Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Business Rates Reform Bill - Clause 13 - Requirements for ratepayers etc to provide information

25 October 2023 · 3 other contributors

Opened by Lee Rowley Con Constituency

Economy

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Lee Rowley raised concerns about business rates reform bill - clause 13 - requirements for ratepayers etc to provide information in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The Government proposes three minor amendments to the Business Rates Reform Bill supported unanimously in the House of Lords.
  • Lords amendment 1 sets a penalty cap of 1,800 for non-compliance with new duties.
  • Lords amendment 2 mandates tribunals to remit criminal penalties unless satisfied that a false statement was knowingly or recklessly made.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Lee Rowley Con Constituency

The Government invite the House to agree to three minor amendments that were unanimously supported in the other place. Lords amendment 1 caps penalties for failing to comply with new duties at £1,800, equivalent to 30 days of daily fines. Lords amendment 2 requires tribunals to remit criminal penalties unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a false statement was knowingly or recklessly made. Lords amendment 3 is a drafting correction improving the clarity of the statute book.

Other contributors (3)
  • James Murray Lab Co-op Ealing North

    Clause 13 introduces new duties on ratepayers to provide information for digitisation and shorter revaluations, with penalties for non-compliance. Lords amendment 1 caps daily fines at £60 and total penalty at £1,800. We realise this limit may help protect ratepayers from larger charges while supporting frequent revaluations. Lords amendment 2 increases the burden of proof required for criminal penalties to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before imposing them. This is sensible and we support it.

  • Peter Aldous

    The amendments are welcomed but should have been more substantial, reducing the burden of proof for ratepayers and introducing reciprocal penalties on VOA. The Bill must be the start of a broader reform process to reduce the UBR multiplier to an affordable level, simplify relief mechanisms, move towards annual valuations, and ensure fair assessment of business rates.

  • Lee Rowley Lab Rotherham

    Expressed gratitude to the shadow Minister for his constructive comments and willingness to support the amendments, as well as thanked his colleague for reviewing the Bill and offering insightful comments. He acknowledged that moving from a five-year revaluation frequency to three years is a significant change.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy