Seema Malhotra
MP for Feltham and Heston · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Public sector productivity is improving, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing output continuing to grow faster than inputs, and Departments being challenged to improve efficiency and modernise outdated processes.”
“I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities.”
“We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow. Let me again thank my hon.”
“For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre.”
“Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in.”
“Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,023 lines we hold for Seema Malhotra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 64 of 101.
“Schedule 10 of the 2020 Act, as the Minister alluded to, rendered statutory demands served on companies during the relevant period effectively void. Once the provisions are brought to an end, how will the Government support businesses that may face rent-based statutory demands and winding-up petitions? The rent moratorium may be in place until March 2022, but how does that sit alongside the ending of the protections in schedule 10? It seems that from 1 October a landlord will not be able to evict a commercial tenant but will be able to seek to have the tenant liquidated through a winding-up petition. Do the Government recognise that there is a paradox in that? They are legislating for businesses to be protected from eviction but not from rent-induced liquidation.”
“What assessment has been done in choosing that as the right time? What evidence do the Government have that otherwise strong businesses will not continue to face financial difficulties after September, especially given the ongoing covid-related staff shortages and the supply chain problems that I have highlighted? The Government must not let previous covid support end up being for nothing by pulling away the provisions, sometimes too early, causing businesses to suffer at the last moment. We want to understand what the evidence is for the end of September as the new, extended, date. A significant amount of the debt that businesses face comes from owed rent. Despite the commercial rent moratorium, landlords could still attempt to recoup rent from businesses by serving statutory demands and, subsequently, winding-up petitions.”
“Although we may have, thankfully—we hope—passed the worst of the pandemic, our economic recovery is still subject to uncertainties and challenges, particularly in the months and years ahead. There are still huge hurdles for businesses, and the recovery is not equal across all sectors. We must not remove our support and let viable businesses fall at the last moment. Many small businesses, particularly in aerospace, aviation, steel, hospitality, travel, tourism, culture and retail—many sectors that may have started in recent weeks to see demand increase—will still be experiencing particular issues and, in many cases, a cash crisis. That brings me to the key issue with the extension, which obviously we support. It is similar to the issue raised by my predecessor. How do we know that 30 September is the right time to end the support?”
“The supply chain crisis is now seriously disrupting the flow of goods to and from businesses, with covid being one of the several underlying causes in the UK and abroad. We have called for measures to tackle that urgently, with a new five-point plan that Members may have seen over the weekend, step 1 of which is a dedicated Minister to lead and co-ordinate efforts across Departments to tackle those issues and support business recovery. Staff shortages have forced businesses either to reduce the amount that they are open or, indeed, to close. In July, around £6 billion-worth of debt accrued during the crisis was owed to commercial landlords. It is right that businesses facing financial difficulties continue to receive support.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. Labour welcomes this extension to schedule 10 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, having worked previously both privately and publicly to extend the time period for the provisions, which were also supported by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I agree with the Minister that those businesses that can pay their debts should do so, but this was an important step to support and protect otherwise viable businesses from, as he alluded to, aggressive creditors seeking to use statutory demands and winding-up petitions to recover debt and trigger insolvency procedures. Although we are starting slowly to emerge from the pandemic, businesses up and down the country still face significant challenges.”
“Suppliers of equipment or services to the UK forces in Afghanistan are also being sought out. Speed is of the essence. Women and girls are burning their employment papers and education certificates before the Taliban come to their homes. Administration must not be delayed. Resources need to be found and applications processed urgently. Finally, there should be safety for those who have no means to flee; they must not be forgotten. We must stand with the Afghan people. We have a responsibility to lead, and the Afghan people need to hear our voice. We have choices that we, as a nation, can make. If ever there was a time to prove what global Britain means, it is now.”
“A terrifying situation faces women at the forefront of progress for women and girls. I have heard directly from a relative of a 16-year-old girl in Kabul who last week was waiting for the results of her equivalent of GCSEs and about a possible scholarship. Her words yesterday were, “If the Taliban come for me, I’m ready to hang myself.” We must also ensure the evacuation of minority communities, including Sikhs and Hindus, from Afghanistan. I know, and the Government know, that they are at risk and they must be a priority for evacuation. Those in our system must be allowed to stay. We must ensure the safety of Afghans working for the UN and UK aid programmes, particularly women. Those not eligible for UK visas via ARAP, because they are not directly employed, must be allowed to come to the UK.”
“Afghan families in Britain who have suffered tragedy are living a new nightmare and feel betrayed, with many loved ones back home now at risk as the Taliban take over the police and the state. I thank many for getting in touch with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), including Khalsa Diwan Afghanistan, Guru Nanak Darbar, the Afghan protection organisations students and non-governmental organisations. As the Taliban take over cities, they move fast to ensure that no one can fight back. They are hunting out and killing young men, and seeking girls as prizes and brides for Taliban fighters. Why do young men cling to the side of a US plane in the hope of escape and fall to their death? It is because they know that otherwise the Taliban will come for them.”
“To leave the Afghan forces to fight the advancing Taliban on their own was a grave mistake. The gross miscalculation by the US was compounded by the failure of our and other Governments to step up. We are watching the takeover of a nation that, over 20 years, has made great progress, particularly for millions of women and girls—progress that came through sacrifices by many brave members of the Afghan forces and our own, as well as those who served in civil ranks. We lost a good friend seven years ago, when Del Singh was killed in a horrific attack by the Taliban at a restaurant in Kabul; he was one of many thousands who have made the ultimate sacrifice to help to bring about peace, stability and nationhood—I repeat: nationhood, which was also part of our responsibility as an international community.”
“Levelling up must be about investment to combat those inequalities, including between regions, within regions and between socioeconomic groups across the whole of the UK. Can I ask the Chair, first, what his Committee’s conclusions were in relation to fair funding for levelling up, particularly in the light of how the levelling-up fund’s piecemeal funding does not make up for the failure of austerity over the last decade, with services decimated as £15 billion of cuts have been made to local government? Secondly, on extending democratic power, what is his Committee’s view on how we should reach consensus on which tiers of devolved and local government should have responsibility for achieving those important shared levelling-up outcomes, because quite clearly this can no longer be done from the centre?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on this very serious report, which shows undeniably that the Government lack any clarity as to what they mean by levelling up. In fact, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said this week: “One of the things about ‘levelling up’ is…it’s quite a sort of ambiguous phrase—it means whatever anyone wants it to mean”, but clearly that should not be the case. It is at least welcome that there is now political consensus that for too long the UK has been scarred by deep regional inequalities. The single biggest challenge for levelling up is that people have to leave their regions and head south to get good work. This has to change, and it can only happen by making the quantity and quality of jobs in regions our priority.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation that leaseholders find themselves in compounds their ongoing and awful situation? They find themselves without leverage, with service charges that are often unjustified and with difficulty getting resolution for them. This has created much more uncertainty, stress and anxiety for hundreds of thousands of families across the country.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does on his Committee. He made an important point about the independence of building control. Does he agree that it causes a considerable lack of confidence when people who have bought properties find they have no recourse and that there is a real question about the role of local authorities in building control?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting— [ Inaudible .]”
“My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting in my view— [ In audible . ]”
“Under the Hostile Environment, almost everyone who should keep them safe…is part of the system of immigration enforcement and surveillance trying to rip them away from their families” and their homes. We need a sensitive, long-term solution to the undocumented migrants crisis. As a first step, we should simplify the process to make it easier for those who are undocumented to become regularised, and reform the extremely high fees, which mean that people cannot pay for visa applications. Surely, in the interests of our economy and effective administration, which covid now demands, and in the interests of humanity, there needs to be a much better answer to the issue of undocumented migrants.”
“There is also clear economic evidence that if undocumented migrants can move out of informal employment and into more secure jobs, there are many benefits for wider society. According to The Economist , studies in America suggests that citizenship for its 11 million undocumented immigrants could boost the economy, with GDP rising up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. In conclusion, undocumented migrants clearly need a different way so that they and their families can move forward. The JCWI powerfully remarks that “once someone becomes undocumented, the criminalisation of their everyday lives drives them into exploitation. Their voices are silenced, and they are unable to…tell anyone about their plight.”
“The insecurity and, often, destitution of these families has worsened through the pandemic, with many also dependent on food banks. This intractable problem needs a different approach, which is why I believe it is time that the Government reformed the current system to create a simplified route to regularisation, so that migrants can access services, rent a home, work and pay taxes, and live a life free from fear. Addressing the damagingly high application fees alongside simplifying the process is an approach that has been taken in Ireland. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, there are also precedents for an amnesty policy intervention. It is interesting that Greece, Italy and Portugal all implemented amnesty programmes in recent months.”
“Here I have my life, my family.” In so many cases, falling out of status is due to situations outside the control of the migrant. JCWI’s research found that this can happen for a variety of reasons too, including relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor legal advice, inability to pay those extremely high fees, or a simple mistake. However, once the migrant falls out of status, it can be difficult to obtain it again. The impact of falling out of status results in people being trapped in limbo. As in these stories, the vast majority of undocumented migrants have been settled in the UK for more than five years, or indeed 10, and arrived legally. The UK has the second largest number of undocumented migrants in Europe behind Germany.”
“That was the case with Navin—not his real name—whom the JCWI noted became undocumented after he was wrongly advised by a lawyer that his leave was still valid. He intended to rectify this when right-to-work checks meant that he lost his steady job in a restaurant. He could not afford to pay the fees required to regularise the status of his entire family, leaving them all undocumented. He took on cash-in-hand work at a car wash. He was regularly underpaid or simply not paid at all, and feared that social services would take his children away if they found out about his situation. He said: “My kids were born here, and I don’t know where else I would go. I’ve got nothing back in Mauritius at all, no family, no one I know. I left when I was young, a long time ago.”
“This issue is not without complexity, but we cannot be without humanity and compassion. The current system locks people out of vital services—often families with children. Research conducted by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants shows that 82% of respondents to its surveys entered the UK through legal routes and later fell out of status. Expensive and stressful reapplication processes, which can cost more than £12,000 by the time genuine cases are granted indefinite leave to remain, push families into enormous debt that lasts for years. These extortionate fees are not a deterrent. Instead, they push people into exploitative work. These are people who are ambitious to do well for themselves, their families and their adopted country.”
“Caritas Europa defines the challenge well, saying that while the fight against irregular migration has dominated the political agenda for years, undocumented migrants remain a sizeable population in Europe. The lack of regular resident status often goes hand in hand with a huge amount of suffering and vulnerability. Referred to as undocumented migrants or people without papers, these people may find themselves in a protracted limbo situation, living on the margin of society under continuous stress and anxiety, their basic rights often disregarded. As has been said, hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants are being blocked from booking covid vaccinations, despite Ministers saying that everyone should have access to vaccines regardless of immigration status. As a result, we are all less safe.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to the petition, reflecting the humanity of our local community and our rich history of immigration and diversity. With over 150 languages spoken in Hounslow alone, our diversity is also our strength. Neighbours, colleagues, business owners and key workers come from all over the world and contribute to our local economy. This important debate is focused specifically on action to support undocumented migrants. I support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for consensus on how we move forward.”
“The petition states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch. And the petitioners remain, etc. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of Feltham and Heston, Declares that the Santander branch on Hounslow Bath Road should not be closed; further that access to in-person banking services is crucial to many residents in the local area; and further that residents feel that they will not have access to a comparable banking service over the phone or online and will struggle financially as a result. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P002675]”
“I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Feltham and Heston to call on Santander to stop the closure of the bank branch on Bath Road in Hounslow West. The petitioners declare that it is crucial to save this vital, valued branch, which has two cashpoints, helps to boost our local economy and provides vital banking services for thousands of local residents, many of whom are older people without access to online banking. Residents use the branch frequently and have valued the service from Santander for many years. This petition, along with the corresponding online petition, has collected more than 400 signatures and been supported by local councillors, particularly Councillor Bandna Chopra, Councillor Jagdish Sharma and Councillor Sumra, and colleagues and residents from across Hounslow West, Heston and Cranford.”
“We are pleased that a legal loophole, exploited for too long by unscrupulous directors, will finally be closed, but the Bill does not contain the details and or provide the oversight that Parliament needs to scrutinise its effectiveness and the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That was why we tabled new clauses 1 and 3: to ensure that the Insolvency Service is given the funding it needs to carry out the Bill’s goals, and to see disqualified directors repaying their loans and being held accountable for their liabilities in the most effective way. I hope that the Committee sees the value of these new clauses and what they bring to the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.”
“In order for the Bill to be effective, they must ensure this policy acts as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and allows the aims of this Bill to be met. That is why Labour has tabled new clause 3, which I am speaking to now. It would ensure that an annual assessment was made of the Bill’s effectiveness in acting as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and at recouping owed monies. It will encourage the consideration of changes to the Bill to aid its effectiveness, making up for the current gaps in the Bill’s detail. Clauses 2 and 3, which makes the same change to legislation in Northern Ireland, are broadly welcomed by the Labour party.”
“60, Q96.] What does represent a deterrent is being held to account for misappropriated assets and having personal liability for actions wrongfully undertaken as a director. Compensation orders are mentioned in the Bill. Since they have been introduced, very few compensation orders have been issued and their effectiveness has been unclear. Insolvency is a tried and tested way of recovering monies owed to creditors. Thousands of insolvency procedures take place every year that return hundreds of millions of pounds to creditors, but these processes are not without time, cost and considerable stress. In order for the Insolvency Service, the courts and creditors to have clarity over what this Bill means, the Government should address the legislative gap.”
“It would alert the House to any resourcing issues facing the Insolvency Service and evidence the need for extra funding in order to fulfil the aims of this Bill. Another significant gap in the Bill is the lack of detail surrounding how the Government plan to act following the potential disqualification of directors. Disqualification itself does not provide measures for repayment so, on its own, it is not enough of a deterrent to prevent directors from acting unscrupulously. As Duncan Swift summarised on Tuesday: “The serious rogue directors do not see being disqualified as a significant deterrent.”––[ Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee , 6 July 2021; c.”
“On Second Reading, the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets said that the Government “will be working with the Insolvency Service to ensure that it has the resources to do its job.” —[ Official Report , 28 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 83.] Those may have been reassuring words to get us through this week, but we want to be able to see the outcomes of the process and how well the system is working. Surely that is in all our interests, both as parliamentarians and as constituency MPs. New clause 1 would ensure regular reporting on the number of directors of dissolved companies investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. In doing so, it would provide oversight and scrutiny around the Insolvency Service’s ability to implement the measures in the Bill.”
“As Dr Tribe summarised on Tuesday, the Insolvency Service “needs to be properly funded to ensure that this additional disqualification work can happen.” –– [ Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 18, Q29.] All may go smoothly. There may be no backlog, no issues and no need to review the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its goals, but we need to know that, and Parliament must be able to scrutinise in a timely and effective way. I hope that the Minister will support Labour’s call for new clause 1 to be added to the Bill, because surely this will be a report that he, too, will want to receive.”
“Without the necessary extra funding and resources for the Insolvency Service, the Bill’s aims of disqualifying unscrupulous directors or seeking undertakings simply will not be met. In fact, the measures introduced by the Bill may come at the expense of what the Insolvency Service is currently able to do in terms of investigating insolvent companies. On top of that, we know that the Insolvency Service cannot apply to court for the disqualification of a director whose company has been dissolved for three years or more. That means that the Insolvency Service does not just need the extra resources to carry out those additional investigations, but needs to carry them out promptly and within the three-year timeframe.”
“As Duncan Swift, the former president of R3, highlighted on Tuesday, the Bill could result in the Insolvency Service taking on “10 to 15 times” the number of investigations that it currently undertakes. However, there is no indication in the Bill, or in the Government’s intentions around it, that the Government plan to increase funding and resources at all for the Insolvency Service, let alone by 10 to 15 times, to allow it to cope with that potentially huge increase in workload. That is despite the fact that R3 members, as identified in its evidence, often report encountering cases showing significant legal breaches by directors that, to their surprise, do not lead to disqualification. Several witnesses have suggested that the Insolvency Service is woefully under-resourced as it is.”
“New clause 1 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House every three months following the passing of the Bill, outlining how many directors have been investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. New clause 3 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill a year after it comes into force. That assessment would consider the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives, the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to the investigation and disqualification of directors, and possible changes to law and policy. In relation to new clause 1, I will outline some concerns on resourcing for investigations and action, including disqualifications.”
“However, although the clauses are a positive step, there are a number of concerns, most notably around the resourcing of the Insolvency Service, the Government’s plans and performance in relation to action taken in the investigation and disqualification of directors, and Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the outcomes of the legislation. Those gaps will, in our view, significantly limit the potential effectiveness of the Bill in its efforts to tackle financial corruption—potentially costing creditors, the Government and the public billions of pounds. Labour is calling for new clauses 1 and 3, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, to be added to the Bill to address those gaps.”
“It is therefore welcome that clauses 2 and 3, which deal with Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, remove the requirement for a dissolved company to be restored before the Government can act. The key change being made is that the powers available to the Secretary of State to investigate former directors of insolvent companies will be extended to cover dissolved companies. It will become easier for the Government to investigate the conduct of dissolved companies and, consequently, to seek disqualification orders or undertakings if desired.”
“We have also heard that the payment of employment tribunal awards can be affected. Too often, corrupt directors are able to absolve themselves of their financial responsibilities through dissolution, due to the time and money required for creditors to restore the company before being able to take action against it or the directors. As we heard in evidence, the Bill should therefore positively impact on creditor confidence. We also know that the taxpayer is now becoming a victim of this process, and that the action being taken is more limited due to the blunt tools and insufficient powers currently available, as unscrupulous directors seek to avoid paying back covid support loans.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the Minister for outlining in some detail the legislation before us and the rationale for clauses 2 and 3 of this short but important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington stated, and as we both outlined at Second Reading, Labour is broadly supportive of the Bill, including the measures to close the dissolution loophole, which are needed to help tackle phoenixism, and which had almost unanimous support in all the oral and written evidence that the Committee received. There was also support for allowing action retrospectively; it is a welcome addition to the insolvency framework. As the Committee heard from witnesses on Tuesday, unscrupulous directors can cause significant suffering to those who have invested in, or provided loans to, their company.”
“(2) The assessment must include consideration of— (a) the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives; (b) the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to coronavirus support for business and business rates; and (c) possible related changes to law and policy.”— (Jeff Smith.) This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in section 1 of this Act. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“In the light of the Minister’s response, I will not press it today, but we would be interested in further discussions on the review that the Minister has outlined and we will return to this issue on Report. New Clause 2 Effectiveness of non-domestic rating lists provisions “(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of one year after the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.”
“If it is not sufficiently clear, the first thing that elected members will do is compare their figure with that of a similar local authority, and if it is significantly different, they will want to know why, so there are a few challenges ahead for the Minister.”
“Again, the Minister said in his guidance that the scheme will be by application, so it will be for companies to choose whether they apply. No doubt, if we see the draft guidance and it gives clear indications of the way local government is to work, you can frame an application form in such a way that it will target the relief at those in most need. Until we see the guidance, it is difficult to give a clear forecast of whether the pot is large enough, mainly because of the mysterious economic factor. The implication from the Minister’s statements is that it will differ from area to area, so it will be impossible to know what figures the Minister has taken into account unless we have absolute transparency and those figures are made available. Of course, there is a danger that individual local authorities will challenge the figure.”
“You can do a rough calculation by taking out retail, hospitality and leisure properties, exempt properties, small businesses and so on, and you are left with an effective amount of rateable value and an effective number of properties that would get the relief. Of course, the Government have also added local economic factors into the decision on the distribution of the pot, and we do not know the detail of them. If you look at the eligible rateable value and the eligible properties, once you take out the exempt properties and those that have already received relief, you start to come to a figure well in excess of £1.5 billion. You are starting to look at a figure perhaps three times that amount. Initially, that sounds quite frightening, but of course we do not know the economic impact of covid on individual companies.”
“Airports were given as an example. If airports appear in the guidance as something that the Government want local government to support, as Mr Magor says, their rateable values are large, and therefore the pot probably would not be sufficient, but it is really hard to say at this point in time. David Magor: On the size of the overall pot, we at the institute have the advantage of having a comprehensive database going back to 1990 of all non-domestic properties. We have been looking at that database and trying to do some early forecasting of how big the pot should be. You can see from the ministerial statements that the Minister has made quite clear exactly the direction that he wants the relief to go in.”
“The way I expect this scheme to work is for the Government to release guidance on the types of business they expect local government to support. In the announcement on 25 March, they gave a couple of examples of types of businesses that have not been affected but would see a reduction due to a material change of circumstance, and one that has been affected but would not see a reduction through a material change of circumstance. Local government has to follow guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is in the regulations; section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 says that it must be taken into account. Until we know exactly the types of business the Government are expecting local government to give support to, it is really hard to say whether £1.5 billion is enough.”
“Q Thank you both for giving evidence to us today. I wonder if I could get your views on the value of what I think you have described as a “funding pot”—the £1.5 billion that has been allocated. Do you have concerns about the sufficiency of that, and what are those concerns based on? The second question is more specifically to Mr Blaylock and relates to the IRRV’s evidence, in particular to paragraph 6, where you are talking about the benefits of amending provisions of section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It would be useful to talk through your argument there to help us understand it. Adrian Blaylock: That is probably aimed at Mr Magor, rather than me. It is really hard to know whether the size of the pot—the £1.5 billion—is large enough or not.”
“It needs to go through the proper governance process, which will take time. It could take two or three months for all that to go through its own internal processes, on top of whatever time it takes for the legislation to be passed and the guidance and allocations to be issued by MHCLG. Timing is crucial in this process.”
“So, strictly speaking, as at the end of September a local authority will not be permitted to give discretionary relief rate back into 2020-21. That means that either everything needs to be in place and all the local schemes need to be up and running by the end of September, or the relief is not given for 2020-21 but is given for 2021-22 instead. However, what then happens to the businesses that had a material change of circumstances lodged for 2020-21 that are no longer in existence? They have missed out on that. As for the timing, it is important that the Bill gets through as quickly as possible, but it is also important for people to understand that local government also have to go through their own governance processes. Devising a scheme is not just a case of somebody sitting at a desk and saying, “There you go, this is our scheme”.”
“The real issue for local authorities is devising a scheme and ensuring that they can distribute the pot fairly, and that they do not run out of money. That, in itself, will be a massive problem. Adrian Blaylock: The only point I would add to that is timing. I think you questioned the timing and the need for haste; as David said, businesses need this money now. The only thing I would question is to ask what this relief pot meant to be compensating for. The majority of the lockdown measures and the restrictions applied during 2020-21 rather than during 2021-22, and there is a specific part of section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act that says that a local authority cannot take a decision more than six months after the financial year to which the decision relates.”
“Then, you issue the guidance with the distribution, give local authorities a chance to analyse that distribution and understand whether it is fair, and what to do at a local level. Local authorities then have regard to that guidance and devise a scheme, which has to be done quickly. If we had not had this proposed change in the law, the valuation officer and ratepayers’ agents would be settling matters now, and I suspect refunds would have started to circulate. If this scheme is to replace those MCC challenges, you would like to think it would be in force later this year, and that any reliefs would be paid during the current financial year— that must be the aim. The pot is a one-off that would be distributed as quickly as possible, because now is the time when the money is needed.”