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about the importance of a long-term solution. That is not my remit, but I hope that the Secretary of State is giving good consideration to the joint work of the two Select Committees on a social insurance model. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) reminded us that prevention is better than cure, and I fully agree with her.

I am very proud of the work that our Department has done in leading the highly successful troubled families programme, which has supported more than 400,000 families through an innovative early intervention model utilising a key worker and a whole-family approach. The results have been excellent. Children have been saved from going into care, people are coming off benefits and going into work, and crime and antisocial behaviour have been reduced. Ultimately, families are becoming stronger. It is a privilege to meet the people who are executing the programme on the ground, and those visits are some of the most humbling that I make. I know that that programme, and those workers, are making an enormous difference to the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Finally, let me touch on the work of councils in supporting strong communities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch about that. The Government see it as a critical task, and we are helping councils to build cohesive, safe and local communities up and down the country—places that we are proud to call home. We have provided additional funds to enable councils to build cohesion in areas on which migration has had a particular impact.

We have worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to come up with various support schemes for the high streets, which are now worth more than £1.5 billion. We have helped councils to make improvements to local roads—the essential arteries of our community life—with a £420 million fund to deal with potholes. We have provided new money for parks and green spaces, which has brought about the creation of more than 200 “pocket parks”. Those little havens of greenery make all the difference to the community, especially in the more deprived areas.

Just those few examples demonstrate the breadth and depth of our commitment to helping local government to build vibrant and cohesive communities in the places that they serve. Whether they are driving economic growth, caring for the most vulnerable in society or building stronger communities, local councils across the country do an amazing job. That is what makes it such a privilege for me to have this role, and to champion local government in Whitehall and in Westminster. Local government deserves our backing, local government is getting our backing, and I commend the estimates to the House.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54)

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill (Second sitting)

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome to line-by-line consideration of the Bill, on which we held an evidence session this morning. As in the main Chamber, the usual rules of debate and behaviour apply, as I am sure you all know very well. No amendments have been tabled, so we will consider merely whether each of the four clauses should stand part of the Bill. However, I intend to take all four clauses together for debate, so we will have only one debate.

Clause 1

Compilation of rating lists

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I hope not to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes.

I hope that by now the Committee is familiar with the three specific improvements the Bill will make to the business rates system: first, it will move the next revaluation in England and Wales to 1 April 2021; secondly, it will move the cycle for revaluations in England thereafter from every five years to every three years; and, thirdly, it will move the latest date by which draft rateable values must be prepared in England and Wales to the 31 December preceding the revaluation. I am glad to say that those substantive changes can all be found in clause 1.

To understand clause 1, we need first to consider the main primary legislation for business rates: the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Part III of the Act concerns business rates; it currently requires revaluations in England and Wales to take place every five years from 1 April 2017. Clause 1 is concerned entirely with amendments to that Act, and specifically to section 41(2A), which provides for revaluations of local rating lists in England

“on 1 April 2017 and on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”;

to section 52(2A), which does the same for central rating lists in England; and to sections 54A(4)(b) and 54A(5)(b), which provide for revaluations of local and central rating lists in Wales on a date specified by the Welsh Government by order—1 April 2017—and

“on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards.”

That shows in black and white the delivery of our commitment to make the rating system more responsive to changes in the property market and fairer for ratepayers, and to ensure that businesses see those benefits as soon as possible.

Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of the 1988 Act set out the deadline by which draft rateable values must be provided before the revaluation. That is currently set at no later than 30 September. Clauses 1(3) and 1(6) of the Bill move the deadline to no later than 31 December. It is important to remember that that is only a deadline—it is the latest date by which draft rateable values must be prepared. The Welsh Government agree that the deadline for the draft list should be changed to 31 December. Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of the 1988 Act apply to both England and Wales, so the amendments made by clauses 1(3) and 1(6) will automatically change that date in both countries.

Clause 2 will make purely consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation. The sections of the 1988 Act that concern the transitional arrangements made at the time of each revaluation, and the regulations made under those powers in England, reflect the existing five-year cycle of rating lists. Clause 2 will therefore amend those references to bring them in line with the new cycle of rating lists in England and Wales. It will make no other changes to the powers in those sections.

Clauses 3 and 4 are, I hope, self-explanatory. As is normal practice, the Bill will come into force two months after it is passed. It will give the valuation office the legal basis it needs to complete the valuation exercise for a revaluation in 2021. Since it has already started work on those valuations under the existing legislation and will continue that work over the coming months, there is no need to shorten the normal two-month commencement period.

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

This morning, though brief and focused, we heard from representatives of the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Retail Consortium, the Confederation of British Industry, the Local Government Association, and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. We place on record our thanks for the time they took to give evidence to the Committee.

The scope of the Bill is narrow, and that was reflected in the discussion we had. However, some themes came out during that session that are worth repeating. Clause 1 brings forward the new ratings list by a year, to 2021—a move that we welcome and that was welcomed by all those who gave evidence earlier today. There were calls for annual reviews, but given the concerns about capacity in the Valuation Office Agency, evolution might be more advisable, which is why we support bringing the new list forward by one year.

One element that was queried by the Local Government Association was the change from six to three months’ notice to billing authorities of the new list, pushing the deadline from “not later than September” to December. That change will hit many local authorities, as they will be presenting—or, in many cases, would intend to have already presented—their budget proposals to council. That is important because, as employers, councils have to meet their statutory obligations to their employees for any changes that might follow, whether for redundancies or any structural changes within the organisation. It is important that councils can meet the January deadline for that, so the notice period is important. I therefore ask that the Minister meets representatives of the LGA as a matter of urgency to address their concerns and decide whether something can be done to minimise the impact of that change.

Clause 2 addresses transitional relief and brings it in line with the new list proposals. There was a broader discussion, which I do not intend to pad out here, about business rates and their impact on the retail sector, the viability of businesses and the future of high streets and town centres. We share the concerns about those issues and would welcome further discussions to create a business rates system that is not only fairer but helps British businesses and industry to thrive in future, rather than—as business rates do at the moment—simply acting as a tax to occupy or exist. There are growing calls for change, and I hope they are heard and acted on by the Government beyond the scope of this Bill.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically thoughtful comments and join him in thanking all the witnesses we were lucky to hear from this morning.

During this morning’s session, I was pleased that there was widespread support for the principle of the Bill, namely shortening the revaluation cycle to make business rates more responsive to economic conditions. It felt like all participants agreed that three years was the right place to end up, striking an appropriate balance between responsiveness on the one hand and providing some certainty and stability for ratepayers on the other.

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that my team is already in discussions with the LGA and will continue to be so. It is also in discussions with CIPFA, which participates in a technical working group on business rates and business rate reform to ensure that the process for local authorities submitting their NNDR1 forms by the end of January is not unduly impacted by the change. As in the past, we have been able to work constructively with local government and CIPFA to ensure all the processes that need to happen for revaluation work for the sector, ratepayers and everyone else involved.

To the hon. Gentleman’s last point, and without wanting to stretch the scope of the Bill, I understand what he says. I am glad he recognises the contribution of business to our economy and society—not least providing employment and the funds we need for our public services. We will always be keen to do what we can to support business. With regard to business rates, £13 billion of various reforms have already been enacted by the Government—most recently the retail relief scheme, which provides a third discount to retail high street stores on their business rates bill and has been warmly welcomed. The Government will continue to watch that issue closely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill (First sitting)

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. Does anyone want to ask a question? No. Would the Minister like to kick us off?

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

I am happy to come in at the end. Perhaps the Opposition spokesperson would like to start.

[The Chair]

Okay. I call Jim McMahon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Do any other Members want to ask a question within the scope of the Bill? No. I call the Minister.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the panel members for joining us today. I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in the broader topic of business rates, the structure of business rates taxation, the current plight of the high street, the rise in online shopping andEdward Woodall: Broadly, we are very supportive of the move to shorter revaluation periods. There is overall agreement that the principle of making revaluations shorter to make property costs more closely aligned with what they are today should be the overall ambition. We have come to a three-year window on the basis that it balances the capacity of the VOA to deliver a revaluation in that time period and that it shortens the current five years. It is worth reflecting that, at one point in 2016, properties were valued based on 2008 data. We want to try to avoid that in future. The principle is very positive in the context of an evolving economy and the evolving way that we use property, and we should try to look more closely at how quickly we can revalue these things.

Martin McTague: In principle, yes, we support the move to the three-year revaluation period. We see it as a compromise, because we know it will put a lot of pressure on the VOA. We are concerned that, if pressure is put on the VOA, it might start to transfer to billing authorities. The person who usually ends up getting the bill to pay is the small business at the foot of that process. We are very disappointed in the way that check, challenge, appeal is working and that it is, effectively, creating a system that lacks transparency. The ratepayer cannot see the basis on which they are rated, which means that when they try to challenge any of these things, the delay can be enormous. We think that the fundamentals of the process are still wrong, but the move to three years is a good one.

Dominic Curran: At the risk of having an outbreak of agreement, we also fully support a move to three-year valuations. Five years was too long; I know many call for annual revaluations. There is a spectrum of views among our membership, but we have settled on three years as the right balance, taking into account two factors. First is the balance of stability: for every three years, you know exactly what your rates bill is. Even if that is not perfect, at least you can work on that basis. Second is the capacity of the Valuation Office Agency; as Martin said, we are not convinced that it would necessarily have the resource or capacity to undertake yearly or two-yearly valuations. That is an important area of resource that should be looked at carefully by the Treasury in the upcoming spending review.

[Rishi Sunak]

Thank you.

[Jim McMahon]

Q To follow up on that point, when the revaluation is brought forward, that will not dispense with the appeals already in the system—they are still there and need to be administered—and it will just create the opportunity for further appeals. Have your members expressed any concern about the capacity in the valuation office? Do you have any concerns about what it might mean if no additional capacity is brought in and there is a more recent revaluation in 2021?

Martin McTague: I can certainly answer that. There is widespread concern about the lack of capacity in the VOA. It is bizarre that the solution seems to be that you impose a six-month cap on appeals. That is effectively saying, “It’s so difficult to get these appeals through the process that we are going to cap the time required to do it.” Yet the information is not available to the business rate payer to be able to challenge things easily. The point that you made at the beginning—that the VOA is fundamentally under-resourced to deal with this change—needs to be addressed quickly.

Edward Woodall: I agree with Martin. The feedback I get from my members is that there is a lack of capacity at the VOA to allow them to engage meaningfully in the process and talk to individuals. There is also a challenge, which we will probably come to, about the structure of the process it has developed—check, challenge, appeal—and people’s ability to interact with that, which is causing difficulties.

Dominic Curran: Absolutely. Our members are enormously frustrated with the VOA on a day-to-day basis. The appeal system is clogged up at best. It needs better resourcing. There certainly should not be a cap on appeals, in terms of the time length. But more frequent revaluations would, to an extent, reduce the need for appeals, because valuations would be less out of date, although they would probably still be somewhat out of date.

[Rishi Sunak]

Q A final quick question, Mr Curran. One of the things that the VOA has to do at the moment is to deal with appeals. You just made the point that more frequent revaluations ought to reduce the volume of appeals. Will you elaborate on that point, because, obviously, less appeal work would be an offset to the increased work of more frequent revaluations?

Dominic Curran: The argument is strongest if we were to move to a system of annual revaluations. With an annual revaluation, it almost would not be worth appealing a valuation that you thought was wrong, because it would change in a year’s time anyway. The other effect would be that the valuation probably would not be so wrong, because your annual changes would be on a much smoother line—looking at it on a graph—whereas if we revalue every seven years, as we have, you get quite a steep change. Obviously, somewhere between seven years and one year, the line gets smoother and smoother. It is a question of judgment which number we pick. Using that logic, three years should have fewer appeals than five or seven, but one year should have fewer than three. We will see how good the VOA is at dealing with three-yearly revaluations.

[Rishi Sunak]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the panel for their evidence. Thank you so much for coming along.

We are running ahead of time, and the other panel has not arrived, so I propose that we suspend.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. We have time for more questions. I will ask the Minister if he has any questions, but if people suddenly, spontaneously, have questions, I will allow some more within the timeframe, if necessary.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am fine, thanks. Thank you for all coming, and thanks for your evidence and comments. Everything has been perfectly well answered.

[The Chair]

So you have no questions?

[Rishi Sunak]

No.

[Jim McMahon]

Q May I ask one question of Richard? Is the LGA making a specific request that the change of date from September to December be reviewed as part of this process?

Councillor Watts: We are, yes. In effect, our request is that we would welcome further conversations with the Government about getting a date. We understand the arguments for shifting it, because it is quite a long time and 30 September is quite early in the process. However, for one year out of three when that impacts on the potential local government announcement, we would like to understand more about how the Government would like to co-ordinate between this announcement in December and the local government spending announcement having to be earlier than it, because that is a change in precedent. We cannot push the local government spending announcement each year beyond 31 December—it is already too late where it is, given that local budget setting for any authority of size is effectively always concluded before the spending settlement on the basis of guesswork, then tweaked when the settlement is announced in the House.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill makes a major improvement to the rating system that delivers on Government commitments and addresses ratepayers’ concerns. It will ensure that business rates bills will be updated at more frequent revaluations to reflect changes to the rental property market. In doing so, it will ensure that business rates become more responsive to economic changes.

Business representatives such as the CBI, the British Property Federation and the British Chambers of Commerce have all asked for more frequent revaluations. They were promised that by the Chancellor at autumn Budget 2017 and again at the 2018 spring statement. This Bill delivers on those promises.

Business rates bills are based on the rateable value of the property, which, broadly speaking, represents its annual rental value. The rateable value is therefore the tax base for business rates and it is assessed by the Valuation Office Agency, independently of Ministers.

Since the current system of business rates was introduced in 1990, the Government have had regular revaluations of rateable values, to ensure that they remain up to date. These revaluations ensure that the amount paid in business rates—money used to fund important local services—is distributed fairly among all ratepayers, having regard to their rental value.

Regular revaluations are an important part of maintaining fairness in the system, but the Government must strike a balance between the uncertainty created by regular revaluations—because it is inevitable that rate bills will change at that time—and the stability of businesses being able to plan for the future.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Minister just made an important point about the fact that revaluations are there to ensure fairness in the system. On that basis, does not council tax completely fail the test? If the Minister really wanted to go down in history, would it not be more appropriate to have a non-domestic rating and council tax valuation Bill?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not sure I would like to go down in history as the man who revalued people’s homes to tax them more. The Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government makes a fair point, but the difference is that the statutory basis for business rates requires that the overall revenue raised remains neutral in real terms, taking account of appeals and increases, so it is necessary to ensure that that happens in practice. As a result of doing that every five years since 1990, the Government have enacted a revaluation.

Following the 2010 revaluation, and in the face of the economic downturn, the planned 2015 revaluation was postponed to 2017. That reflected the need at that difficult time to give businesses more certainty. Quite rightly, however, it also led to renewed interest in business as to how often we should in the future revalue for business rates.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I will not be as mischievous as the Chairman of the Select Committee, but there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Various Treasury and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government reforms have resulted in many reliefs and opportunities for people to run small businesses without having to pay any business rates at all. Is it not time for a fundamental review of business taxation, to make it fair and reasonable and to ensure that those people who operate online also pay their fair share of business taxation, rather than relying on those businesses that happen to be in situ?

[Rishi Sunak]

I feel like I am being pincered by the illustrious senior members of the Select Committee. Of course, the issue of business rates vexes many people, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that, because of the various reliefs enacted by this Government, it is the case that fully one third of all businesses pay no business rates at all, and that is to be welcomed.

Notwithstanding the fact that I would be straying far from my brief and treading on the Chancellor’s toes if I addressed the broader structure of business rates taxation, it is worth saying that when the Treasury last looked at the issue a few years ago, there was no consensus among the business community about what might replace it. On digital taxes in general, although it is not quite the same, the digital services tax mooted by the Chancellor goes in part towards addressing the issue raised by my hon. Friend.

To return to the Bill, the response of businesses to the consultations and engagements was very clear: they thought that the revaluation cycle should be shortened, and the most popular option emerged as three years. Therefore, this Bill makes three changes to the rating system in England.

First, the Bill will bring forward the date from which the next revaluation takes effect, from 1 April 2022 to 1 April 2021. Secondly, the Bill will ensure that, thereafter, revaluations will take effect every three years, so the next revaluation after that will be in 2024, and so on. Thirdly, the Bill will change the last date by which draft rateable values must be published in the lead-up to the revaluation, from the preceding 30 September to 31 December. That period, during which new rateable values are published before the list comes into force, is known as the draft rating list.

Business rates is a devolved policy area, but the Bill also applies in part to Wales. As in England, the next revaluation in Wales will be brought forward to 1 April 2021. I understand that the Welsh Government are considering options for the frequency and nature of revaluations thereafter, so the requirement for three-yearly revaluations does not yet apply in Wales. Entirely different legislation applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I understand that both countries are committed to having more frequent revaluations.

Hon. Members who have been following the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Treasury inquiry into the impact of business rates will have seen a range of business groups support the move to more frequent revaluations. I will end with a quote from the evidence provided by the Association of Convenience Stores:

“More frequent revaluations will allow rateable values to link more closely with the non-domestic property market and three-yearly revaluations strike the balance between VOA resource and accuracy for business.”

In conclusion, I am very glad to be able to make this improvement to the rating system, and I commend the Bill to the House.