The Treasury Committee has published a unanimously-agreed report on the Impact of Business Rates on Business.
The Government must explain whether it is deliberate that, since Business Rates were introduced in their current form in 1990, the revenue they have generated has outpaced inflation. Throughout this inquiry, the Committee has been told that Business Rates do not fall upon all business equally, for example, they place a far greater cost on physical businesses, such as those on the high street than those that rely more upon an online presence. Tweaking the current system of Business Rates through an increasingly complex web of reliefs does little to address the negative aspects of this tax and simply demonstrates how broken the system is. Business Rates are an important source of revenue but the Government must explore alternatives to address their negative impacts. The Committee considered alternative options to replace or reform the current system. However, further work is needed to fully model the proposals. The Government should take a deeper look at possible alternatives and prepare a consultation in time for Spring Statement 2020. In the meantime, improvements could be made, including improving reliefs, reducing statutory limits for responding to appeals, and ensuring that the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is properly resourced.
The report has found that:
Commenting on the Report, Alison McGovern MP, the Treasury Committee’s lead member for this inquiry, said “It’s abundantly clear that the current Business Rates system is broken. The tax represents an increasing burden on businesses, particularly those with a physical high street presence struggling to remain competitive.”
“The Government must ensure that business rates align with its aim to boost productivity and do not disincentivise growth. For example, many firms have moved away from being dependent on plants and machinery, which were last re-defined in the system in 1993. It’s unfair on the manufacturing sector, therefore, for their business rates valuation to be included in their essential operating equipment, where other businesses are not equally affected.”
“Odd reliefs here and there are nothing more than sticking plasters to a system in urgent need of reform. The Committee was presented with numerous alternatives to the current system, but none of them had been sufficiently modelled to examine who would be the winners and losers of any change.”
“The Government must examine such alternatives in time for Spring Statement 2020.”
Responding to the Treasury Committee’s report Mike Cherry, National Chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), said “As this report rightly sets out, the business rates system is broken, causing businesses and investment to flat-line. It’s critical that politicians get a grip of this unfair tax that seemingly can’t be challenged. As small firms have spent years managing their way through the political uncertainty, it’s time for politicians to show they back small firms by finally tackling the issues that matter to them.”
“There must be a significant reduction in small firms’ rates bills. The high streets discounts rolled out this year have been very welcome. But these will soon come to an end, putting businesses back in the uncertain position they were before – nothing has changed. The relief needs to be extended to 50% or more, making it permanent – and rolling it out to small firms in other sectors.”
“The current Check, Challenge, Appeal system is diabolical with the number of challenges progressing falling by 99.3%. Shockingly, it could take up to 950 days- more than two and a half years- for a business to appeal a business rates bill. Unsurprisingly, this means many small firms give up. As highlighted in the report, this is unacceptable.”
“The ball is firmly in the Government’s court when it comes to putting forward ways to improve the current business rates system. With a general election round the corner, this report sets out a challenge to all parties and candidates as they vie to be the next Government and in the next Parliament.”