Grand Committee
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, and it is quite likely that there will be, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, this debate will also consider the take-note Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, on the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025.
These statutory instruments form part of a wider package of legislation that gives effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality, leisure and high-value properties. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the detailed and thoughtful consideration of these statutory instruments in its 40th and 48th reports. Business rates are based on a property’s rateable value and a multiplier for each tax year. In the Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a comprehensive set of reforms to the business rates system in England, including the introduction of three additional multipliers from April 2026.
The three new multipliers are: a small business retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £51,000; a standard retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values of £51,000 to £499,999; and a high-value multiplier for properties with rateable values of £500,000 and above. In the Budget last November, the Government announced the rates for these new multipliers. These new rates will deliver permanently low multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000.
The Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026 prescribe the circumstances in which the new multipliers will apply. The new multipliers will replace the pandemic-era retail, leisure and hospitality reliefs that currently apply. These reliefs were introduced on a temporary basis in 2020, recognising the exceptional circumstances of the time. Continuing these reliefs would cost around £1.7 billion per year. The new multipliers will benefit over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. However, unlike the existing relief, they are permanent, thereby providing businesses with greater certainty and support. They are also not subject to a cash cap, meaning that all qualifying properties in a retail, hospitality and leisure chain can benefit. Taking into account the upcoming business rates revaluation, the tax rate that retail, hospitality and leisure properties on the small business multiplier will pay next year will fall by nearly 12p overall. Similarly, the rate for retail, hospitality and leisure properties on the standard multiplier will fall by 12.5p compared with what they are paying now.
To ensure that support for the high street is sustainable, the Government will fund these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties, those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. From April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate that is 33% higher than that paid by small high street properties.
I turn to the Motion laid by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which relates to the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025. These regulations set out the eligibility for the new multipliers and passed into law last year. The Government’s objective in setting these regulations was to reflect the same definition for eligibility as the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief. We want sectors that benefited under the previous relief to continue benefiting under this new relief. For example, under the existing relief, businesses benefit if they are wholly or mainly used for retail, hospitality or leisure purposes. That includes the sale of most goods, services, food and drink or entertainment as well as accommodation to the public. These requirements are the same under the new relief.
Similarly, under the existing relief, businesses benefited only where they were used for in-person activity. The same principles apply under the statutory instrument that we passed last year. The Government have retained the same approach to ensure continuity in our support for the sector while making this support permanent and uncapped.
The new multipliers are being introduced alongside a revaluation of non-domestic properties, which the Valuation Office Agency carries out independently every three years. Currently, property values are based on values from 2021, during the pandemic. Values were generally lower at this time due to the unusual economic situation that the pandemic created. Many properties are therefore seeing their rateable values increase at this revaluation, reflecting post-pandemic recovery.
To support affected businesses, the Government announced in the Budget a significant support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years. First, we are implementing transitional relief, which will cap increases next year by 5% for the smallest properties and up to 30% for the largest properties. Secondly, we are expanding the supporting small business scheme. Currently, the scheme caps the bill increases of those losing some or all their small business rates relief or rural rates relief. We are expanding it to those which are currently eligible for the 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief. The supporting small business scheme will cap bill increases at the relevant transitional relief cap or £800 per year, whichever is higher.
Together, these schemes will mean that the majority of properties facing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest. Even after the revaluation, around a third of properties will pay no business rates at all as they receive 100% small business rate relief. A further 85,000 properties will benefit from reduced business rates as this relief tapers. We have also extended the small business rate relief second property grace period from one year to three years, to support small businesses as they grow.
Following the Budget, concerns were raised about how the valuation methodology for pubs was applied. We have listened and responded to those concerns by launching a review into how pubs are valued for business rates. This review will also cover how hotels are valued and will include extensive engagement from valuation experts, businesses and their representatives. It will report in time for any decisions that follow to be implemented for the 2029 revaluation.
In the meantime, we are taking steps to support pubs for not only next year but the next three years. From April, pubs and live music venues will receive 15% off their new business rates bill on top of the support announced in the Budget. Bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. This support is worth around £1,650 to the average pub and will mean around three-quarters of pubs seeing their bills either falling or remaining the same next year. This decision will mean that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be 8% lower in 2028-29 than it is today.
The Government are also committed to going further to reform the business rates system to incentivise more investment. That is why we published a call for evidence on the next phase of business rates reform in November last year; that consultation will close later this month, and the Government will respond in due course. We recognise that transforming the business rates system is a multi-year process, and we are committed to working with stakeholders throughout this process to achieve meaningful change.
The reforms being delivered through these statutory instruments will benefit over 750,000 properties across England while ensuring that the top 1% most expensive properties, including those used by online giants, pay their fair share. They will support investment and create a fairer business rates system. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I have not secured this debate to oppose the Government’s ambition to support the high street. Permanent lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure are, in principle, a welcome step towards stability. Instead, I have tabled this Motion to highlight a critical flaw in the definition of who qualifies for this support. By drawing the lines of eligibility too narrowly, these regulations inadvertently exclude the engine room of our £8 billion music industry and the R&D hubs of our visual arts sector, threatening the very existence of the UK’s grass-roots creative infrastructure.
Our recording studios face a perfect storm and I know that the noble friends of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, are both very supportive of what we are trying to highlight today and regret that they unavoidably cannot be here to say so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, would also want to say something if he were able and did not have other engagements. Under the 2026 revaluation, which coincides with these new multipliers, these businesses face an average increase in rateable value of 45%, with some seeing hikes of nearly 100%. Simultaneously, because Regulation 3 excludes them from the retail, hospitality and leisure RHL category, they are denied the lower tax multiplier that their neighbours on the high street will receive.
The Music Producers Guild has provided alarming evidence that 50% of studios surveyed are considering closure within the next year. These businesses operate on ultra-thin margins, often requiring 85% occupancy just to break even. They compete in a global market. If it becomes too expensive to record here, artists will simply move to eastern Europe or the United States. We are already seeing top UK artists recording major projects abroad. The urgency cannot be overstated. I have seen correspondence from the Music Venue Trust highlighting a terrifying reality: directors of these businesses are running their figures for April and realising they will be insolvent. Under HMRC rules, to continue trading would constitute what is called fiscal recklessness, risking personal liability. This means we risk a wave of closures before the first bills even land, simply because the Government have failed to provide certainty.
Let me draw the Committee’s attention to the 40th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The committee explicitly noted the submissions from UK Music and the Music Producers Guild regarding this exclusion. The committee highlighted a glaring inconsistency in government policy. Film and TV studios currently benefit from a specific 40% business rates relief, which the Treasury confirmed will continue. The SLSC invited this House to question the Minister on this matter, so on what basis does the Treasury protect the infrastructure of our film industry while the infrastructure of our music industry, facing identical economic pressures, is left to face what the sector describes as an existential threat?
The Government’s justification for excluding these studios is that they are not reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public. I must challenge this, using the Government’s own guidance. Paragraph 22 lists funeral directors, shoe repairers and key cutters as eligible because they constitute the provision of a service. Recording studios are functionally identical: they provide a specialist service accessible to any member of the public willing to pay for it, be that a professional band, a local choir or a community group. Do the public browse a funeral parlour? No, they book a specific service. A recording studio is no different. If a key cutter qualifies, surely a recording studio does too.
We know that the Government can act when the system creates anomalies. Just weeks ago, following concerns regarding pubs, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in bills and a freeze for two years. The Minister in the other place, referring to music venues, said:
“It would not be right to seek to draw the line in a way that includes some and not others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/26; col. 771.]
Yet that is exactly what these regulations do: they support the venue where music is performed but tax the studio where music is created out of existence. The music ecosystem is a pipeline: if you destroy the creation phase, you eventually starve the venues. The Chancellor justified the pub relief by calling pubs “community assets”. If that is the test, studios that host community choirs, youth education projects and amateur bands must surely pass it.
Reports suggest that the Chancellor is resisting wider relief for hotels and restaurants because she cannot afford to support every business. I understand that constraint, but we are not talking about thousands of hotels; we are speaking of roughly 500 recording studios. The cost must be negligible compared with the £300 million package announced for pubs, yet the value to the £8 billion music industry is existential.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It might be helpful to the Committee if I explain that we are considering only the first Motion on the agenda at this time. I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to move his Motion when we have concluded this debate. We are debating them both, but we can take only one at a time. The one that we are taking now is the first Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been in order by speaking to his Motion, because it has been grouped with the government Motion.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has called this debate, which is so important for the arts. He has summarised the arguments extremely well. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for his introduction.
I am grateful for the briefings from both the Music Producers Guild and UK Music. I am particularly grateful for the conversation I had last week with Gaby Grafftey-Smith, who runs the prestigious Angelic Studios in Northamptonshire. Angelic was founded by musician Toby Smith of Jamiroquai—
“by a musician for musicians”,
as its website eloquently puts it. Since 2017, when Toby Smith sadly died, the studio has been run by Gaby. One of the first things that she told me was that no one runs a studio to make money; they do so out of a passion for music. It is less a business and much more a vocation. The artists and technicians themselves build up the heritage. A studio develops organically in a creative manner. In terms of business, the margins are tight, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, and there is a ceiling on income, because only so many artists can be booked. The space itself often has to be for the desired sound, which may be created by choirs or a grand piano—a big space.
It is also precious. Gaby talks about the precise mix of cultural and technical specification that make up her recording studio and others. Trust is built up over time between the studio recording engineer and artist. Each recording studio will have a different character and a different sound; they are all individual. She told me about a drummer for a well-known band, who, having tried different studios across the country, has said that her studio is the only one that provides the right environment for the particular sound that the drummer is trying to achieve.
Angelic is also one of a few key residential studios, which further cements the crucial relationship between artist and studio. In particular, for major stars such as Harry Styles or Black Sabbath, it means, as Gaby puts it,
“a unique, rural, isolated space to work”.
If such artists cannot find such spaces in the UK, we will lose these stars to America. By their very nature, they are not spaces where public access is appropriate, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they can nevertheless be used by anyone.
Like other studios, Angelic also has an apprenticeship scheme, but Gaby points out that, if recording studios cannot afford to take on those who are learning what is a key craft in the music recording industry, those who come into the industry in the future are much more likely to be from a moneyed background. That is an effect that the Government ought to think hard about. The major effect would of course be on the artists themselves, with artists turning to studios in other countries, such as in New York or Paris, in the event of studios closing or booking charges increasing. Just as worrying is the possibility that new British artists would not get a rung on the ladder or be able to record in a professional environment alongside established musicians.
Like all recording studios, Angelic is extremely worried about the increase in business rates. The Music Producers Guild reports that, for Angelic, that increase would be 48%—slightly higher than the average predicted increase of 45%, itself a massive increase. On business rates, Gaby believes that, for the reasons that I have laid out, studios should have their own category and be linked to yearly turnover, rather than a square-footage rateable value. I have described the character of one recording studio to show how much creative effort goes into the provision of one important specialist facility that cannot be expected to grow and diversify like an ordinary office-based business—it grows in a different way.
It ought to be pointed out here that Abbey Road, with its mixed portfolio, is, for obvious reasons, an outlier. Abbey Road is far and away the most famous recording studios in the world and a tourist attraction, so identified is it globally with the Beatles—although, of course, those studios also have a remarkable classical legacy that stretches back to Elgar, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, will well know.
I hope that this debate will make it very clear how much our recording studios are as much critical creative infrastructure for the music industry as film studios are for the film industry. Yet film studios receive 40% relief on business rates without, of course, needing any public access. The loss of a single recording studio would be tragic, but the loss of possibly up to half of our recording studios would be catastrophic—a tragedy that would be writ large on the music industry.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out the issues surrounding these regulations with such clarity. Like the noble Earl and the noble Lord, I wish to express my gratitude to the Music Venue Trust, UK Music and the Music Producers Guild for their helpful briefings and for joining several Members of this House —the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty—before Christmas to brief the Arts Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, on the consequences of these measures for grass-roots music venues, recording studios and artists’ studios. Let me briefly set out how I see the key issues facing each of the sectors affected by these regulations.
For grass-roots music venues, the picture is stark. Despite contributing over £500 million to the UK economy in 2025, the sector remains structurally fragile, with an average profit margin of just 2.5% and over half of venues showing no profit at all. These venues face a collective £7.2 million increase in their tax base from the 2026 revaluation. Hundreds will see rateable values rise by over 50%, with some experiencing increases of 100% or more. The Music Venue Trust projects that between 200 and 300 venues could close over the next four to five years. For venues already operating on razor-thin margins, these are not merely bills; they are closure notices.
For recording studios, the situation is equally perilous. Around 250 studios—roughly half the UK’s commercial studio base—are at risk of closure without mitigation by April 2026. Studios are facing an average business rates increase of 45%, with some experiencing rises of up to 100%.
These are not marginal businesses. Dean Street Studios, created by Tony Visconti and used by artists from David Bowie to Adele, has already closed three of its commercial studios, sold equipment and cut staff by 80%. The Motor Museum in Liverpool, which has supported artists from Oasis to Arctic Monkeys, is fully booked seven days a week, yet it tells us that a mere £50 increase in daily rates would drive away the emerging artists it exists to support. The studio is on track to becoming unviable.
More than 75% of recording studios are outside London, in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and beyond. This is not a London-centric problem; it is a crisis affecting local economies, regional talent development and cultural infrastructure across the entire country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, highlighted, the visual arts sector faces the same structural vulnerability. Artists’ studios operate on extremely low margins, keeping rents deliberately below market rates to remain affordable. Like grass-roots music venues, they function as public-benefit cultural infrastructure, not commercial property. The removal of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, combined with the new multiplier, will force rent increases that artists already at breaking point cannot absorb—or it will trigger studio closures. We have already seen this pattern in major cities across the country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has also highlighted, the 40th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew attention to a notable contrast in the Government’s approach. It observed that film studios benefit from a specific business rates relief: a 40% reduction on gross bills until 2034, worth some £470 million over 10 years. Yet recording studios, which are equally critical creative infrastructure for the music industry, receive no equivalent support. Indeed, the regulations before us specifically exclude premises used for the production or recording of music. This makes little sense.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as the proud outgoing chair of UK Music, the umbrella body for the British music industry. I am sure I do not have to tell my noble friend that the United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the world that remain net exporters of commercial music. That is not an accident; it is the result of a delicate and highly successful ecosystem. After two terms and six years chairing UK Music, I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on what makes this country so distinctive in the breadth and quality of its music, and its renowned commercial success. There is no single explanation, but there are four essential pieces to that jigsaw.
The first is our songwriters. They are unique, special and precious. They are often contrarian, usually very clever, and sometimes fragile and tender, much like the songs they write. The second is our performers—the artists who wear their heart on their sleeve night after night, festival after festival. Last week, it was a pleasure to see British artists Lola Young and Olivia Dean win acclaim on the world stage at the Grammys. The third is our musicians. They are technically gifted, are often poorly paid and frequently struggle to make ends meet. Yet, for them, music is often not just a job but a vocation.
The fourth piece of that jigsaw, and often one of the most overlooked, is our producers and their recording studios. A few are famous, such as AIR Studios, founded by Sir George Martin, which still has trailblazing engineers such as Olga FitzRoy, who helped to give the London 2012 Olympic Games their music; she has also worked with Coldplay and my personal hero, George Michael. Then there is Mickie Most, the founder of RAK Studios, who worked with artists including Herman’s Hermits, The Animals and Jeff Beck.
However, there is also a generation of producers who are perhaps less well known but still highly regarded around the world. They include: Manon Grandjean, a leading figure from the grime scene, who has worked with Stormzy and Dave; Paul Epworth, a producer for both Adele and Florence and the Machine and the owner of the Eurythmics’ former studio; Catherine Marks, an award-winning producer who has worked with Alanis Morissette and Wolf Alice; and the great Cameron Craig, a mixer and producer for Grace Jones and Annie Lennox, with multiple Grammy awards to his name.
Together, these producers and studios shape the sound of modern Britain and underpin our global success. That is why I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this important report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to the attention of the Committee.
One of the reasons given for excluding recording studios from this measure is that, unlike music venues, they are not accessible to the public. With respect, that suggests a misunderstanding at the Treasury of what recording studios are and the role they play in the music ecosystem. Recording studios are not private; they are not private members’ clubs. They are working spaces. They are social and cultural. Anyone can hire them—artists, musicians, producers and engineers do so every day. Some of them even have bars. The sector spans everything from a small studio on an industrial estate to large facilities capable of hosting orchestras, as well as landmark studios that are part of our national cultural heritage.
This matters far beyond London, too. A brief example illustrates the point. Habitat Studio, a short walk from Manchester Piccadilly station, hosts between 120 and 150 bands every month, around 80% of whom are grass-roots artists. Alongside this, it works with established touring acts, charities and universities. Facilities such as this operate seven days a week, with small teams providing professional, affordable and reliable spaces for recording and rehearsals, and food and drink. They are not marginal operations. They are busy, productive and deeply embedded in their local music economies and cultural scenes.
What concerns me most is the logic underpinning their exclusion. First, there is an economic inconsistency. Studios face the same pressures as venues, including high energy costs, specialist premises and skilled staff. Supporting one part of the supply chain while excluding another risks distorting behaviour and, over time, pushing recording activity overseas. Secondly, studios act as regional anchors. They sustain skilled employment, support freelancers and help create creative clusters in towns and cities across the country. Thirdly, studios are not peripheral. They are upstream infrastructure. Without studios, there is no recorded music. Without recorded music, there is no touring product. Without touring, there is no export success.
Britain’s music industry is one of the country’s great success stories. It depends on an ecosystem in which every part matters, from the songwriters to the performer, from the musician to the producer and the studio that brings that work to life. If we value that ecosystem, our tax and rating policies should reflect how it functions. To borrow a lyric from a song recorded by the Korgis at Crescent Studios in early 1980, I say to the Minister:
“Change your heart, look around you”.
Recording studios are not an optional extra. They are essential cultural and economic infrastructure and our policy should recognise them as such.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, having heard from the Deputy Chairman of Committees that we were going to the first Motion first, we have the second Motion first. I want to go back. I do not want to talk about studios. It is not that I do not know anything about recording studios; it is that I have nothing to add to what noble Lords have said.
I want to raise a wider point about what happens when you make changes in the business rates system. It is important that the business rates system has the right incentives and is fair to small businesses, particularly those on the high street that make such a cultural contribution to our nation. We have seen in the newspapers as well as in these regulations what happens when you make alterations to the business rates that pertain to pubs, hotels, restaurants, between retail and industrial, and to large businesses versus small. It is one of those truths that the winners tend to keep quiet, but it can be existential for losers. That is partly because the amount of money that is raised by business rates is fixed and, as you give a relief in one place, it pops up as additional burdens elsewhere. That is just the way the system works.
However, for local government, stability and buoyancy in the system are important. When you change the system, there are downstream consequences, because business rates very largely pay for the delivery of local government services. Yes, there is redistribution within the nation of the money that is raised. For example, we are in Westminster, which raises nearly £1 in every £12 raised in business rates in our nation, and that £2 billion or so is redistributed to Redcar, Redruth, Wroxham and all around the country with a complicated process of ceilings and floors. There are also systems within county areas, as they tend to be, so that all the councils can pool together to grow the economy. That is important, because the system is designed with powerful incentives for councils to grow the economy on the simple truth that the more you grow the economy, the more you keep. Of course, resets happen every now and again and they are a disincentive to grow. All that effort is wasted as the business rates baseline is washed away. That is the context within which I wish to make my subsequent remarks.
In the past few weeks, there have been technical changes in the way that baselines and pooling are done that would have had material effects on district councils. For most councils, about 10% of their net budget would have been swept away, badly impacting on homelessness, recycling, building and all the things that we need to get the economy going. That is especially germane because district councils outside the M25 and the urban metropolitan centres tend to be the planning authorities that get growth going.
I know that the District Councils’ Network and, more widely, the local government family are grateful that the technical changes that could have caused that 10% disaster have been fixed for the coming year, but for one year only. As we look at business rates more generally and at altering the application of business rates, we need to make sure that the Treasury and the local government department are better aligned in future years so that we avoid the perverse outcomes that we might have seen.
It is not fair on councils to have the uncertainty. It is certainly not the right thing for the economy, because confidence and long-term stability provide that central alignment between central and local government to generate wealth in these islands. It is incumbent on the national Government to ensure that they do not accidentally damage that delicate balance that keeps the economy growing, people in work and taxes paid.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I add my name in support of all the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the take-note Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am grateful to him and to the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing our particular attention to the regulations before the Grand Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but a Division has been called. We look forward to hearing from him again in about 10 minutes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we had to hit pause, but I shall resist the temptation to hit rewind and repeat what I said. I was echoing the points that have been made: a lot of the problems here are with the way the Valuation Office Agency tries to understand the particular nature of these important businesses. At the very helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross—which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, alluded to—we heard from a lot of people across the sector. They are frustrated that they have one conversation with the Government but hear something different from the Valuation Office Agency. If there is a way to short-circuit that, I know that they would appreciate it.
There is also the broader question of how the Government value and account for things. Can the Minister say whether, in bringing these measures forward in the discussions that His Majesty’s Treasury had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, he was able to talk to the team there that works on the culture and heritage capital programme? That team is working to arrive at a Green Book-compliant way of valuing the wider benefits that we have heard about. That includes the social benefits of our cultural infrastructure in terms of not just our physical and mental health and well-being or tackling isolation and loneliness, particularly in rural areas or areas of deprivation, but trying to put a value on inspiring the future generations of musicians, artists and others.
It seems that the decision here runs counter to the Government’s noble aims in their creative industries sector plan to grow what are already world-leading sectors for the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are precarious and challenged by a number of global competitors, which are breathing very heavily down our necks. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, said, we have a very delicate ecology and ecosystem in these sectors, and it is very important that we all do everything we can to maintain that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not quite sure, as the procedure is rather arcane, but I think I manage to get a very quick wind-up. The positive thing today is that we have heard so much about our music ecosystem, and people have been celebrating that. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was absolutely right when he talked about the impact of Covid—the perfect storm, in a sense, of inflation, national insurance and so on—but that ecosystem is hanging on. It is still there, and it is absolutely fundamental to the music industry. In a sense, that is the good news; the bad news is that some of the issues we have been talking about today on business rates are going to kill what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, called the critical creative infrastructure.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to these two closely related sets of regulations, which together established the new tiered system of business rates for the 2026 financial year. One determines which hereditaments fall into each multiplier band, and the other fixes the resulting liabilities for larger premises. I thank the Minister for his clear and careful introduction to the new rules.
Although I plan to focus elsewhere today, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others for drawing our special attention, so eloquently, to the second instrument, to the anomalous position of the recording studios and to the hikes in rates that they face. This could lead to unwelcome closures and to the expected moves of some studios abroad. I have visited Abbey Road Studios as a private citizen. Those studios are an important part of our rich art and cultural heritage, which has been referenced so many times today—indeed, I have walked across the famous zebra crossing, made of worldwide importance by the Beatles.
I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its, I have to say, critical report. It was disappointed that the Government had not seen fit to publish any of the wide range of evidence and analysis it considered on the effects of the new multipliers, other than high-level data. It also sought a proper explanation of why the Government consider it fair that, apparently without advancing evidence, a low multiplier should apply to smaller RHL premises compared to non-RHL properties. I look forward to a full response from the Minister on that report.
Prior to the election, the now Prime Minister promised a regime of permanently lower business rates multipliers. Since then, the Chancellor has claimed that, on this basis, business rates are at their lowest level since 1991, yet many businesses now face substantial increases in their bills. That is why it is so profoundly misleading to characterise these changes as record low taxation by reference to multipliers. Multipliers are not the tax rate. Bills are, and it is bills that businesses have to pay and real people have to bear.
Turning to the substance of the regulations, in their first Budget, this Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure relief, a tax rise worth £1.1 billion a year. At the same time, they have locked in automatic, inflation-linked increases every year. Can the Minister explain, in specific terms, what the Government believe the cumulative effect of these decisions will be by the end of this Parliament? What modelling has the Treasury done on business closures, employment losses and investment being deferred? For SMEs, the challenge is acute. Shops, hotels and restaurants face even steeper rises. Does the Minister seriously believe that this trajectory is sustainable?
Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality will face higher bills and fewer businesses will benefit from relief than under the previous 40% scheme. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, local authorities previously had greater discretion over which premises benefited. Can the Minister tell the Committee what estimate the Government have made—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one—of how many businesses will lose out because that discretion has now been removed?
I turn now to the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations, which I have looked at in combination with the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations. As confirmed in the letter sent by MHCLG to the chief finance officers of English billing authorities this very day, these set the new high-value multiplier at 50.8p, compared to a standard multiplier of 48p—an extra 2.8p in the pound.
The Government’s intention is for these measures to be directed at large online warehouses with rateable values of around £500,000 or above. However, as the provision currently stands, a greater number of retail premises will in fact be captured by the higher rate, including many of the anchor stores that play a central role in sustaining footfall and economic activity in our high streets. I remember these so well from my time at Tesco, since they were at the heart of a regeneration strategy in poorer areas that provided jobs for the unemployed and fresh fruit and vegetables, which Southampton University found materially improved health locally. The study was actually paid for by Sainsbury’s, but the outcomes were very positive.
It appears to be difficult to reconcile hitting such stores hard with the commitments made prior to the election, when it was said that business rates would be replaced with a fairer system intended to address disparities between large online operators and physical retailers. Will the Minister say why the Government are choosing to target anchor retail stores? What assessment has been made of the knock-on effects on surrounding businesses in the same development or high street when these anchors are weakened or lost?
The higher rates are being introduced alongside rising employment costs, NICs, national minimum wages, especially for the young, increased alcohol duties, high energy costs and the proposed tourist levy on hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. UK Hospitality has warned that should mayoral authorities choose to exercise these new powers, the additional cost to consumers could amount to £518 million. Layering new fiscal burdens, even where individually justified, can in aggregate undermine the very sector that the Government wish to support.
At what point do the Government consider the cumulative impact of these measures, taken together, and reflect on whether the overall burden risks becoming counterproductive? Of course, I understand the challenges the Government face, but it is this cumulative effect that is such an acute problem. What consideration has been given to the impact on consumer prices and demand, especially at a time when households remain under significant financial pressure?
We would take a different approach. We would provide permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with rateable values of up to £110,000, supporting around 250,000 small businesses across the country. That support would be funded through a more disciplined and focused approach to welfare spending, as set out clearly at our party conference last year.
In these circumstances, I was pleased to hear from the Minister during his Statement on 29 January that the Government were looking at the adverse effect of the changes on hotels and that the wider review of business rates was ongoing. We heard that any changes to business rates would be considered at the Budget in the usual way. Can the Minister confirm that we are talking about the 2026 Budget and comment on the budgetary position? Is there new money for pubs and music venues—and, if need be, for hotels—or does everything have to come out of the £4.3 billion announced in the previous Budget?
Can the Minister please confirm that the wider review of business rates, which currently has an ongoing call for evidence due to close in a few days’ time, as he mentioned, will address not only large infrastructure businesses and premises such as airports, but small and medium-sized businesses in the context of the current economic and tax environment? Will he take a good look at incentives and anomalies in the VOA rules and at the need to align Treasury and local government thinking, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fuller? Will he look in particular at the problem facing recording and artist studios, raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has led with his Motion, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Watson of Wyre Forest—and UK Music? Discussions with DCMS could, it seems, also be helpful to the VOA.
Noble Lords will know that we believe in backing those who take risks, create employment and invest in the productive economy. In our view, these regulations move in the opposite direction. For that reason, I urge the Government to reflect carefully on their approach and on the conclusions that they reach from the review that they are undertaking.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the comments and questions raised throughout the debate. Let me start with the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the comments made on that. The Motion he has laid relates to the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025. These regulations set out the eligibility for the new multipliers, and they passed into law last year. As I said at the outset, the Government’s objective in this statutory instrument was to reflect the same definition for eligibility as the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief. We want sectors that benefited under the previous relief to continue benefiting under the new relief. We have therefore retained the same approach to ensure continuity and fairness in our support for the sector while making this support permanent and uncapped.
I have heard clearly in the course of this debate the strong views expressed and the passion for the sector. There were comments from the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, who I was sorry to see is not sitting on this side of the Committee. I hope there is nothing for the Whips to worry about in that.
Noble Lords asked in the course of the debate many questions around recording studios. As I have said already, our objective in setting these regulations was to reflect the same definition for eligibility as the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I suspect noble Lords will not like my answer here, but that existing relief is centred around retail, hospitality and leisure properties which are
“reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public”.
If a recording studio forms part of a single property with a qualifying hospitality or retail business, and the hospitality or retail aspect is the main purpose of the property, it will qualify for the lower multipliers. It is only if a property is wholly or mainly used as a recording studio that it will not qualify for the lower multipliers, as these are generally not open to the public.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is going to leap up to ask some questions as well, but the Minister did not mention film studios. A number of us talked about the possibility that recording studios could be treated in the same way as film studios and have that exemption. Is that something the Government are prepared to look at, please?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said, I cannot commit to introducing any specific targeted relief, but we keep all taxes under review.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I raised the issue that this year there was a misalignment between the Treasury and MHCLG regarding some of the changes that were made to the business rates. Will the Minister commit to at least having advanced discussions between MHCLG and the Treasury in future years? There has been a temporary sticking plaster—I might characterise it as that—and the sector is very grateful for that, but it is for one year only. Having got out of the fire this year, can we be clear that we will not accidentally stumble back in on a future occasion, otherwise we will be standing here in 12 months’ time having the same debate?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s remarks and do not think he asked a specific question, which is why I did not give him a specific answer. Of course, the Treasury and MHCLG talk regularly on all matters and will continue to do so.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
I sincerely apologise to the Minister for my location here today. In studio terms, I have accidentally ended up on the B-side, not the A-side.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, some of the best songs are often on the B-side.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
Artists’ studios find dealing with the Valuation Office Agency very frustrating because when they approach it, it will not give them a model answer about how the square footage of their studios is calculated. It would be very helpful if the Valuation Office Agency could give a model or examples that other councils could follow, so that there is guidance on a national basis.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will put that to it. I have also committed to ask it to attend the meeting. If the noble Lord would like to attend that meeting as well, I am more than happy for that to happen.
Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is probably illegitimate to talk for more than a couple of minutes after that debate, but I want to thank everybody, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who neatly incorporated some recording studio references into her broader remarks. I thank her for that.
I suppose the depressing thing—I am inured to disappointment after quite a few years in this House—is that the Minister said that the Government have retained the same approach. One would hope that a new Government would have a new approach to these things, but I take some comfort from the fact that he specifically said that, even though he did not agree that recording or artists’ studios could be brought within the kind of exemption that film studios have, reliefs are kept under review.
The second and, I thought, most important aspect is that the Minister has reaffirmed his willingness to meet to talk about the VOA aspects and the valuation basis for some of these cultural assets. I very much hope that, following the debate today, he will take the initiative in setting up a meeting with a number of us, spearheaded by the famous B operator. There is certainly quite a lot of sentiment on his own Benches, which I am sure he has noticed, that we should find some solutions in this area, even if he cannot be specific at this point. The music industry has huge support across the House, on every Bench, and I very much hope he will respond at the meeting in whatever way he can. Certainly, the first step would be if he could organise that with most of us who have taken part in the debate.
In the meantime, I move my Motion. It is a take-note Motion, which I believe is uncontroversial, but at least it shows that we have put a marker down.
Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to both this draft order and the draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026, which were laid on 18 December 2025. For both the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority and the Cumbria combined authority, I will use the term “strategic authorities” hereafter, unless there is a reason to be specific in the debate.
These orders provide for the establishment of two new strategic authorities and provide for their mayoral elections, as part of the Government’s commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. This commitment is being delivered, in part, through the devolution priority programme, which provides a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington are two of the areas on the devolution priority programme, and taking forward these statutory instruments represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria on these instruments. All the respective constituent councils have consented to the making of their instrument, and I thank the local leaders and their councils for their support.
The instruments will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Both strategic authorities will be established the day after the day on which the instruments are made. The inaugural mayoral elections are due to take place for both on 6 May 2027, and their elected mayors will take office on 10 May 2027 on a four-year term.
The instruments make provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authorities. In each case, each constituent council appoints two of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.
The instruments provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong interrelation here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent to that Bill, these strategic authorities will be classed as mayoral strategic authorities, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred to the strategic authorities. Even before the mayor is in office, these strategic authorities will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two statutory instruments, which are progress on the way to the Government’s policy of mayoral devolution. I accept the notion and principle of devolution as being very positive, but, as the Minister will know, I have questioned the way it is being done, and I have one or two comments to make in that regard.
Mayoral strategic authorities are being created across England, ostensibly of a similar nature. However, the population of the new Cumbria combined authority will be around 500,000, and the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority population will be nearly 1 million. How does this compare with what we have already? Well, in West Yorkshire, the mayoral authority serves 2.5 million people; it is five times as large as the new Cumbria one will be and, presumably, will be offering similar services. My own council, where I am still a councillor, has a population of nearly 500,000, which is as big as the proposed Cumbria combined authority.
I will be interested to hear how the Minister expects the Government to respond to this: there will be various layers of mayoral strategic authorities, because those mayoral authorities of a very large population, in the met areas mainly—of course, we always exclude London, because it is a separate entity altogether—will inevitably become the big players. How do the Cumbrias of this world, which are not as big as unitary councils, operate in being able to deliver on transport, skills and so on? There is a question of size, which I would like some answers on.
The other challenge in setting up these strategic mayoral authorities concerns the constituent members of the authority. For Cumbria, only two unitary councils are going to come together to form the Cumbria combined authority. The way in which these are set up—there is a directly elected mayor, and the combined authority consists of a member from each constituent authority plus those who can be nominated on—means that there will be three directly elected members on that constituent authority. That seems unusual to me, let us put it like that, because associate members will not be able to vote. Can the Minister explain how that might work?
The other question I have is about the fact that, as we are discovering in the English devolution Bill, mayors will be able to appoint up to seven commissioners to fulfil the tasks. I understand that there will be many major strategic tasks to undertake, but I challenge the idea of having appointees rather than people elected to these positions. Will Cumbria, for instance, be able to appoint up to seven commissioners? Do the Government expect that to be the case? Will there be any restrictions on the number? Ditto for the associate members, particularly for Cumbria, because it is quite small. The Cheshire and Warrington authority will not be much bigger; three authorities are combining there, I think.
This model of devolution is being rushed out across England. Where such a model has existed, have the Government done any assessment of the effectiveness of that model? I live in a mayoral strategic authority. If somebody asked me, as somebody who is already democratically elected in part of it, what has been achieved, I would struggle. I am sure that some things have been achieved, but are they going to shift the dial, as they say? I do not know, but I think the Government should have some way of testing the effectiveness of it all.
When I looked at the number of folk who engaged with the consultation, I discovered that it was very few. What on earth does it mean to your everyday person on the street? Not very much, so very small numbers engage. However, roughly two-thirds of those who did engage opposed it. How was that view taken into account? If it was not—that is, if it was just dismissed because the Government have this model that they want to roll out across the country, which they are entitled to do—then do not ask people, just do it, if you are not going to take any notice of the comments they make. It seems that people were totally ignored.
I have one final question in response to the comments made by the Minister. She said that, in the constitution of these authorities, if a mayor is not present for a decision-making purpose, the deputy mayor should take their place. The deputy mayor is an appointed person—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes; we will then come back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will just repeat the final comment I had to make. When the Minister referenced how the constituent authorities would be able to vote in decision-making mode, she referenced the fact that if a mayor was not able to be there, the deputy mayor could take their place and vote. Either that means the deputy mayor is an elected councillor who is nominated to be the deputy mayor in a constituent authority, or it may mean, as it does in my mayoral authority, that the deputy mayor is an appointee. I have a problem if they are an appointee, because they are not democratically accountable. Decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable to the electorate., I would love that to be clarified. I wish I had finished before the Division, but with those remarks, I hope the Minister will be able to put me right on all the issues I have raised.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these orders, which establish mayoral combined authorities for Cheshire and Warrington and for Cumbria.
As we have made clear in the discussions on the devolution Bill, we support the principle of English devolution and promoted this while we were in government. We support the creation of combined authorities where they have genuine local support, are properly funded and are designed to reflect the identities and needs of their areas. However, that support for devolution in principle does not absolve the Government of their responsibility to demonstrate that these proposals meet the statutory tests as set out in the 2009 Act, nor does it remove the need for proper scrutiny.
The question of funding remains unresolved and frankly a little bit troubling. The Government have indicated that these new authorities will receive additional funding over a 30-year period. How such long-term funding commitments will be guaranteed in practice is not clear. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to provide genuine certainty to these combined authorities? They will need that if they are going to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, skills and transport planning. That requires predictable funding going forward. Also, as an aside, will mayors in future combined authorities receive similar levels of funding?
Linked to this is the mayoral precept. These orders enable the new mayors to levy an additional charge on council tax to fund these functions. While that power may be appropriate in some circumstances, it raises legitimate concerns about local accountability and affordability. We would welcome clarification from the Minister on the detail of central government funding expected to support local devolved functions and on to what extent the Government anticipate or indeed rely upon the use of the mayoral precept to bridge any funding gap. That also raises the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was moving towards of how we ensure scrutiny and holding the mayor to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue of size. Given the powers that the Secretary of State will have in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to push through potential mergers, what is the Government’s intention here?
Finally, I raise a specific concern about Cheshire and Warrington, which is the financial position of Warrington Borough Council. The estimated £1.8 billion of debt carried by the council is concerning, and it is not at all clear how the creation of a mayoral combined authority interacts with that reality. We ask for further detail: what special measures will be put in place to ensure that the debt does not undermine the financial stability of the new authority as a whole? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the creation of a combined authority will not directly or indirectly place additional burdens on neighbouring councils or local taxpayers?
Devolution done well can be transformative, but devolution done poorly risks creating new layers of governance without the trust, clarity or resources required to make them effective. We urge the Government to consider seriously the concerns raised by local communities, the scrutiny committee and this House. We will continue to support devolution that is consensual, properly funded and genuinely local, and we will continue to challenge proposals that fall short of these principles.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments on this statutory instrument. I will try to answer all their questions, but, as usual, I will check Hansard and make sure I have replied to the issues that they have raised.
The noble Baroness raised the issue around the differing sizes of the authorities. I appreciate the points she makes on that. Of course, she will know—as I do, since I worked extensively with my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—that Cumbria is a very sparse rural area. When the Government look at the sizes for these local authorities, we need to agree sensible devolution geographies. The Government consider the scale, the economy, the contiguity, making sure we have no devolution islands, how we are going to deal with delivery, the alignment and the identity. It is not possible to meet all the principles. We prefer these combined authorities to have a population of around 1.2 million to 1.5 million, but that is not possible in all areas. We recognise that with Cumbria. It is important that we take account of local circumstances, so we work with the authorities to make sure we find optimal solutions to their issues.
On the constituent members, they are agreed with the constituent authorities concerned. They will vary because the areas vary, but it is important that constituent members play an important role in those local authorities. We set them up as bespoke arrangements depending on local circumstances.
On the noble Baroness’s question about commissioners, we will have a system where all mayoral combined authorities can appoint up to seven commissioners. Some may choose not to do that if it is not appropriate for their area, but we want the flexibility for those who wish to do it.
The noble Baroness asked about the assessment of effectiveness. There is an ongoing evaluation programme for the devolution programme. It is important that we do that. We have a number of authorities at different levels of devolution, including some established mayoral combined authorities. We continue to look at the programme, but the evaluation so far has told us that it is genuinely delivering for the communities involved. I am sorry if the noble Baroness does not feel that that is the case in her area; there may be people who have a different view on that locally.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the public responses to the consultation process. I take her point, but the purpose of the consultations is to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over the proposed geography. A range of views was provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some of the concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation very much formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State—it needed to do so because it must meet the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 110 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. For both Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria, the tests were met.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Before the Minister finishes, will she answer my question about the position of the deputy mayor?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies; I did not write that down because we were called out of the Room. A deputy mayor is there to do exactly what it says on the tin: deputising for the mayor. The deputy mayor can deputise for the mayor. It is not an elected position, and I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about that, but all those mayors will need a deputy, so the deputy mayor can stand in for the mayor at meetings and cast the mayor’s vote. That is the situation.
In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister kindly answered my question on the investment fund. The two issues I had with it included that it is 30-year funding. If you are going to come up with a programme of infrastructure funding over 10 or 15 years, you need certainty that you will get that £27 million or that £11 million every year. I know it is a difficult question to answer, but what assurance or certainty will the new mayor have that that funding will be available for those 30 years? I appreciate the intention, but is there certainty? The second part of that question was: will a similar level of funding be available for all the other combined mayoral authorities as they go forward, accepting the point that the Minister made about population?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The purpose of devolution is, of course, to get the powers and funding out to local areas to do the investment they need. I am not going to guarantee exact amounts for funding settlements that we have yet not agreed with local areas, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, but it is the Government’s intention that all the new areas will have investment funds, and of course they also have powers to borrow. Provided they meet the prudential requirements that all local government borrowing has to meet, they will have those powers as well.
In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made to Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria to establish combined authorities in their areas, and I hope that the Committee will welcome these orders.
Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this order I will speak also to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026. In my view, the provisions in both instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I will start with the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. This instrument will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May/July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025. As such, the uprating order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 2026-27, of which £6 billion will be on state pensions and pensioner benefits, £2 billion on disability and carers’ benefits and £1 billion on working-age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working-age benefits will be incurred in 2026-27 as a result of uprating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for universal credit and income-related employment and support allowance.
I turn to state pensions in more detail. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings, prices or 2.5%. This will be 4.8% for 2026-27, in line with the conventional average earnings growth measure. As such, from April 2026, the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 a week to £184.90 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 a week to £241.30 a week. From April, the full annual rate of the new state pension will increase by around £575, while the full annual rate of the basic state pension will increase by around £440.
Other components of people’s state pension awards, such as those previously built under earnings-related state pension schemes—including the additional state pension—will increase by 3.8% in line with the statutory minimum requirement of prices. The safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.8%. From April, it will be £238 a week for a single pensioner and £363.25 a week for a couple, ensuring that the incomes of poorest pensioners are protected.
I turn now to the support given to people below the state pension age. Most benefits will also increase by 3.8%, including statutory payments such as statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, and the personal allowances of income support, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, and contributory employment and support allowance. This order will also increase the child amounts, carer amounts and transitional severe disability premiums in universal credit, as well as the pensioner and carer premiums in income-related employment and support allowance, by 3.8%.
The uprating order will also increase by 3.8% rates for those in England and Wales with additional disability needs and those who provide unpaid care for them. This commits the department to increased expenditure of £2 billion in 2026-27. This means that benefits such as the disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance and personal independence payment will rise in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025.
I turn now to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026—the GMP increase order. It sets out the amount by which the GMP part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension, earned between April 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes. It provides a measure of inflation protection to people who are in receipt of GMPs earned between 1988 and 1997.
GMPs earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must, by law, be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices, as measured the previous September, which is capped at 3%. The September 2025 figure was 3.8%. Because of the cap, the increase for the 2026-27 financial year will therefore be 3%. Having the 3% cap gives schemes more certainty. It allows schemes to forecast their future liabilities better, which is clearly important when trustees are considering the scheme’s funding requirements. The GMP indexation requirements strike a balance between protecting members against the effects of inflation and not increasing scheme costs beyond a level that both schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford.
In summary, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order implements the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, provides for a real-terms increase in the value of the safety net in pension credit, increases the rates of benefits for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of both carers’ benefits and benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability or health conditions. The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMPs in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997. This provides people with a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by their scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing the uprating order so clearly, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the social security that it provides. It is a shame that it is tucked away in Grand Committee, with only a few dogged noble Lords present, given how important social security is to our society. As the impact assessment for the removal of the two-child limit Bill notes:
“Social security is the Government’s most direct lever”
to reduce child poverty, including the shockingly high level of deep poverty. To quote the recent Joseph Rountree Foundation report:
“Our social security system is one of the surest routes to tackling poverty and destitution that the government has at its disposal”—
so that a well-resourced and effective social security system is
“the bedrock of a strong society”.
At present, after a decade or so of cuts, our social security system is neither sufficiently well-resourced nor effective, but we are starting to turn the tide. Should anyone complain that doing so will contribute to the so-called ballooning welfare bill, I point out that spending on working-age social security is projected to flatline as a share of GDP over this Parliament. Although it is not part of the uprating, we cannot ignore the significant impact that the very welcome abolition of the “vicious”—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Freud —two-child limit will have on the numbers of children in poverty and on the depths of the poverty experienced by those who will remain below the poverty line.
I use this opportunity to ask the spokesperson for the Opposition, who is a decent lady, to dissociate the Opposition from the xenophobic Reform-echoing message of the Oral Question on this asked by one of their Back-Benchers last week, with its pejorative reference to foreign-born children receiving benefits, which I know disturbed a number of noble Lords across the House.
A particularly welcome aspect of the uprating itself, which I admit I did not realise until yesterday would be legislated for separately in a negative instrument just laid, mentioned by my noble friend, is the real increase in the value of the standard universal credit allowance, which will be repeated for the rest of this Parliament. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I mention it now, given that we do not know whether or when the negative instrument will be debated. The uprating has to be understood in the context of the eight out of the 10 upratings between 2013-14 and 2022-23 that produced a reduction in its real value, leaving the basic level of support at a 40-year low, according to the JRF. A companion evidence pack of the child poverty strategy spells out how these cuts mean that basic benefit levels are worth “significantly less” than how the last Labour Government left them.
Nevertheless, as the Government themselves acknowledge, the real increase is only modest, especially when we bear in mind the differential inflation rate, which has hurt those on low incomes in recent years. The impact of this was emphasised at a Resolution Foundation conference on “Unsung Britain” this morning. There is a long way to go if universal credit is adequately to protect recipients against poverty and hardship. What this means was brought home to some of us by Jo, a member of Changing Realities, who spoke at a meeting here last autumn. She said:
“We are often exhausted parents trying hard to hide from our kids the mental gymnastics of managing tiny budgets in a big-cost world”.
She said that the effects are “immense and enduring”.
The JRF and Trussell, and also previously the then APPG on Poverty, of which I am co-chair, have recommended the establishment of an independent body to advise Governments on the benefit levels needed to meet essentials, as benefit levels have never been based on recipients’ actual needs. Of course, it would be for the Government and Parliament to decide on the actual levels, but they would do so on the basis of empirical evidence. Is this something my noble friend might take back for consideration? The need for benefit levels to reflect actual needs brings me to some buts—my noble friend the Minister knows me too well to think there would not be any.
First and perhaps foremost is the fact that retention of the overall benefit cap means that about one in 12 children who escape the frying pan of the two-child limit will be no better off, because they will be burned by the fire of the cap. Although the cap affects only a relatively small number, it is a key driver of deep poverty. According to the impact assessment for the removal of the two-child benefit limit Bill, 20,000 more households will be capped as a result.
One way that this effect could at least be mitigated would be if the threshold limits were uprated annually, in line with the UC standard allowance. As it is, they have only been uprated once since 2016, when they were cut. A Written Answer to me spelled out the effect on the threshold’s value: those for couples or lone parents would now be increased by £4,702—or £5,409 in Greater London—a year, had they been uprated in line with the UC standard allowance since 2016.
Secondly, it is disappointing that the local housing allowance freeze is being continued. IFS has criticised this approach to LHA as incoherent policy design. As the JRF has shown, one consequence is that four in 10 private renters in poverty are so only after housing costs are factored in, more than any other tenure group. Given that housing costs are identified as a key driver of poverty, there is no justification for a Government committed to reducing poverty and homelessness continuing the LHA freeze.
Although the PIP cuts were thankfully withdrawn, some cuts are still affecting those claiming social security for health or disability reasons. The health element of UC will be halved for new recipients from April. Although not yet confirmed, the proposal to replace the contributory new-style JSA and ESA with a new unemployment insurance scheme, while certainly improving the situation of the newly unemployed, would mean a new time limit after six or 12 months for those who currently qualify indefinitely for new-style ESA. This could have particularly serious implications for the autonomy and security of affected women in couples, for whom the new-style ESA represents an important source of income in their own right. Can my noble friend update us on the thinking on this, as there have been rather contradictory reports in the media?
Returning to child poverty, the latest projections produced by the DWP suggest that, despite the welcome reduction of half a million children in poverty as a result of the abolition of the two-child limit, the largest reduction in a single Parliament since records began, there will still be around four million children—29% of all children—in poverty at the end of this Parliament. This depressing fact is a measure of how dire the situation inherited from the previous Government was.
However, it must also act as a spur for further action now, including the setting of targets and milestones in the baseline report promised for this summer, and a prioritisation of further action to improve social security in future Budgets. The child poverty strategy document itself described it as just
“the first step on our road to ending child poverty”.
Who better to quote than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, while expressing her pride in abolishing the two-child limit, last week wrote:
“I know that our work cannot stop here. We must keep building a country where every child has a fair start in life and where every parent is treated with dignity, respect, and the support they deserve”.
We still have some way to go before that country is built.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the regulations. I will make a brief grouse that one of the sets of regulations we are debating was not on the table, and it was not even in the Royal Gallery. I know it is only three pages, but it should have been there, so I hope some action will be taken to make sure that it does not become a habit.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. One of the things that annoys me about current debates on pensions is when people fail to clarify or acknowledge that the triple lock applies only to part of the state pension.
Although the basic pension, or the new state pension, has increased by 4.8%, almost all of the rest of the other elements that go towards the total amount that people receive is being increased by 3.8%, so the average increase across the board will be somewhere between 3.8% and 4.8%. I feel it particularly personally because my own state pension will be going up by 4.2%; those of you who are any good at algebra will be able to work out what my state pension is from that simple fact. My question for my noble friend the Minister is: what is the average increase in the state pension across the board for all recipients? It is certainly not 4.8%, and it will not be 3.8%. It will be somewhere in the middle. I have not given notification of this question, so I would be quite happy to receive an answer in writing, but it is a very relevant figure that we should make sure people understand.
My second question arises from the accompanying document: the report from the Government Actuary on the uprating. On page 16 of the report, there are projections for the fund up to 2030-31. We see here that the balance in the fund at the end of the year is increasing from £89.6 billion in the current year and more than doubles over a period of five years to £163.7 billion. This is a relevant figure when we are told that state pensions are too expensive and at a time when the fund from which those pensions are paid is building up increasing balances.
Another relevant comparison is that, in the coming year, the balance at the end of the year as a percentage of benefit payments is 59% and, by the end of this five-year period, will have increased to 89%. This compares with the expectation—or a sort of target, though not a statutory target—that the balance should more typically be something like 17%. We are building up very substantial balances in the National Insurance Fund. Many people nowadays do not take the National Insurance Fund seriously at all, but I believe that it is a real fund; it is accounted for separately. I really want to know this: do the Government have a long-term plan for the balance to be held in the National Insurance Fund?
This has arisen, of course, because successive Governments have come to regard national insurance contributions as simply a way of raising additional revenue; I have made this point when we have discussed contribution rates in the past. This is the only figure we get that actually shows how contributions are affecting the National Insurance Fund. The Government need to explain it in a bit more detail to us again. I would be interested in what my noble friend the Minister says initially, but, again, a written explanation of the Government’s policy in relation to the size of the balance in the National Insurance Fund would be a relevant factor to take into account when discussing the affordability of national insurance benefits.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these orders in her usual detail. I will speak to both: the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026. Although they are being debated together today, they are fundamentally different instruments raising distinct policy issues. It is therefore right that they are addressed separately, so I will begin with the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This is neither the opportunity nor the time to have a debate on the Pensions Act 2011, but the cap on GMPs was limited to 3% because the state took over the responsibility for paying increases on private pensions in excess of 3%. However, under the coalition Government’s legislation amending pensions, those increases were, in effect, lost. The noble Baroness expresses surprise, but we have to go back to the legislation introducing the new state pension, which was introduced by the coalition Government. In doing so, they took away the state’s obligation to pay increases in excess of 3%, so any obligation to pay anything more than 3% is solely on the state, not the employer. It would not be appropriate to suggest that the employer should pay increases over the 3% level because it was the state’s responsibility, but the coalition Government took it away.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. I will read Hansard. We will write to the noble Lord and start some correspondence on that issue. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord. Everybody knows that he knows what he is talking about and that he is well versed in pensions legislation. If he is happy for me to do so, I will pick that point up with my colleagues.
I turn to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026. The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Helen Whately, has rightly led calls for the Government to move more quickly and clearly in setting out their plans for welfare reform. Sickness and disability benefits alone are forecast to cost the taxpayer £100 billion by 2030. The shadow work and pensions team has consistently argued that the Government are failing to confront the structural drivers behind rising welfare expenditure. Delays in doing so carry a cost not only to the public finances but in missed opportunities to redirect spending towards other pressing government priorities.
It is extraordinary that the Timms review has only just agreed the names of the committee members appointed for a review that Stephen Timms is leading into sickness benefits, including with group members representing the disabled. The work has not yet begun. It is nearly two years after the general election, so can the Minister confirm that his committee is on track to give an interim review this spring? Can she also confirm that it will indeed be 2027 before his committee reports and that, by then, no progress will have been made in this Parliament, allowing for likely legislation following a government response?
These concerns sit alongside the wider economic impact of Labour’s jobs tax. The Autumn Budget 2024, in particular the increase in employer national insurance contributions, has been associated with the loss of an estimated 50,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This has implications for not only employment levels but the long-term health of the National Insurance Fund. The difficulty with this draft order is one not purely of substance but of process. The instrument uprates pensions and working-age benefits together, leaving no scope to consider the appropriateness of each element independently or to debate the Government’s policy intentions for each in detail.
Rather than dwell further on the procedural constraint, it is worth noting that the issues raised by this uprating instrument sit alongside the Government’s announcement yesterday on universal credit reform and the legislation now laid before Parliament. Taken together, they speak to the direction of travel in welfare policy and the assumptions underpinning the current uplift. The Government argue that these reforms are intended to rebalance the benefits system, to address perverse incentives and to support more people into work. We are told that the current gap between health-related universal credit payments and the standard allowance discourages labour market participation, and that narrowing this gap for new claimants is necessary to restore fairness and sustainability.
I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the behavioural impact of introducing a significantly lower health element for new claimants? Secondly, although existing claimants and those with severe or lifelong conditions are protected, how confident are the Government that the criteria used to determine severity are sufficiently robust, consistent and fair across the system? Thirdly, the Government have announced £3.5 billion in employment support alongside the expansion of pathways to work advisers. How will success be measured? Will outcomes be judged by sustained employment, earnings progression or reductions in case loads, and over what period?
Finally, the Government expect these reforms to deliver savings of £950 million by 2030-31. Do those projections assume stable labour market conditions? What sensitivity analysis has been undertaken should employer demand weaken further? I hope that the Minister sees the link and will be happy to answer these questions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall get through as many points as I can, and if I cannot, I will check Hansard and write to noble Lords. I am delighted to find that writing to members of the Committee is now a bipartisan activity, rather than just on the government side, so it is all very interesting.
I will start with the overall critique from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. As she said, this is what the shadow social security team throw at the Government on a regular basis: that they are not doing enough to bring down welfare spending, and that everything is terrible. I start by saying that the system the Opposition critique is of course a system that we inherited from them. All the things we are often told are wrong with it are things that were entirely in the gift of the previous Government. They did not address any of those problems. The only attempts they made were struck down by the High Court for being illegal, whereas this Government have actually taken action.
As the noble Baroness alluded to, we have already taken action to make the health and disability system more sustainable by rebalancing rates of universal credit from this April to tackle some of those inappropriate incentives in it. Our investment in pathways to work will help many more people with health conditions back into meaningful work. We have started the Timms review to make sure that we find a sustainable way forward. On timing, I can say to the noble Baroness that we anticipate that the review will report in autumn of this year. I have no reason to believe that it is not on track to do that.
I will come on to some of the critique from the other side. Noble Lords have said that we are either not doing enough to reduce social security spending or not doing enough to increase it, so let me try and lean in the other direction to be balanced. My noble friend Lady Lister is absolutely right: we are in Grand Committee, and many of us have been in Grand Committee on a regular basis—annually—to do this. Some of us have moved positions from one side to the other, but now we are here. This point is that this debate is heard, it goes on the record, and I always look very carefully, whether in government or opposition, at the comments made by noble Lords. I am grateful for them; it is a debate well worth having.
I understand the point my noble friend is making about the adequacy of benefits, but from April, this Government are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise in the basic rate of universal credit since it was introduced. Just under 4 million households will benefit overall from that change, which is estimated to be worth £760 a year by 2029-30 in cash terms for a single parent aged 25 or over, or around £250 above inflation. We have also done other things. We introduced the fair repayment rate from April last year, reducing overall universal credit deductions from 25% to 15%, which again benefited approximately 1.2 million of the poorest households. I respect my noble friend for constantly pushing us to go further, but I put on record that the Government have done something significant, and I thank her for acknowledging this.
In terms of the rebalancing, my noble friend Lady Lister is right that, unusually this year, the personal allowance rates of universal credit are not covered by these because the Universal Credit Act, which did the rebalancing, took them out for the relevant period. They will therefore be made by regulations but when we discussed the primary legislation, the Universal Credit Bill, the formula was made really clear. The only reason the numbers were not in there is because they relate to CPI, so the actual numbers depend on what CPI turned out to be. The percentage relationship to CPI was made clear and there was the opportunity to debate that in the Bill. Hopefully, that reassures her on that front.
I understand my noble friend’s concerns on the local housing allowance point, but we have to step quite carefully in this area. DWP currently supports renters by spending around £34 billion a year on housing support for low-income renters, including £12 billion in the private rented sector. The April 2024 one-year LHA increase cost an extra £1.2 billion in 2024-25. It will be approximately £7 billion over the next five years. This is an area where the changes cost a lot of money. We know that LHA rates will not meet all rents in all areas, but it has always been acknowledged that they would never be able to do that.
This Government are trying to address the underlying problems driving some of these issues by prioritising the fundamental issue of the lack of housing supply, through the £39 billion investment in the social and affordable homes programme, which is still the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. For those who need additional support and have a shortfall to meet their rent costs, our new crisis and resilience fund replaces discretionary housing payments in the household support fund from this April, supported by £1 billion a year, including Barnett impact, through the spending review period. Importantly, we have been able to give a multi-year reassurance to local authorities that the money is coming through.
On the benefit cap, I know that my noble friend will never be a fan of it, and I understand her concerns, but this Government believe that entering or returning to employment is best for individuals and the economy; we have taken significant steps to help them do so. The benefit cap encourages personal responsibility while maintaining a strong safety net. On uprating, this has to be reviewed every five years, and 2027 is the next time it will definitely have to be done. It is up to the Secretary of State when it is reviewed, and that is the latest it can be.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
If it helps my noble friend, I will put down some Written Questions to deal with this question. I probably should have done that in the past.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
If all my noble friend wants to know is what he has asked me, I can write to him—this would save him the trouble of writing and save me the trouble of writing back to him—but, obviously, he is always entitled to do that.
Finally, the National Insurance Fund is financed on a collective basis, with receipts collected in one year used to pay for certain benefit payments, including the state pension, paid out in the same year. I need to make it clear that, obviously, it is not accurate to suggest that there is a surplus in the fund that can be drawn on. The balance of the National Insurance Fund is managed as part of the Government’s overall management of public finances and reduces the need for them to borrow from elsewhere. Any additional spending from the National Insurance Fund would represent an increase in overall government spending. Without cuts in other areas of spend or additional taxes, it would therefore lead to an increase in government borrowing.
I think I have answered most of the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Baroness asked some specific questions about metrics. I am not sure that I have an answer to hand; if I have anything, I will certainly write to her. I am grateful, once again, for what is always an interesting debate. I love the fact that this Committee takes these matters so seriously; they truly affect the lives of so many people. I am grateful to noble Lords for their time and expertise.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026
(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026.