Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsThursday 27th February 2025
(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Feb 2025)
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee and the Minister know by now, we on these Benches are opposed to the whole of Clause 5, and I will start my remarks by making the case that it should not stand part of the Bill; rather, we urge the Government to think again and remove it.
First, as we debated at Second Reading, there is the point of principle. On what basis should the Government identify a single group of charities, with no concerns about the delivery of their charitable objects, for separate treatment in relation to business rates from their charitable peers? Sadly, the only plausible reason is that it reflects some ideology that does not respect the right of parents to choose the education for their child. I am not suggesting that the Minister sees it in that way, and I accept that the Government’s plan to tax education for the first time ever in this country’s history were in their manifesto, but I cannot find another logical basis for this choice.
Secondly, this picture is confirmed when we look at the amount of money that will be raised from this change. The Government project that only £70 million will be raised. Finally, it leaves the risk that in future legislation in this area, this or a future Government will carve out another group of charities that they believe no longer justify the business rates relief. This feels a wrong-headed choice, and I very much hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues to review it and remove the clause.
I turn to Amendments 55, 56, 59 and 62. Amendment 55 is consequential and necessary to enable the later amendments. I have tabled it to exempt specific independent schools from this measure. Amendments 56 and 59 are probing amendments to understand what is meant by the term “or other consideration” in the context of fees payable for the provision of full-time education. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee an example of where another consideration has been used in practice wholly or partly to replace fees.
Amendment 62 highlights the position of smaller independent schools, many of which charge significantly less than the independent school average of £27,642, which was the figure the Minister in the other place gave as the mean annual day fee as of January 2024. I appreciate that the Government are unlikely to agree with the fee level in my amendment, but it would be helpful for the Committee to hear whether there is a fee level below which this legislation would not apply. As the Minister knows, some faith schools in particular charge lower fees than the state school equivalent per pupil funding rate. Would the Government consider exempting schools that charge less than the per pupil funding rate from this tax.
As we have heard, Amendments 54A, 55A, 59A, 69C, 69D, 77 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black of Brentwood would replace the use of “private school” with “independent school”. I agree with my noble friends’ analysis of the importance of this and some of the factors that sit behind it. The term “private school” is much more informal, and in legislation it is more commonplace to use “independent school”. We support those amendments fully; I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Clause 5 is an interesting add-on to the legislation as a whole, which is focused on non-domestic rates as applied to business premises. Here, we suddenly have one sector of businesses being pulled out for special treatment, which is curious to me. It becomes a very strange Bill with Clause 5 added to it. However, for Liberal Democrats, as I have probably said many times in the course of my public sector career, education is the single most important and best investment that any Government can make in our children, their future and the country’s future. The clause is important to us because it relates to education.
The Government’s policy in this Bill, removing the current exemption for relief of business rates, combined with the introduction of VAT and the impact of employers’ national insurance increases, will undermine two important principles for Lib Dems. The first is that education should not be taxed. All education provided by an eligible body, including universities, music lessons and tutoring, is currently exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on these things—and, hence, neither should business rates. The exemption should not be removed from these schools. The second principle is that parents have a right to choose the education setting that they believe is the best for their children. We champion choice and believe nothing should get in the way of parents making those choices.
The best outcome of all would be that state-funded education was funded at the same level as that experienced by children in the private, or independent, sector. It is curious to me that the gamut of changes that the Government are making in relation to the costs imposed on the private, or independent, sector will not release sufficient funding to make a significant impact on children’s education in the state sector, so it is hard to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve.
It has been an interesting debate. Lots of points of definition have been raised, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the interesting points about the importance of having an accurate definition of the sector. I look forward to his response. But in summation: education is most important, and parents have the right to choose, as long as those choices do not have a negative impact on everybody else, which in this case they clearly do not.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 55 and 62 seek to carve out from the Bill all private schools that charge fees of less than £27,642 per year through exempting schools that meet this criteria from the definition of a private school. I am conscious that other amendments tabled by noble Lords seek to carve out other private schools from the Bill definition, and we will discuss these in more detail as part of today’s proceedings. However, it would be helpful for me to set out the purpose of Clause 5 for when the Committee decides whether to agree the clause. At the same time, I can elaborate further on the meaning of “or other consideration” as per Amendments 56 and 59, and the use of “private school” as opposed to “independent school” in response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
The Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. The removal of business rates charitable relief, as set out in Clause 5, legislates for the Government’s commitment to secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitment to education and young people, including the more than 90% of children who are educated in state schools.
Clause 5 removes the charitable rate relief from private schools by amending paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZB to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to exclude private schools from the rules in relation to the application of charitable rate relief. Amendments to the rules in relation to the application of charitable relief can be made only through primary legislation.
The Bill inserts new sub-paragraph (3) to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA to remove charitable relief from occupied hereditaments wholly or mainly used for the purposes of carrying on a private school. Ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields that are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.
The rest of Clause 5(2) is concerned with the definition of a private school. To answer directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the terminology “private school” has been used because the term “independent school” includes state-funded academies, which are not in scope of this policy and therefore of the measures in the Bill. The term “private school” has been used to avoid uncertainty regarding which schools are in scope, and I am sure it is not the noble Lord’s intention to bring academies into scope of this Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, there are some very important and interesting issues in this group of amendments. The first is about the provision of foundation courses to enable young people to move into further education or training. It is important that the Minister has an answer to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that will put us at ease that they will not be penalised in this way. Often, young people who do foundation courses do so because they missed out earlier in their school careers, for many reasons that might be associated with their family or their own health issues. I do not think the Government would want to penalise those young people by putting at jeopardy those courses available to them.
The next issue, about nurseries, is interesting because different parts of a premises can be assessed separately by the non-domestic/business rate regime. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that even in an Amazon building, the facilities for the employees will be rated at a separate value from the rest of the building. For instance, I have been looking—surprisingly—at the implications for large hospitals, which were raised in the debate on Monday. Different parts of the premises will be rated in different ways. If there is a clinic, that is one thing; the main hospital is another; the café is another; a shop is another. It is possible to assess rateable values, for business rate purposes, in the same premises in different ways, so it is possible to assess nursery sections of a private school separately from the rest of the school. Therefore, it is possible to exclude these from the proposals in Clause 5. I look forward to the Minister being able to confirm that that is the case and that nurseries can be readily and easily excluded from business rate applications, even if the Government insist on removing the charitable status from the rest of the premises.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 68 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern early years provision and private further education institutions. The definition of a private school in the Bill includes institutions that wholly or mainly provide education suitable to persons over compulsory school age but under 19, where such full-time education is wholly or mainly provided for a fee or consideration. This brings private sixth forms into the scope of the Bill measure but excludes general FE colleges. The Bill also includes a specific carve-out for independent training and learning providers. Due to the mechanisms whereby the Government provide funding to these institutions, it was necessary to provide a carve-out in the legislation to ensure that these institutions did not inadvertently come into the scope of the measure.
The Government’s view is that all schools that offer full-time education to children of compulsory school age and/or to 16 to 19 year-olds for a charge should be within scope of the Bill measure. This is to ensure consistency and fairness in the Government’s treatment of private schools. The Bill measure includes stand-alone private sixth forms as well as those private sixth forms that operate as part of private schools that also cater for children of compulsory school age. Amendment 57 would remove entirely this part of the private school definition, the resulting impact of which would be that all private sixth forms would be out of scope and therefore retain charitable rate relief.
The noble Baroness indicated that through this amendment she is seeking to understand whether institutions providing foundation courses would be considered private schools. Foundation courses are a level 5 qualification and as such are classed as higher education. Foundation courses are in the main provided by higher education institutions such as universities. Institutions that are focused on the delivery of higher education are not within the scope of the Bill, and where they are charities they will continue to receive charitable relief. However, any private sixth forms that provide a few higher education courses, such as foundation courses, will still lose their relief if they are wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old. Given that business rates are a tax on property, the Government believe that this is a sensible line to draw for when the relief is removed.
Amendment 58 would amend the Bill definition of a private school. It would remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement in relation to the concern with providing full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old for a fee or consideration in such institutions. In business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means over 50%. Therefore, under the Bill definition, institutions that are more than 50% concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, and where more than 50% of such full-time education is provided for a fee or consideration, will be within scope of the measure and will no longer qualify for charitable relief.
The inclusion of the “wholly or mainly” test in the further education definition has been drafted in recognition that there may be some state-funded institutions where a small minority of pupils pay a fee for the courses they attend. The Government understand that these circumstances are rare but may include international students undertaking further education courses where they do not qualify for a state-funded place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for examples of institutions that may be around 50%. Regarding these schools, which mainly provide education suitable for those over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, it will be for local authorities to implement this test. I do not think it would be right for us to say whether a particular school passes that test, but we do not expect many of them to be at the margins.
Without including “wholly or mainly” in respect of new sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i), the Bill could inadvertently capture state-funded colleges of further education, which is not the intention of the Government’s policy. Similarly, it could risk capturing fee-paying institutions that predominantly provide higher education courses if one pupil who meets the broader further education definition is present. As set out, it is not the Government’s intention to capture higher education institutions within the Bill’s definition.
I should explain that the impact of this amendment would mean that the presence of one fee-paying pupil within the age bracket as per the current definition may result in the institution being brought into scope of the Bill, resulting in it losing charitable relief. In contradiction to Amendment 57, Amendment 58 would mean that more institutions would be in scope of the Bill and so would lose their rates relief. But I understand the purpose of the amendment, which is to understand better the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly”, and I hope I have been able to clarify that for noble Lords.
Amendment 68 seeks to carve out from the Bill private schools that also provide early years provision. For clarity, private nurseries that are on their own hereditament are not within scope of the Bill definition, and where they are charities they will retain charitable relief. The Government have decided that where private schools that provide for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.
It is for individual private schools to decide how they wish to meet additional costs as a result of the business rates measure. The allocation of costs in private schools that also provide early years provision on the same hereditament is a matter for those private schools. It is worth mentioning that government early education and childcare entitlements can be used for childcare in any approved childcare provider; this includes private school nurseries, although the numbers undertaking early years entitlement in private school nurseries are relatively small. Similarly, private school nurseries are also eligible to receive tax-free childcare funding as long as they are registered with Ofsted or an equivalent regulatory body.
Accepting these amendments would remove many private schools from the Bill’s measure. This would reduce the amount of revenue that could be raised and, consequently, may reduce the funding available to the Government to deliver on their commitments to young people and the state-funded education sector, where over 90% of pupils in England are educated. The outcome of the tax changes on private schools will have a significant impact on the Exchequer, enabling the Government to fulfil their commitments on investing in state education and young people. Together with the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, these policies are expected to raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
I hope that this provides further clarification on the drafting of the definition, as well as on the Government’s position regarding the inclusion of private further education and private schools that also cater for nursery-age children alongside compulsory school-age children. For the reasons set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are important, focusing on children with special educational needs and disabilities. SEND provision is in crisis across the country, whichever sector of school children attend. The reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has raised, is the huge delay in assessing children who may need an education, care and health plan, often because of the lack of educational psychologists. There are often very long delays getting what used to be called a statement of need but is now just an EHCP.
The consequences for schools in this sector is that they qualify only if their children have ECHPs, and because ECHPs are so difficult to access, many parents send their children to private school in desperation because their children’s needs are not being adequately met in the state sector. There is no criticism attached to that because there is huge pressure on the state sector. If you have a child with special needs then, if you are able, you look to where those needs are best met.
In the days before children with dyslexia were recognised, parents often took children with severe dyslexia out of the state sector and into one of the several independent schools set up around the country that had the expertise to help those children. I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments because we want all children to have their needs met, but schools helping young people with particular needs are in danger of having their relief removed because of the threshold in the Bill.
There is little recognition that children have special needs even without an EHCP, simply because of the huge backlog. The backlog exists because there is also a funding crisis within SEND. On all those issues, the Government really should think again, particularly on Amendment 61. I hope that the Minister will have some positive words in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are concerned with the carve-out within the Bill’s measures for private schools that wholly or mainly provide education to pupils with education, health and care plans. Amendment 60 seeks to remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement, the effect of which would be to carve out from the Bill’s measures private schools that provide full-time education to any number of persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained.
I understand from the accompanying explanatory statement that this amendment seeks to understand the definition of “wholly or mainly”. As I have said elsewhere on a previous group on business rates, wholly or mainly generally means more than 50%. In practice, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the measure. We expect any private special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; they will potentially be in single figures. Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they pay no rates.
I am aware that some concerns have been raised—the noble Baroness has raised them in clear and categoric terms—in relation to the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under or over the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. Therefore, we do not expect there to be many mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold.
To add to that point, if there are any marginal cases, the test in law is whether the institution is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to ECHP pupils. While it will be for the local authority to decide, this wording should avoid the need for schools at the margin to jump in and out of entitlement for charitable relief following small movements in pupils.
The majority of private special school places are funded by local authorities. The 2024 school census shows that in more than 80% of the sector more than nine in 10 pupils have an EHCP plan that stipulates that the place is funded by the local authority.
Amendment 61 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if that fee-paying school wholly or mainly catered to pupils who have special educational needs as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, and regardless of whether or not those pupils also have an EHCP. The Government are aware of the concerns raised with respect to pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief, because the school is not wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. The Government have carefully considered their approach to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.
The Bill provides that schools that are charities and wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rates relief. The Government recognise that where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charity relief. Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector cater for pupils with special educational needs. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met within mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched upon the issue of the wider problem in terms of delay, which I will address. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plans and the respective applications in time for the start of the next school year, so that parents can make an informed decision as to which school they send their child to. In special cases, the local authority is able to pre-pay one term’s fees if the education, health and care plan is not complete but the outcome is foreseeable. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to be granted an EHC plan in the future.
The Government are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish. Private schools can provide choice, high-quality education, economic benefit and public benefit through partnerships and means-tested bursaries, but most parents cannot choose private schools. We need to improve provision for the 93% of pupils at state schools, and that is rightly our focus. The Government are also committed to reforming England’s SEN provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. The Government will provide an uplift of around £1 billion in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.
Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector, as I said before, cater for pupils with special educational needs. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the way that this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state-funded schools. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs—with or without an EHCP—have their needs met in the state-funded sector. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited.
It is for the reasons cited that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments, but I hope that, with this further information, I have provided satisfactory explanation as to the Government’s approach and reassurance that the approach adopted ensures that the impact on those children with the most acute needs is minimised. I request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66, 64 and 69B. Children in Armed Forces families have a very difficult time. My noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal’s husband was in the Royal Air Force for 30 years, I believe, and in that time they moved 24 times. By the time their children were nine, they were in their seventh school. That is why so many military families choose to find a boarding school as an option for their children, so that they can have continuity and consistency of education.
I cannot remember how many times I had to move during my school life; it was not seven by the time I was nine, but about five times. Each time you move, it is difficult to get into the system of a new school, make new friends and all the rest of it. There is a very strong argument for children of families in the military to have the exclusion argued for in Amendment 66. At a time when as a country we are thinking more about defence and security and, I guess, trying to encourage more young people to become part of the military in many different ways, they will think about what will happen to their families as they move so constantly. I urge the Minister to give special consideration to Amendment 66.
On Amendment 64, the noble Lord said that musical education has been neglected and allowed to decline. That is absolutely true, and we ought to give a bit of thought to how it has been allowed to decline and when. It is a cause of huge concern to me. I have a daughter who went from a state school to the Royal Academy, so I understand a bit about the importance of musical education. I urge the Government to give more attention to musical education in our state schools. What is particularly discouraging is the decline in opportunities for young people in state schools to learn a musical instrument. In the town where I live, they have declined considerably. In my view that is a tragedy, for the reasons that have been given.
Finally, on Amendment 69B, looked-after children ought to have a special place in our concerns. If there is a charity that I have not heard of that offers some young children who are looked after the opportunity for getting away from the place that has caused a lot of difficulty and trauma in their lives, I hope the Government will look at it sympathetically. I do not know enough about that—although I know quite a bit about children looked after within a local authority setting. But if there is a special opportunity for children who need to escape their surroundings to do so in this way, it ought to be given sympathetic consideration by the Government. I look forward to the Minister giving a good response to these pleas.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I have not added my name to these amendments, but I feel strongly about them. This vital group, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, is directly focused on those in need. I want to consider for a minute this group from a different point of view—the point of view, if you like, of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave the example of five schools by the age of seven—or seven by the age of five, I do not remember. I was one of those children. My parents were civil servants serving abroad, and they chose to keep me at home well into my teens, whereas most in similar positions were sent back to the UK to attend an independent school and be given the continuity of education that is required at home, wherever home may be.
The price I paid was 13 schools through the course of my education. Most of those were attempts to cram or correct for the next stage, because I was always turning up half way through a term, starting on a Wednesday in a class of 25 people—having never seen any of them before—after coming 3,000 miles. Then I was off again two years later, and there was a different syllabus—and a different language in one case. I ended up here in the UK knowing a great deal about Captain Cook, the South Pacific and the Māori but absolutely nothing about English history or any of the other normal curriculum subjects.
I spent my last few years at school on the back foot in a special independent school, trying to catch up. Had I not had that opportunity, I certainly would not be proud or competent enough to stand here today and address your Lordships. It taught me some self-confidence in the absence of any sort of academic success. University was out of the question. I give this example simply because it is terribly important that those serving abroad, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, are given the opportunity to give their children an equal start.
I am very pleased that I had the alternative, because my parents wanted to keep us at home, wherever home was. It did not really do me any harm at the end of the day, but I got no GCSEs, O-levels or A-levels, other than the odd one—usually called something like technical drawing or one of these back-door opportunities. I mention this simply to drive home, perhaps, the importance of what is being discussed, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Let us not destroy the opportunity for those young people.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I have very little to say in response to the strong plea from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to improve sporting facilities and physical education for all our children in all our schools. The case he makes is undeniable, but if we wish to fulfil the aims of the strong case that has been made, it points to improving facilities and access in every school.
The town of Dewsbury, where I live, will no longer have a swimming pool. It is one of the most deprived towns in the country. That would be where my focus lies. I accept the case made where there is a private school that has strong a sporting history and excellent facilities, but in the area in which I live, there is none. I totally agree with the noble Lord, but the answer is more focus from the Department for Education on increasing sporting facilities for all our children.
Baroness Pinnock
“Section 5: impact assessmentThe Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, conduct an assessment of the expected impact of section 5 on state schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe potential knock-on consequences of the measures in section 5 of this Bill on state schools.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 70 is in the names of my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, neither of whom is able to be here. They estimated that this group of amendments, being very close to the end of Committee, would be debated in the Committee day allocated for next week.
The purpose of Amendment 70 is straightforward: it would require the Government to assess the impact of Clause 5 on state schools. It is reported that independent schools are already losing about 10,000 pupils, who are withdrawing from private education, and that is before the implementation of VAT, the decision on which was made earlier this year. If that is the case, the removal of that number of pupils will cost the state sector £92 million, because those young people will now have state-funded places in the state sector.
Two questions then arise. One concerns the additional cost, which is borne by the Government. The second concerns the fact that there are often clusters of private schools in certain locations. There is a clutch of private schools in Newcastle upon Tyne. There are two private schools in Bradford and two private schools in Wakefield—I am moving south. When you get to the south of England and London, there is obviously a large number of private schools. If children are withdrawn from them due to the rising fees, there will be an impact not just on the cost of their education but on finding appropriate school places in their localities. That is the first impact.
The second impact, which is of particular concern, is on children with special educational needs and disabilities. This measure will put pressure on the state sector, where, as we already know and as I said earlier, SEND is in crisis. It could be very difficult indeed for those young people to find places where there is the proper support to meet their needs. The additional funding and, in the case of young people with particular disabilities having to be accommodated in the state sector, the additional facilities needed to support them could unduly add another cost to the state sector. This is not being considered by an impact assessment on the provisions in this Bill; hence the need for an impact assessment, as set out by my noble friends, so that the Government can demonstrate that they have actually considered what the overall impact will be.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that score and I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group but I shall speak in particular to Amendment 72A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden. I refer to my earlier declaration of interests.
The Minister has been very emollient and courteous in batting off all our amendments today; I thank him for the way he has dealt with them. Although he and his colleagues throughout government like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend otherwise—as we have seen, I am afraid—the impact of their onslaught on independent education, of which the removal of business rates is just one strand, will have profound ramifications for not just the sector and the children educated in it but a wide range of public policy areas. This is a bit like that game of Jenga, which we have probably all played, where blocks of wood are taken out until a point comes where the removal of one of them causes the whole edifice to crumble. That is what is in danger of happening here, with the sustained attack on independent education in danger of causing policy failure in a wide range of other areas.
Consider quite how far-reaching are the consequences of this policy underpinned by Clause 5. It impacts on public health and the care of vulnerable children; on the future of music, drama and the arts in the UK, which we have talked about today; on military families and defence personnel; on state schools, whose class sizes will increase; on multiculturalism and respect for different faiths; on jobs, export and investment; on local communities, volunteer groups, charities and so on, which depend on partnership with independent schools; on sport, as we have heard so eloquently described; and on soft power and Britain’s standing abroad. As a result of this web of different aspects that will be affected and will impinge on so many different aspects of government policy, it is vital there is an impact assessment of the consequences of Clause 5 taken in conjunction with the Government’s other policy changes. That is what my Amendment 72A provides for.
Apart from everything else, Parliament has a continuing responsibility to scrutinise the Government’s actions in this area. That is what this House, in particular, is here for. To do that, we need not just the data provided by the industry’s own excellent associations but data from across government and a detailed assessment of its implications. Given the profound changes to policy that Clause 5 exemplifies, ripping up five decades of orthodoxy about parental choice, such an impact assessment is the very least we should expect to allow us to fulfil our responsibilities and make clear to the public what its consequences are.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord had made very strongly and passionately. In relation to this particular aspect and in contrast to the earlier part of our discussion in Committee related to multipliers, this is not a tax-particular perspective, which is why an impact note for the Bill is available. Of course, we are speaking to stakeholders and will continue to do so to ensure that we take everything into account. We have taken everything in account while bringing this Bill forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. He made the case for Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friends, I think. When I moved the amendment, I cited the 10,000 children expected to move from the private sector to the state sector, and the Minister cited 3,100. That is a discrepancy. Why? It is because they are both estimates. The Minister’s estimates are based on the Government’s analysis of expectation, but so is the private school sector’s.
The second pair of estimates that were cited related to the cost to the state sector of young people moving to it from the private sector. The estimate by the private sector is £92 million a year, whereas I think I heard the Minister quote a figure of £20 million being the anticipated cost after a number of years. He is not shaking his head—maybe I did not hear that figure correctly. However, the point I am making is that, in both cases, there is a discrepancy because these are estimates, not actual figures.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I just want to clarify the point that I was making: the additional revenue to support the transition to the state sector represents substantially much more revenue than the cost to support that transition.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I accept the argument that was being made but the point I am making is not that point—that there is a net benefit to the Treasury, so the Government believe—but that both sets of figures were estimates that differed widely. This adds weight to the argument, which has been made in our debate on this group of amendments, around the need for an impact assessment following the implementation of the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Minister seems to be refusing to have one or suggesting that one is not needed.
With those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement repeat to your Lordships’ House. Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team are to be congratulated on the work they did on the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Government are right to have accepted the report’s recommendations. The Deputy Prime Minister, speaking in the other place, rightly recognised the suffering of the victims, the bereaved families, the survivors and those in the immediate Grenfell community.
When I was a Minister in government, I worked closely with the Grenfell community and my heart goes out to them. Their bravery and determination in campaigning for change so that this never happens again have been exemplary and, as always, I pay tribute to them all. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said yesterday,
“The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 779.]
We on these Benches offer our sincere apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings are damning, revealing decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence. They are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and the industry. I welcome the Government’s decision to accept 58 of the recommendations and it is right that Ministers have committed to act on them.
We support the creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one department. These reforms are long overdue. We also support steps to professionalise fire engineers and to reform the construction products sector. The systematic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex revealed by the inquiry is appalling, and government must respond robustly.
The Government’s response is promising, but they must deliver proper accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, government officials cannot remain mere rhetoric. We need action urgently, and the Official Opposition will be following this closely to ensure Ministers act in a timely way.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with the existing assessment bodies? We know that the Building Research Establishment was criticised strongly by the inquiry, so what steps are the Government taking to address the concerns?
We also welcome the remediation acceleration plan, but we know that the targets rely on voluntary engagement from developers. Can the Minister explain what options are available to Ministers where developers fail to comply, and will Ministers work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? No resident should be left behind.
We have concerns about the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028—the Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Can the Minister explain the reason for the delay of another parliamentary term for full delivery?
Finally, we fully support the Metropolitan Police investigation, but this must be delivered more quickly. Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences, whether through fines or criminal sanctions. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have reviewed existing legislation to ensure we have the appropriate laws in place to prosecute similar criminal negligence in the future?
The tragedy of Grenfell must be a turning point, and we support the Government in seeking to deliver a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. We are committed to working with this Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise. As always, my thoughts and prayers are with Grenfell and their community.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire seven years ago in the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower inquiry from Martin Moore-Bick is an excellent analysis and provides a strong challenge to the Government for the decisions they need to make.
It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State’s Statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the inquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the Government
“accept the findings … and will take forward … the recommendations”.
That is simply unacceptable.
The inquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference, which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this wholly avoidable tragedy—I emphasise that it was wholly avoidable. The Government have a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and where the constructors deliberately omitted fire safety features, are fully remediated, and that the cost is borne entirely by those responsible for those failings.
Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety. Added to that is the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything.
The ministry’s figures show that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings of above 11 metres will need remediation, yet only 4,771 have so far been identified—of which less than half have had work started. The National Audit Office has called for the costs of this work, over and above that funded by the taxpayer, to be placed on developers. That is absolutely right. Can the Minister explain how the costs of this essential work are to be met? For information, the estimate is around £7 billion.
I turn to the 58 recommendations in the report. It recommended a single construction adviser, which the Government have accepted and will appoint. I fully support that. However, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report of 2018, made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, also recommended that there be a formal log of every element during construction work, including building improvements which may follow. The report recommended that that log should be signed off by the person responsible for the work. This seems to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is to be implemented?
One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackitt report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the Statement simply refers to a “review” of building control? Currently, constructors can appoint their own building inspector. The failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner-cutting in Grenfell Tower and in many other buildings. Does the Minister agree that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made?
The failure of the regulatory system that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high-rise blocks is at the heart of this scandal, yet the Statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The Government have published a construction products Green Paper, which is positive but long overdue. The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime, which was exposed in the report as being deficient. What are the Government’s intentions for the future of the Building Research Establishment?
Finally, the report refers to “higher-risk buildings”. It states that
“to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is … arbitrary”,
and recommends that the use of the building is vitally important. Are the Government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency, as required by the recommendations in the report?
What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose. It is more than seven years since that dreadful fire. Survivors need to see that radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives cruelly ended must not have been in vain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your comments today. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that what happened on that terrible night in June 2017 must never be allowed to happen again. It was a national tragedy and an immensely personal tragedy: 72 innocent people, 18 of them children, lost their lives. The Grenfell inquiry exposed damning and painful evidence of political, corporate and individual failings over decades. I thank the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his team, for their hard work over seven years to shine a light on these failings. Yesterday in the other place, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s final report and apologised on behalf of the British state.
I want to say again how deeply sorry I am and this Government are for the failures that led to the tragedy. We accept that the inquiry’s final report must be a catalyst for a long-lasting system change. That message has been re-emphasised by the points raised today. That is why the Government accept the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response addresses all the recommendations and sets out wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. Alongside this, we published a construction products Green Paper with detailed proposals for rigorous system-wide reform to address the critical gaps in how construction products are regulated.
Reforming construction products means that safety will come first. The culture that allowed the tragedy to happen will be transformed. We are focused on prioritising residents, ensuring that industry builds safe homes and providing transparency and accountability. In doing so, we will rebuild trust. The Government commit to publishing progress on implementing the inquiry recommendations every quarter from mid-2026. Also, we will provide an additional update to Parliament. The Government’s response is explicit on the need to bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, to have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. Yesterday I joined the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Norris in meeting the bereaved and victims of the horrible tragedy. It was an emotional and difficult experience, but they need justice.
I will now focus on the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock. On why we are not committing to meet the inquiry’s recommendation on the single regulator, we accept the inquiry’s recommendation and will create a single construction regulator. However, we must avoid creating a conflict of interest within the regulator. We do not believe it appropriate for a single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products and issue certificates of compliance. This would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. It would set the rules, test and issue certificates, and police compliances with those rules. Through our Green Paper, we are putting forward wider measures to significantly strengthen conformity assessment in order to provide the confidence and rigour that is essential as part of that system-wide reform.
We are acting now through the regulators to ensure that enforcement action is taken against safety breaches and that new buildings meet our more rigorous standards. The new building safety regime is stopping bad designs becoming bad buildings. The inquiry exposed regulation of the construction industry as too complex and fragmented. Merging responsibility for regulating construction products and professionals, and monitoring the operation of building regulations, provides the best basis for a regulatory system with clear standards, no regulatory conflict and clarity and certainty on how the industry must conduct itself. In autumn 2025, we will set out further details of the pathway to establish the single regulator.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made, the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on every recommendation directed at us. There are 58 in total. Where we have accepted nine recommendations in principle, we will deliver the intended outcome in a slightly different way, to ensure that it meets the aims and is a lasting success. We want to be clear that the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take forward action on every recommendation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. I want to update the House. We are focused on speeding up remediation. The plan will create certainty about which buildings need remediation and who is responsible for that. The plan will make obligations for assessing, completing and regulating remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance, and give residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities. We will update regularly on that process. The legislative commitments are detailed in the remediation action plan.
On construction products, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked what action the Government are taking to address criticisms over the key institutions found culpable in their role. The Government have taken full account of the criticisms in the inquiry report, including those of identified institutions. We are addressing those criticisms through the government response to recommendations, as set out in the Green Paper, as part of the measures for system-wide reform.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsMonday 24th February 2025
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-I(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Feb 2025)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, at this point in our first day in Committee, I ought to remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor—we are reliant on business rates for what we do—and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also remind the Committee, given the further amendment that I have, that I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield’s council.
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for speaking to this group of amendments. The thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to remove the higher multiplier. Without really understanding the combination of potential higher multipliers and the loss of what we could call the Covid business relief, because we do not have an impact assessment from the Government, it is difficult to understand the financial impact on businesses of both those changes. I will urge the Minister at every opportunity to provide for the Committee the financial impact on businesses; otherwise, we are debating in the dark a bit because we do not know exactly what the totality of the impact will be on different sectors of the business community.
One of the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, concerned the lack of targeting of specific businesses in the whole range of proposals in this Bill. It is really difficult to see how the current valuation assessments will result in a fair share of property taxation. I say “fair share” because, in his response to the first group of amendments, the Minister talked about the purpose of this Bill—I quote him—as being to create a fairer system. As we will come to understand in our debates on later groups, this Bill fails to do that because it fails to target businesses except on the basis of valuation. The purpose is ostensibly—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who called it the “Amazon tax”—to try to extract a fairer share of property taxation from distribution warehouses.
At this point, I shall quote what I have, I think, quoted before. The Valuation Office Agency has a figure for an Amazon warehouse near where I live in Yorkshire of £25 per square metre, whereas, in my own small town, a local shop is valued at £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of the problem, which this Bill does not address; it is fundamental. What is absolutely essential to getting a fairer system is a total rethink about property taxation.
Things have changed enormously since the non-domestic business rates regime was introduced. There are now significant out-of-town developments in warehouse distribution which did not exist 20 years ago, and large out-of-town retail parks, which did not exist 25 or 30 years ago. However, they do now, and they are benefiting from the way property is valued by the criteria set by the Valuation Office Agency, and they are benefiting at the expense of high streets. If the Government are certain in their aim to provide a fairer system for our high streets, then absolutely essential is this fundamental change to the way properties are valued, so that taxation can be fairly shared between out-of-town distribution centres, which currently benefit from very low rental values, as opposed to city and town centres, where rental values are high and landlords want to keep them high, because that is important for their income.
We will achieve nothing in this Bill unless that basis of the system is addressed. I agree with the thrust of what is being said, though I do not see how you can let people off a high multiplier if you introduce a lower one without losing that taxation take. I also agree with the final point that both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made, which is that this arbitrary £500,000 figure as a cut-off between the lower and higher rates will lead to appeals. If I ran a business which had a rateable value of £510,000, I know what I would do: I would do my best to make it come up for £499,000.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response, but I hope it will be thoughtful.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, if I may, I will intervene a second time, first with an apology because I should have properly declared my interests as a chartered surveyor and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association and of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation.
That apart, I will follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has said. First, we are of course dealing with either the rental or the imputed rental value of properties. I get that point that this is reflecting much lower figures per square foot for some giant distribution centre somewhere upcountry, as opposed to a high-value shop in a sought-after city centre location. However, if that is not the right basis, then we cannot go on slavishly following that. We then have to start thinking about how we split the basis, so that the rental value forms one part of the thing only and something else happens to top the thing up. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to do that, and it cannot be beyond the wit of the Labour Party in opposition to have thought of something when it said in its manifesto commitment that it would replace business rates and
“level the playing field between the high street and online giants”—
and I think I have that verbatim.
More recently, the description of the Bill has been a “rebalancing”. The other way you deal with the whole question of imbalances is to look at the scope of the tax base. The Government have looked at the scope of the tax base; they have decided to take certain private schools out of the exemption and that has increased the tax base. However, that tax base is not retained at all in the business rates pool on a fiscal-neutrality wicket; no, it will be split between government and local authorities for other purposes altogether, so there is a net attrition from the system by that means. What could have been an improvement of the tax base resulting in a reduction across the board will not be there. We have to look carefully at what Governments and the Treasury think they are using business rates for. If they are to go on, bluntly, flogging this poor donkey to death, then things might well start unravelling quite quickly within the timeframe of a valuation list.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 2, 4 and 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which concern provisions relating to the new higher multiplier and the funding of the new lower multipliers.
At the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor set out a Budget to fix the foundations—a Budget that took the difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and to unlock long-term growth. Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street.
Support for the high street is an area on which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and others in this House have spoken passionately in prior debates on business rates legislation. I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience that both he and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, bring to these debates.
The Government have made clear that supporting the high streets is a priority. They are a focal point of economic activity and a point of local pride, and they can often reflect the unique character of a community. Yet, as they are property-intensive sectors, the Government are aware that they shoulder a significant business rates burden. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, a one-year relief has been repeatedly rolled over for retail, hospitality and leisure properties as a temporary stopgap. However, this has meant uncertainty for businesses about their business rates bills from one year to the next, and it has created a significant fiscal pressure for the Government.
The Bill will enable the Government to provide a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country. However, against the challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited, we have been clear that we must take difficult choices to ensure that this support is delivered in a sustainable way. I repeat: the system should work in a sustainable way.
Specifically, this is why, at the Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced our intention to introduce a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, go to the heart of this element of the Bill. They serve to prevent the Government funding the support that the noble Lord would agree is critical for the high street from within the business rates system.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Several times already we have queried the decision to make the dividing line £500,000. It would be good to know why that number was chosen. Why not £600,000 or £400,000?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will come to the noble Baroness’s points when I come back to the valuations, rest assured.
The Government have been clear that they intend to fund new lower multipliers by raising revenue within the business rates system. The lower multipliers are a necessary tax cut, but a tax cut that must be funded. By limiting it to properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above, the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets. Moreover, by including all sectors within this group, they are doing so equitably and will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants—a cohort that I know the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has previously raised in relation to imbalances in the business rates system. We are trying to make sure that we have prudent financial management of the economy and a system that is sustainable.
I come back to some particular points. First, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke in relation to the potential rise of £39 billion, as indicated by the OBR’s Budget report. The OBR forecast assumes that business rates income will vary in line with forecast CPI inflation, estimated growth in the tax base and the change to business rates relief. The main business rates forecast is gross rates yield, net reliefs, net collection costs and other reductions to contributions. The forecast is higher for future years as it assumes that retail, hospitality and leisure relief is removed. The business rates forecast considers measures only after they have been announced at fiscal events. As in normal practice, forecasts beyond 2025-26 are based on a number of assumptions, as the Government have not yet set out their policy beyond that year. This will take place at the Budget later this year: the main business rates forecast will then be updated to reflect it.
As I have highlighted today, the Bill includes constraints that I hope will reassure Members of this Committee. In addition to limiting it to the most valuable properties, the Government cannot set the higher multiplier more than 10 pence above the standard multiplier. The Government have also been clear that this is not the intended rate. It is there to provide flexibility to adapt to outcomes in 2026 following the next revaluation, while acting as a guardrail against concern about excessive increases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will also be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it may save time later if I rise to make a comment in the context of these amendments. I can quite see that there is an objection in principle to some of what is being put forward here, because of the Treasury need to predict the yield, if it is going to be able to explain to the Chancellor what announcement has got to be made in the Autumn Budget with regard to the multipliers.
That said, this raises the question of the complication that has arisen from the fact that, by virtue of the Bill, the discretion to define RHL properties, which has rested hitherto with billing authorities, will be taken away under the Bill and, as we have heard, the definition will be set centrally. How will central government make the relevant decisions in applying this as between a small seaside town at one end and a bustling urban metropolis at the other? Will it be by reference to the road name—high street or non-high street, depending on whether you want to dance on that glass pinhead—its predominant use or position vis-à-vis the town itself, never mind the range of uses as between different geographical locations?
I am entirely unsure what the outcome of this shift will be, but I am pretty certain that it will be pretty crude and, to local eyes, fairly insensitive of locational differences. That is because it will have to make one rule that applies across everything, from Bognor to West Bromwich—that is what is going to happen. There is a great deal to be said for some sort of discretion being in the hands of local government, which understands the pitch. That said, I do not know how easy it would be to achieve that, because valuation list analysis does not give you that information; it gives you an address, a postcode, a use category and a rateable value, but it does not go further than that, so there is actually quite a lot of qualitative information that we need before we can actually deal with that.
There are other aspects to this whole question of local government billing authority choice, which I will go into when I get to the group starting with Amendment 5, but I thought it was worth making that comment at this particular juncture.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson—also known as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and Lord Thurlow, for the amendments in this group. I have always in principle supported more powers and influence for local authorities. What I have always said should go without saying, but I repeat it.
However, I am nervous about the amendments from the noble Baroness, which seek to enable local authorities to have discretion over whether the higher multiplier should impact on businesses in their area. This is because, if you look at the Valuation Office Agency’s billing lists, you find that the vast majority—I have not worked out the percentage—of businesses in the £500,000-plus bracket are based in the south-east and London. Therefore, the income from the application of the higher multiplier in those areas is essential for the totality of the business rate take, which is then distributed to fund local authorities across the country. Areas of the country where valuations are much lower absolutely depend on the business rates raised from the south-east and London, and that has been the situation for ever.
If I were a London or south-east authority, I would see anything to encourage businesses as an opportunity and I would use that discretion, but it would be at the expense of councils in the north. Those such as mine in Yorkshire and the Minister’s over the Pennines—I dare not say the county—would suffer as a consequence, because the totality of the business rate take would reduce and the distribution of funding, which is vital for local services, would be less. If the noble Baroness comes up with an amendment which counters that, I could support it, because I support more power and discretion to local authorities. However, as we have a national system, we cannot have little local changes to the benefit of places that currently are fairly well funded or have better income already.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, on defining retail, hospitality and leisure properties, there are later groups which try to get at the detail of this, but it seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong or right—that this whole business is associated with the removal of the Covid rate reliefs. Currently I think they are at 75%, to be reduced to 40% and then to zero. It will be quite a big hit to RHL properties to find themselves suddenly facing the totality of their business rate bill.
It seems to me that the essence of the Bill is removing that with one hand in order to provide some relief with the other hand; that is what we have got here. I think that is why the Government are in difficulty in helping us as a Committee to understand the purpose of this. It seems to me that it is that rather than trying to extract more from distribution warehouses et cetera, which we see from the lists provided are not many—of the, I think, 16,000 properties in the £500,000-plus bracket, only about 1,400 or 1,500 are large distribution warehouses. So, my plea is again: let us have an understanding of what this is about. If we had an impact assessment, we would be better able to understand it. I will keep repeating it, so perhaps before we get to Report the Minister will have extracted and published an impact assessment so we can make the judgments that we need to make.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 3,18, 32 and 37, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, are concerned with the role of local authorities in determining the application of the higher and lower multipliers. Amendment 3 seeks to provide local authorities with discretion over the application of the higher multiplier, and Amendments 18, 32, 37 and 43 are concerned with who sets the definition of a qualifying RHL hereditament.
Currently, the Bill includes a power for qualifying RHL hereditaments to be defined in regulations by the Treasury, as I have said. Our intention is for the definition broadly to follow that currently used in the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. The criteria for the current relief scheme are contained in guidance from this department and are implemented by local authorities. Ultimately, under the current relief scheme, local authorities have the final say over and discretion about who should be awarded the relief. I understand that that is the type of arrangement that the amendments are seeking to reinstate from April 2026 for the lower RHL multipliers.
I should, for completeness, explain to the Committee that Amendment 43 replaces the Treasury’s power to define RHL on the central rating list with the relevant local authority. In fact, the central rating list is operated by the Secretary of State for my department and does not require any local authority involvement. Instead, Amendment 43 would create an unworkable section of the Bill. This would be due to the fact that central list hereditaments cross multiple local authority areas, which would create a lack of clarity around the responsibility. In addition, this amendment would inappropriately insert local authorities into the central list process. I do not think that this is the intention of the noble Baroness. I think it is important to clarify there are currently no eligible properties to be prescribed for the lower multiplier on the central list, and nor would we expect there to be in future.
Moreover, I understand from the helpful explanation provided that Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is, in a similar way to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeking to confer on local authorities the power to determine what is a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament. However, as drafted, it does not do that. As drafted, Amendment 32 would completely remove the power to define a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament in respect of unoccupied properties from the Bill. In essence, it would mean qualifying RHL for unoccupied properties would remain undefined, as the power would not automatically be granted to local authorities.
However, I understand that these amendments are intended to probe the matter of local decision-making, and that is how I have sought to discuss them here today. As noble Lords would expect from me, I fully support efforts to give local authorities more power and discretion in their areas. The Bill does not disturb the already considerable powers that local authorities have to award relief to ratepayers as set out in Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
However, we have to balance this against the needs of businesses. What we hear from businesses is that they really value certainty. They tell us that the current RHL relief scheme, operated through local discretion, does not give them that certainty. We hear that they do not favour a system where a national relief scheme, such as RHL relief, can be delivered differently by different local authorities. It leaves businesses, especially those with multiple stores, unsure as to where and when they will be awarded relief.
The new lower RHL multipliers will therefore operate through a single set of regulations for all of England, made by the Treasury. Those regulations will still be implemented by local authorities, using their local knowledge, but the definition will be set by the Treasury. This is something that businesses in general would support. We will work with local government over the coming year to prepare these regulations. That goes to the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in relation to our relationships and work with local government; we are doing that already.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 7 and 24 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 14, 31 and 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. I have also added my name in support of Amendments 5 and 22 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to which he has just spoken. This is an important group of amendments because it seeks to expose the problem that the Government have in applying a higher multiplier to some businesses without targeting them, as we heard on an earlier group this afternoon.
Searching through the Valuation Office Agency’s information reveals, for instance, that about 60 civic centres or town halls, and 80 police headquarters or very large city centre police stations, are included in this higher rate. If the top end of the higher multiplier is applied to these properties, that will add 20% to the business rates bills of those local authorities or police authorities, at a time when both have severe problems with their finances and are struggling to make ends meet.
It is not just police headquarters, police stations and town halls: 80 courts, from the Supreme Court at one end to large magistrates’ courts at the other, are included in the rateable values assessed as being above £500,000—this is in the information that the Minister shared with us at the weekend—as, indeed, are 80 prisons. I am not quite sure why the Government are including town halls, civic centres, police HQs, courts, prisons and 630 schools in the higher multiplier. Why would any Government want to impose 20% higher costs, potentially, for business rates on those publicly funded essential institutions? I am sure the Minister will have a reply; whether it is one I will accept is a different matter. It gets worse: 300 further education colleges are included in this.
We just had a skills Bill passed through this House, which purported to increase the advantages of a skills agenda for young people. Most of us know that FE colleges have been consistently undervalued and underfinanced over the last 10 to 14 years—or even more. Adding this to the list of their problems will not help the skills agenda, nor will 360 state schools. Why on earth would you include state schools in this catch-all of the higher multiplier? Within the budgets and funding for state schools there is an element to cover their non-domestic rates costs. Whether that will be increased for those who are caught up in this higher valuation remains to be seen. I am just quoting from the information that the noble Lord shared.
On top of that, 310 universities are caught up. As I declared earlier, I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield. I know how hard the changes that the previous Government made have hit university funding. Across the country, universities are having to close departments—often those that are vital for the future growth agenda that the Government are following. I need to hear from the Minister how the Government will address this non-targeted way of having the higher multiplier. Will all those state-funded institutions that I listed—local government, police, prisons, courts, schools and FE colleges—be compensated for the potential higher rate multiplier and therefore the 20% increase in their business rates? Universities function as businesses now and have very little income that comes directly from government, but they are facing very challenging financial futures, which is absolutely contrary to what the Government want to achieve from their emphasis on R&D. That cannot happen if universities struggle to make ends meet.
The challenge the Government have is to ensure that the changes result in the same income from NDR as previously. Between 30% and 40% of local government funding now comes from business rate income. As well as my earlier questions, can the Minister assure this Committee that local government will have the same total funding pot from business rates as it does now and—because of the way the system works—that no local authority will suffer a loss in income from business rates as a result of these changes? I will not go into the way it works for local government. The Minister will understand that assuring the total funding pot of business rates does not necessarily mean that each local authority will continue to have the same level of funding.
The question is whether the Minister can assure us that schools, colleges and so on—all those publicly funded institutions that may have to pay considerably higher costs in business rates—will have compensatory funding from the Treasury to meet those additional costs. Otherwise, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I am going to leave my noble friend to talk about the importance of music venues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, knows that I support both the amendments he has tabled, to which I have added my name, and I do not wish to add anything further to what he said. I am looking forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions .
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 12, 15, 29 and 33 and, in doing so, I apologise to the Committee that I omitted to declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I keep forgetting it. My amendments seek to exempt manufacturing businesses from the higher multiplier.
The manufacturing industry is exceptionally important to the British economy, and to place an additional financial burden on this sector is unsatisfactory. In 2023, the total value of UK manufacturers’ product sales was £456 billion, which demonstrates the value of the sector to the UK economy. The sector accounts for 8.1% of UK employment and, in July to September 2024, accounted for 8.8% of the total UK economic output. Ministers never tire of telling us that growth is this Government’s number one mission, so can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will not have a negative impact on the growth of our UK manufacturing sector?
Recently, the global political situation demonstrated the importance of being self-reliant with the rise in energy prices we have seen in the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. My amendments seek to protect this vital sector, which has an important role to play in growing the UK economy, by allowing manufacturing hereditaments to qualify for the lower multiplier. This Bill, despite promising business rates reform, will put an arbitrary threshold in place and many businesses will be adversely affected. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this group. Given that the manufacturing sector is likely to be included in this bracket, I would be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to outline exactly what impact his department expects the changes to business rates will have on the UK manufacturing sector.
This sector is already facing higher costs due to the increase in the cost of labour, and the Government are hitting it with a triple whammy of increasing costs with the increase in the minimum wage, which of course we support, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is a damaging jobs tax. The House will have the opportunity to debate the national insurance measures tomorrow, and we will be speaking up for the number of sectors that will be devastated by this government policy. But why would these businesses invest to increase the value of their business and risk it going over £500,000? Labour-intensive sectors are already paying the cost of a Labour Government, and if businesses are forced to pay the higher multiplier suggested in this Bill that will only worsen their predicament.
Amendments 5 and 22, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to exempt retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from the higher multiplier. They are sensible amendments, and several of my amendments touch on very similar issues. I have referred in my amendments to specific types of stores on our high street, which are yet to be debated, but the sentiment of the noble Earl’s amendments is certainly one that I support.
Amendments 14, 31 and 41 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I do not see in her seat.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 37, page 4, line 6, and page 4, line 17, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on the impact of the higher multiplier on hospitals, clinics and other larger health institutions. Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, and the other three amendments, Amendments 20, 23 and 39, are consequential amendments. The Minister has spoken several times this afternoon about being “fair and sustainable” and also, just latterly, about “tough choices”.
I have looked down the list shared by the Minister of those properties with rateable values above £500,000. There are some notable exceptions. I could not find Buckingham Palace. Tough choices? Are Parliament and the Parliamentary Estate exempt? I could not find them in the list. Maybe the list is not complete; if that is the case, it would be good to hear from the Minister how much extra the Government expect the higher multiplier to cost the Parliamentary Estate.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. In the previous debate on the amendments in group 4, just a few moments ago, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. Of course, the same considerations apply here. This Government fully support the healthcare sector, but it would not be fair to exclude some and not others. To sustainably fund the lower multipliers, we must ensure that we can raise money from higher multipliers; the only fair way to do this is to apply it to all hereditaments at £500,000 and above.
As I said in the debate on the previous group, it is important to look at the facts. The Valuation Office Agency’s statistics show that, of the 16,780 properties caught by the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health subsector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 and we do not have separate data on medical or dental schools. The impact on this sector is therefore limited and, where it applies, much of it falls on the NHS. The Autumn Budget fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review, which will deliver new mission-led, technology-enabled and reform-driven budgets for departments. We will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments in the round, including any impact of the higher multiplier, when setting these budgets.
On the questions about the Bill creating more cliff edges in the system, the new higher-rate multiplier will apply to properties above £500,000, which will fund and support the high street in a sustainable way. However, the discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget highlights that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the system may disincentivise expansion. It committed to explore options for reform. The Government have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform, and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform. That is open until 31 March 2025.
On the specific question about examples of properties that the noble Baroness mentioned, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the rate bills of specific ratepayers, especially as one of them is a domestic property. To conclude, set in the context of these facts and assurances of how we will approach the issue in the spending review, I hope the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the amendments that I have tabled to try to persuade the Government to think again. The Minister talked about an agnostic approach to the application of the higher multiplier. Now, agnostic approaches are all very well until we see what we catch in the trap. What we have exposed this afternoon is that the Government intend to apply higher costs to the very public services for which they are desperate to have higher funding. They cannot, on the one hand, say that they wish to provide higher funding for some of these important public sector services when, on the other hand, they take some of the funding away. That is the consequence of an ill-considered agnostic approach. I urge the Government to think about having a more targeted approach that includes in its catch more warehouse distribution services and fewer public sector providers of important and valuable public services. At the minute, that is not what is happening.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11, 28 and 36 in my name, which seek to exempt anchor stores from the scope of the proposed changes in the Bill. These amendments are crucial for safeguarding the health and vitality of our high streets particularly in the context of the ongoing challenges facing retailers and small businesses. I thank all noble Lords who, throughout this debate, have acknowledged the importance of these businesses.
As we are aware, anchor stores play a vital role in the commercial ecosystem of any high street. They act as a significant draw for foot traffic, attracting customers not only to their own establishments but to the surrounding smaller retailers and businesses. It is no exaggeration to say that, without anchor stores, many high streets would be devastated. They are the backbone that supports the smaller independent shops that contribute to the unique character of our local economies.
However, while the higher threshold for non-domestic rates is a well-intentioned measure to ensure that out-of-town warehouses and large-scale online retailers contribute their fair share, we must pause and consider the unintended consequences of this approach. The so-called Amazon tax may be designed with online giants in mind, but the current proposals would also capture larger businesses operating on our high streets—businesses that, in many cases, are anchor stores.
It is a very real concern that these stores become subject to increased rates. They may choose to relocate to out-of-town retail parks where rates are more favourable. This would exacerbate the very problem we are seeking to address—the decline of our high streets and the hollowing out of our town centres. We must ask ourselves what the impact would be on our communities if these anchor stores, which currently act as magnets for footfall, were to disappear from our high streets. Would we see a chain reaction where smaller businesses, already struggling under the pressure of rising costs and changing consumer habits, are left without customers and forced to close? How many small businesses would be driven to the brink if the larger retailers that currently support them were to move away, taking their foot traffic with them? These questions are not just theoretical; they are deeply practical and must be considered carefully if we are to protect the future of our high streets.
Amendments 11, 28 and 36 seek to exempt anchor stores from the broader measures in the Bill and offer a way forward that ensures that we do not punish those businesses that are essential for the economic vibrancies of our town centres. They are about striking the right balance. We must ensure that we support businesses that are critical to the future of our high streets and town centres. Exempting anchor stores from this measure would help to achieve this balance. I ask the Minister to consider whether the current proposals risk harming the very high streets that we all seek to protect. We cannot afford unintentionally to undermine the businesses that are central to our local economies. Exempting anchor stores is a sensible, practical step to ensure the long-term health of our high streets, and I urge the Government truly to reflect on this before moving forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this group of amendments which seeks to exempt so-called anchor stores from high streets.
We could do with a definition of an anchor store and, indeed, of a high street, but we will come to that in a later group. High streets vary enormously from small town high streets and market town high streets to larger town centres and city centres. When there is a new retail development in a town or city centre, the phrase “anchor store” often comes into play. It is very clear in the business sector that retail works better if there is one major store, which is a sun around which the satellites of smaller shops and businesses operate. This is the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, provided. However, that is just for a group of retail businesses, often in a new situation—such as an out-of-town retail park, a new retail development within a larger town centre or an existing large business in a town centre, for example a Marks & Spencer or a John Lewis store that has a multitude of operations within it. That enables other businesses to exist and thrive from the footfall that the big name store attracts.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the importance of these so-called anchor stores, although I would like to see whether the Government have a definition that can be applied. I agree with her argument that smaller businesses develop and thrive as a result of the draw of a so-called anchor store and, equally, the argument that she makes that, because anchor stores are critical to the business environment for the totality of large, medium and small businesses—retail, leisure, hospitality or otherwise, within the sector—it is important to think about whether those often large retail businesses are exempt from the higher multiplier.
I am thinking of a local town high street where the Marks & Spencer closed and moved out some years ago. It was absolutely clear that that was the focus of shoppers going to that town. Once it went, it caused the closure of a whole section of shops in that town and very difficult situation for the businesses that were left. The town will require government money for regeneration to get back on its feet. That is what happens.
So it is important that the Government, in thinking about the Bill and the impact it will have on businesses, think about the consequences of what they are doing. In a previous group, I raised the consequences for public sector-funded businesses, but this is as important for the future health of our town centres. If you take out the key store around which others, like satellites, are drawn because its business sums no longer add up, the whole area will be on a downward spiral.
I will give the Committee an example from some figures that I remember, so they may be wrong. Take John Lewis, which is a big store. It knows that much of its business will move online. I think its business plan expects 60% of its business to move online. If we put an additional cost, as would happen under the large multiplier, on the remaining 40% of its business, I expect that one of the consequences would be that a greater proportion would move out of the high street to online to reduce those costs. That is not what this Government want to happen. They have argued for the importance of the health of our town centres for all sorts of reasons, not just to support small businesses but to support the community which goes there to meet and so on.
It is important that the Government think about the unintended consequences of this rough and ready Bill because it will potentially have very rough consequences on our high streets, particularly those which depend on a big store as the holder of the rest of the businesses around it. I look forward to what the Minister says, but I hope that he does not use “tough choices” and “fair and sustainable”.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I will briefly add a few comments. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has clearly illustrated what happens to a town centre when the anchor departs and the economic health of the shopping environment dies.
The problem we have is that of definitions. When a comprehensive town centre development is designed by developers, it contains, without fail, something called an MSU—a major space unit. That is the anchor, the John Lewis or the Marks & Spencer. When that goes, the only possible replacement, generally speaking, is a supermarket.
If the supermarket becomes the anchor of the economic health of the high street, at the back of a shopping centre, filling the space of the department store that was there before, the supermarket really has to be described as an anchor. I do not disagree with the concept, but it makes the problem one of definitions and gets back to the question of use classes, which we will perhaps be able to speak about with the Bill team at another time.
I agree with the principle of this amendment, but I think it is more complicated. We need to get to the bottom of it, but it is one of definitions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and all others who have mentioned this issue throughout the afternoon. There is an important role for anchor stores. To the definition, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that they should ask communities and their residents what would be an anchor store in their local town centre and ask the sector to discuss that as well. As a former leader of a council for many years, and knowing many council leaders, as I do, I know that they know exactly what an anchor store at any one time would be for the size and type of the high street they are trying not only to protect but to keep being a high street for any length of time. Many leaders of councils across this country have spent many hours working with the sector to get exactly that in order to make sure that they have a good thriving and surviving high street for their local communities.
As we have said, we all agree that these stores play a crucial role in the vitality of high streets and town centres. We know that they drive footfall, support local businesses and contribute significantly to the economic and social fabric of our communities. That is why it is important that we find a definition and a way through this. Without them, many of our high streets will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. I have spoken to the sector, and these businesses will leave the high street and go out of town where it is cheaper. Not only that, but they may even go out of business and, as we are seeing, go permanently online. That will not help our high streets.
As I have said, the changes in the Bill could inadvertently harm these vital businesses and place an undue burden on them, pushing them out of our high streets. The Bill follows several other damaging decisions that businesses are having to fund. This one at the end of it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Not only will it likely leave anchor stores paying higher business rates; they will also be paying increased staff costs, as we talked about earlier.
These decisions will have a cost, and if the Government continue to make them, we are worried that there will be no businesses left in the high street to tax. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns raised by many noble Lords today. We just want a fair and equitable business rates system—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
And equitable. We must not overlook the specific need, as we have all said—across parties—to protect our high streets for our communities for the future. We believe that exempting anchor stores from these changes is a measured and practical way of safeguarding the future of our town centres. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister on this before Report but, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
(a) as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues,(b) for assembly and leisure, or(c) as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe what hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality or leisure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 16, 34 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox seek to provide a much-needed definition for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which is sadly missing from the Bill. We keep being told by the Minister that one will be provided, but here is one that he might like to use.
These three amendments propose that the hereditaments defined as retail, hospitality and leisure should be
“shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues”,
and those used
“for assembly and leisure, or … as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation”.
We believe that that probably covers the gamut of RHL hereditaments and hope that the Minister will agree that it is an inclusive list. We hope that he will accept it so that the Treasury does not have to define one.
We have to understand that it is really important to local businesses to have certainty about their costs. This aspect of the Bill has not been touched on yet today. I speak to businesses in my locality, and they are concerned about potential increases in their costs. They need to plan ahead—not just one year but a couple of years at least, and, for cafés or restaurants, even further to be able to plan business costs and make sure that they end the day on the right side of the red line.
It is not helpful to the business community that it is not clear what the definition will be. If, as some of us suspect, it is the same definition as was provided under the rate relief over Covid, then let us understand that. If it will exclude some businesses included in that rate relief, that needs to be clear as well. Time is of the essence here, because the Covid rate relief, as we have heard, is declining considerably and businesses need to know how that will impact their bottom line.
That is the purpose of the first three amendments in our names—to get some certainty so that businesses, particularly small businesses, which this element of the Bill focuses on, understand what additional costs are coming their way. We still do not know, unless the Minister tells us, the consequence of, on the one hand, reducing the Covid relief and, on the other, the business rate changes. That is important. A few thousand pounds here and there can make the difference for a small business between survival and closure, so it is important for this Committee and for businesses to understand.
Amendment 51 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox is slightly different. It tries to put some definition around these fabled “high streets”. The Government have said that they wish to protect high streets and lower the burden of costs on them while increasing the costs for big distribution warehouses. With that I concur, but it is important that we understand what is meant by “high streets”.
In the National Planning Policy Framework, there is a requirement to define what a high street or, more appropriately, town centre should be. When local planning authorities produce their local plans for a strategic approach to planning in their area, they are required to put a boundary around their town centres, because they often have particular importance for grant funding, transport and the consequences of all sorts of operations.
So there is a way of defining a high street or a town centre that encompasses the so-called high street. By “high street”, I believe the Government mean the essential businesses in a town centre. There is an ability for local authorities to use the NPPF to provide that definition. The Government could then enable all businesses within the boundary of a town centre to have a reduced multiplier, which would enable a thriving and prosperous town centre. That would benefit not only those businesses that operate within the town centre but the community that they serve.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just to clarify for noble Lords, there will be no change to small business rate relief—that is not changing—so they will still pay tax.
It is the Government’s view that this is the fairest approach and that trying to restrict the application of the different multipliers based on geography would create unintended consequences and would likely drive perverse incentives. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line around a town centre. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a suggestion around using the understanding of the term as per the National Planning Policy Framework, but that framework does not set a definition of a town centre. It should be noted that the framework suggests those centres identified in development plans, but this does not represent a requirement that all centres are identified. We also know that many areas do not have up-to-date development plans and that, therefore, centres that are identified may not reflect current realities.
Such an approach would essentially give local planning authorities the power to determine where multipliers should apply and could restrict their application from smaller retail centres that might be essential to particular neighbourhoods. Furthermore, it could result in the higher multiplier not being able to be applied to large warehouses used by online businesses or other properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or above if they are not located in a town centre, as these would fall outside the definition of a town centre. I do not think that is the noble Lords’ intention, but it is important to clarify that point. I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify the areas of interest and provided reassurance on the Government’s policy in this space. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, for their supportive comments, as the Minister was not so helpful. Businesses require clarity and certainty. To tell us that secondary legislation will be needed to set out the definition of RHL means that clarity and certainty will be pushed further down the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I wrote down what he said: secondary legislation will set out the definitions. By definition, that will be after this Bill has gone through its processes.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in the very same sentence I said:
“However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this to broadly follow the definition that is used for the current RHL”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
In which case, I apologise to the Minister. I must have missed that bit of his explanation. We have been saying right from the start that Covid relief would be the definition for RHL, and that is the clarity people need. I hope the Government will inform businesses that, if they currently get Covid relief, they will qualify under this Bill. Equally, we will be pushing the Government to expand that definition. It is not as inclusive as some of us think it should be if the aim is for small businesses to thrive or have reduced costs, as opposed to distribution warehouses and online retailers.
On the last amendment, I disagree with the Minister because the National Planning Policy Framework—which I have read—sets out what a town centre is. Local planning authorities have the responsibility to form a local plan. The Minister is right: far too many local planning authorities have failed in that responsibility. However, the Government have said that they expect local planning authorities to produce a local plan. In that case, all local planning authorities would produce a local plan in which they can define what is included within the boundaries of several town centres within their purview. That is really important because lots of issues follow from being within the purview of a town centre.
I hope that the Minister will perhaps go away and think with his officials about whether this could be used as a definition for businesses within the purview that will be set out in the local plan so that this Bill— the Government have stated that its aim is to help the so-called high street, which, as I have said, will be the town centre—will help businesses to thrive despite the growing competition that they face from online retailers, which, by the very nature of business rates, pay much less than those businesses do in town centres even after this multiplier is applied. With that plea to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
English Devolution and Local Government
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s announcement on local government restructuring is a hugely significant upheaval for local democracy. We support the principles of devolution, but we do not support the Government’s method of achieving it. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into top-down restructuring. This was not in the Labour Party manifesto, and the Labour Government have massively rushed this whole exercise.
The Conservative Party has a proud record of supporting devolution. While we were in government, we empowered residents and their councils. We gave councils more control over local planning, improved accountability through elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, and decentralised power to the people by letting parents create free schools and giving residents power over neighbourhood planning.
In December 2024 we set out five tests for the Government that we believed any form of devolution should satisfy. Is this a genuine choice for local councils? In two-tier areas, do both district and county councils agree with restructuring? Will local government be more accountable to local residents? Will the overall changes help keep council tax down? Finally, will restructuring avoid disruption of social care?
We already know that the Government have failed each of these tests. Restructuring is compulsory. There has been no attempt to gather consensus within two-tier areas. Residents have not been consulted, and there has been no time for proper communication with local people about the plans that local councils are putting in place. The Government are incentivising council tax rises across the board—no, worse: punishing councils that keep council tax down. I have not been reassured by the Government that they understand the needs of adult and children’s social care, and the impact that this could have on it, compounded by Labour’s national insurance hikes. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could address these five points in turn, and explain what consideration the Government have given each of them.
The shadow Secretary of State in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake, asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, that went unanswered. Now the Government have had more time to consider these serious and reasonable questions, I ask the Minister to answer some of them, but this time with substance and not politics.
First, how exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets? How is it compatible with Labour’s changes to the local government funding formula that punish councils that keep their council tax low? Do the Government accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament? Finally, what support will the Government give to authorities—such as Woking and Thurrock—facing significant levels of debt? Will this debt be written off or passed on to the new unitary authorities?
We support stronger local accountability, but there are different ways to do this, and there should have been proper, full and open consultation. Local government must remain local and accountable to its residents. The whole process should be considered more slowly, to ensure that the people understand their future representation and have their say on it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice- president of the Local Government Association. This is a wide-ranging Statement about the future of local government. There are three different elements within the Statement, and I want to address each separately.
First, I want to think about the creation of the so-called strategic authorities. The Government, in the headline to their Statement, described it as “devolution”. It is not devolution; it is delegation of powers from the centre in Westminster. True devolution will occur only when funding is raised locally and decisions are made locally, without the iron grip of Whitehall being exerted. This is a bit of a challenge for the Minister: if they are to have devolution, can she describe the route to the place where there is freedom for local government to make and fund its decisions, without the diktat from above?
The next challenge I have for the Minister—I am sorry, there are one or two here—is that of the democratic deficit that is being deliberately created. We are, apparently, going to have mayors for these so-called strategic authorities. If the evidence from the past in the election of mayors is to continue, mayors are elected—when they are stand-alone elections—by less than 20% of the electorate, which is hardly a resounding vote of confidence in that system. Those of us who care about local democracy are rightly concerned about increasing powers. For example, the mayors of the strategic authorities will have the power to create policy on housing and on strategic planning, which really affect the lives of residents. How will those decisions be respected when the mayors have been elected by such a low number of electors?
One small step that the Government could take to help reverse this democratic deficit is to return to the voting system that prevailed in the election of mayors until the previous Government, in their last throes, decided to remove the additional vote system and return to first past the post. I guess they thought it would help their cause; it did not. At least having an additional vote—albeit that is not what would I want—means that more people help to support the person who is elected.
The next element of the Statement is the abolition of district councils. I serve on a metropolitan council, so district councils are not anything I have experienced, but we know that they are very efficient in running very local services and are very close to the residents they serve. Systems always need reform, so if there is going to be reform of this two-tier system, why do we not think of change rather than abolition? Is it because the county councils are running out of money, and they need the district council reserves to prop them up?
In the new era of unitary authorities, the Government are talking about the average size of these unitary authorities being a population of 500,000. That is very much like the metropolitan area that I serve in. I can tell the House that this means that the wards that councillors will be elected to serve in will be large, and in rural areas they will be geographically large. I suspect that the Government are considering a ratio of councillor to electors of about 1:5,000. That is a very large number of people, and it would take local democracy away from people.
The last item I want to raise is the cancelling of elections. I do not think that, in a democracy, we should ever cancel elections. I know that the previous Government cancelled elections, so there is a bit of a precedent, but I do not think that it is one that should be repeated. People have a right to have their say in electing people to represent them. The difficulty that cancelling these elections creates is that the existing councillors who were elected four years ago will be the ones who determine the set-up for the new unitary councils in their area. If you do that you need the electoral mandate to do it, which they will not have.
I am very disappointed that the Government have decided that democracy is not worthy of the name, and that we are moving local government further and further away from local people. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions and put some life back in local democracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions. The number one mission of our Government is to unlock growth in our regions. It is to this end that we are working very hard to start this generational opportunity to devolve powers and funding from Whitehall and Westminster to our local areas, where local leaders have skin in the game in making things happen for their communities. It is a very important part of our mission. With the measures we announced last Wednesday, over 44 million people will see the benefits of devolution. That is close to 80% of the county—more progress in a short amount of time than any Government in Britain’s history.
It is very important that we get on with this. This issue has been hanging around for most of my local government career, which is longer that I care to admit to. I have been involved in at least four long-term proposals for devolution in my time, and it is time that we got on with the job.
We have heard from councils that unitarisation or council mergers can help strengthen local leadership, improve local services, save taxpayers money and improve local accountability. That is why we invited formal unitary proposals from all the councils in two-tier areas and their neighbouring small unitaries.
We acknowledge that, for some areas, the timing of election affects their planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. To help manage these demands, we have considered requests to postpone elections from May 2025 to May 2026. We have been very clear that we would consider these requests only where it would help the area to deliver reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe. That is a very high bar, and rightly so. Of these requests, the Government agree that for Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex and Thurrock, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and East Sussex and West Sussex, postponement is essential for the delivery of the devolution priority programme and complementary reorganisation. The Government have also agreed to postpone elections in Surrey, where reorganisation is essential to locking devolution options. We had a much larger number of proposals than that but, as I say, it was a very high bar.
I will address the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I completely disagree with the characterisation from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that local authorities are being bullied and blackmailed, and that this is a top-down reorganisation. That is completely wrong. We asked local authorities to put proposals forward, and the fact that we were oversubscribed, with the number of local authorities that did so, shows the enthusiasm for this. I met with a large number of local authorities over the course of the consultation, and they are all very enthusiastic and positive about this proposal. We have driven local authorities to the edge of this then marched them back down the hill so many times. It is time that we just got on with the job.
On the noble Baroness’s points about consultation, we are undertaking extensive consultation in all the areas that I outlined just now. The Government will be starting that next week. We have asked for the local authorities to help us contact their stakeholders—whether they are community stakeholders, business groups or other channels—so that consultation is as wide as possible. We will continue to use consultation as the basis for the plans we take forward.
On council tax, I remind the party opposite that the failure properly to fund local government over many years was the worst thing that happened to social care and children’s services in my time in local government. We need to take steps now to restructure local government to make it sustainable for the future, and to make sure that it works properly to deliver the services that we need now, not the services that were needed 30 years ago.
On how restructuring will put more money in people’s pockets, I note that people will get better services from their local councils. The addition of a strategic level will make sure that every region in this country will benefit from the growth that we hope to see going forward, and every region will contribute to it. I am afraid that the levelling-up mission of the previous Government did not reach out to many areas of our country, so it is now time we did that.
We are of course aware of the issues with council staff, and we will work very closely with the Local Government Association and council colleagues on that.
On the impact on housing delivery, I genuinely believe that having mayors in a strategic role in our local areas, driving forward both housing and growth—in a way that makes sense for their area, which is the important part of this procedure—will be critical to seeing the housing delivery and growth that we want to see.
On the significant levels of debt that the noble Baroness mentioned, it is the responsibility of councils to manage their debts, and it is standard for councils to borrow and hold debt. We will work with local leaders to explore how best to support local government reorganisation where there has been failure, and we will continue to work with best value commissioners to support councils’ financial recovery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised a number of issues, some of which I have already answered. The devolution of powers from Westminster down to local areas is a critical, once-in-a-generation step that we want to see. I am afraid that I disagree with her point that that is not devolution; I genuinely believe that it is. It will then be for the councils to facilitate further devolution out to the people in their local areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned the democratic deficit. If you look at what mayors have been able to achieve in their areas in improving skills, transport and many other things, you will see that there is no democratic deficit. In fact, the people in the areas that already have elected mayors are really benefiting from that. We have decided at this stage not to return to an alternative voting system, and we will stick with first past the post for these elections.
On district councils, the two tiers make for a complex picture. I was in a two-tier area for all my local government career. Many people do not understand which council does which services. Now is the time to address that issue once and for all, to make sure that there is only one council delivering for the people it serves. It will be for the Local Government Boundary Commission to decide the size of the wards and their representation. As I explained, cancelling elections will give local authorities the space to manage the process in order to get their new structures in place in time for mayoral elections in 2026.
Solar Panels
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the fitting of more efficient energy methods contributes to both the energy security of our country and the efficiency of those buildings. It is very important that we focus on that as much as we can and we will do all we can to encourage that with non-domestic buildings. Some technical issues came up as part of the consultation responses—we had 2,000 responses, including some on the fitting of solar panels to roofs and other efficiency measures—and it is important that we look at them before we issue our statement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, one of the big challenges in encouraging more solar panels on large industrial premises is the lack of ability to connect to the national grid. I am sure that the Government are aware of that challenge, but what are they going to do about it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important question for all the growth that we are predicting for our country. My colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working very closely with the national grid to improve grid capacity; it will be essential to have that going forward. We need to make sure that that is the case, both to drive the growth that we want to see, because energy is vital to that, and to keep our energy security for the country the way we want it as we grow the economy.
Council Tax
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, fees and charges form an important part of councils’ income. Whether that is fair or not is for the council tax payers of the area in question to make their minds up about locally. The three strands of council tax funding very much include those fees and charges, and the voters will decide whether they are reasonable or not.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Shipley, some council tax payers are now paying 12% on top of the council tax bill to pay for social care—the social care precept. Is that a fair and reasonable way to raise money to pay for social care? I remind the Minister that it was introduced by the previous Government.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The social care precept was introduced by the previous Government. There is an increase in demand for social care in our demographic, and that has to be funded. The Government continue to keep under review how adult social care is paid for. At the moment, it is paid for by an additional precept on council tax for those who need social care. It is very important that we continue to support people in our communities who need it, and I am sure the noble Baroness would want us to continue to do that.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsWednesday 29th January 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I hope I am okay in asking the Minister to pass on my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and his family at this particularly sad time for them all.
I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Fox has indicated, a radical overhaul of taxation of business properties is long overdue. Successive Governments have tinkered with the multipliers and valuation periods. In addition, the increasing discrimination of the system against town centre businesses has been recognised and the response has been in the shape of various levels of relief. All that demonstrates, however, is that the non-domestic ratings system is no longer fit for purpose. The Government have admitted that to be the case. Unfortunately, this Bill does not address fundamental reform— at which point, I commend to the Minister the Liberal Democrat policy of a commercial landowner levy; I am sure she will read that with interest.
However, the Bill makes a small step in the right direction by attempting to make a significant change to the balance of rates paid by some small businesses, with a larger share demanded, rightly, of the warehouse distribution sector.
What it fails to do is assess the impact of those changes with the loss of relief that is also proposed. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend both said, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other, and it is very difficult to assess what changes these proposals will make.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long argued that online retailing should have business rates comparable with those of small businesses in town centres. The Bill proposes that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses based in town centres—whatever that means—should have a multiplier that is up to 20p in the pound lower than it is now. The Government’s argument is that these changes will help to support small businesses in local centres and encourage the community and economic value they provide. However, this change is restricted to a sector of businesses located in town centres. Can the Minister first provide a definition of them? I believe she did say, in her opening speech, that a definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will come later. To be frank, I do not think that that is acceptable when we are being asked to understand changes that are going to be made, yet we are not sure of a clear definition of those businesses. Do they include, for instance, council-run indoor markets? Those are retail businesses in town centres: my understanding is that they might be excluded. I would love to know from the Minister, because for me it is an important question.
Can the Minister say why professional businesses in town centres are not able to benefit? Solicitors and accountants are at the heart of the commercial operation in small towns, as are post offices and doctors’ surgeries. If the aim is to support our high streets, all these businesses should be included.
Many local centres also include small manufacturing businesses of various sorts, which provide local employment and are often the source of innovation. Can the Minister explain why these businesses in town centres are excluded? How much better it would be to have a blanket of small businesses in town centres all being part of this reduction in the multipliers.
Out-of-town warehouse distributors have long had a competitive advantage over their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. The Bill proposes that the multiplier for these businesses should be up to 10p in the pound greater than it is now. However, the Bill fails to link the valuations of these warehouses compared with to those in small centres. I think I have quoted this before in your Lordships’ House, but an Amazon warehouse in South Yorkshire is valued at around £25 per square metre, whereas a small shop in my town centre has a valuation of £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of business rates because, if those do not change, tinkering around the edges with multipliers will still leave disadvantages for town centres. That is at the heart of the problem we would seek to address in order to redress the balance between online retailers and those in our town centres.
The other issue concerns larger stores, often located in large town centres, and out of town retail centres. It would be interesting to know how those will be judged in this new Bill. Will they be in that 1% or not? If they are, that will put the business model of some of them in jeopardy. The basis of the valuation of rental values makes life very difficult. Can the Minister explain why it is that, despite the number of empty shops in many towns, the rental valuation does not appear to be on the same declining path? My noble friend had a potential answer to that question when he said that the problem is that properties in many market towns are increasingly owned by a single owner. Certainly, in my local small town, most of the properties are in the ownership of two people, and that makes competitive rental values difficult to achieve. I am sure that the Minister will ask her officials about that.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who I met, and his officials for their time in understanding the impact of all these changes, but the main question I had was not satisfactorily answered, I am afraid. It was, “Where is the impact statement?” I was told that, because impact assessments are not published for tax changes, there was not going to be one, but the Government must have done their sums, so let us see them. Otherwise, we cannot understand. We are all making estimates of the various moving parts, as various noble Lords have said, and how those are going to change. The Government must have done those sums, so it would be really good if they would share them and, if the Minister cannot share them today, perhaps she will be able to before Committee.
I will move on. It is also vital that councils know what the impact will be on business rate income, as that contributes a very large slice of funding for local services. I was told that the overall impact will be neutral, but, in her opening speech, the Minister suggested that, although the overall impact would be neutral, it would be difficult to ensure that no council loses out by these changes. Actually, as I know the Minister understands, every pound for a local council is now critical, so, again, I hope she will be able to find the answer to that before Committee.
I will move on, I think. The other major sector of the Bill is about private schools, about which we have heard various noble Lords speak this afternoon. As we know, it removes the business rate exemption for those schools which are charities, and Liberal Democrats are opposed in principle to the taxation of education. I think in particular of the 100,000 or so children with SEND in private education without education and healthcare plans. Those families will be hit hard by the proposals in the Bill when they are already facing more challenges than most of us. Private education provision has already faced the introduction of VAT and the NIC increases on employers. The removal of business rate exemption is the third financial hit in as many months. Well-endowed private schools will weather the financial storm, but others may not, resulting in increasing pressure on state school places.
In conclusion, this Bill is a small step in the right direction, but it fails to assess all the moving parts. As many speakers have said, the Government should think again about the exemption of relief to private schools, and we urge the Government to rethink the totality of the impact of the Bill on business.
Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
These four statutory instruments are politically and historically interesting. First, they recreate in whole or in part the historic counties of Devon, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. That is a positive change. It is another reversal of Thatcherite policy, which, in this instance, abolished county councils. Strategic planning and provision of such key local services as public transport, housing and economic development can be much better made across a larger geography. That change is therefore welcome. However, I am not letting the Minister off the hook that easily. I have a number of questions applicable to each of the relevant instruments.
First, on governance, can the Minister confirm that meetings of either the mayoral or the combined county authorities will be held in public and that scrutiny committees are a requirement, with powers for pre-decision scrutiny and to call any decision that is challenged under the relevant procedural rules?
The Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority combines two very unequal—in both population and geography—partners. Can the Minister say whether that disparity has been considered and whether any issues have been raised in the wider county on this point in the consultation, the details of which I obviously have not seen? I ask this because there will be inequality of representation on the authority from these very unequal parts, and I wonder whether that will result in a bit of friction when it comes to making difficult decisions.
I note at this point that, because of the efforts made during the passage of the then levelling-up Bill by the Minister, her team and me, district councils will have representation on the combined authorities by law. That was a very important change to the Bill.
I move on to the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority. There will be a mayor from May this year; we will see how that pans out. I recognise the appeal to the Government of having a single person elected to lead a combined authority. However, I and my colleagues are not convinced that, from the residents’ standpoint, this is a positive move. Mayors will be tolerated—this is my experience; I live in a mayoral authority—while there is no mayoral precept and while they are basically determining the details of delegated powers and funding from government. However, when either of those things changes—if there is a mayoral precept of a considerable amount or when there are difficult decisions to be made on funding allocation, which I anticipate will come with bus franchising—I anticipate greater concern from residents that their voice is not being heard.
For instance, in the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority area, which I know better, I can easily see that, with the rural parts of East Riding and the very urban area of Hull City Council, it could be difficult to make decisions on allocating funding under the bus franchising legislation, which I hope will be passed. Trouble is coming down the track, I think.
The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority recreates the historic county of Lincolnshire, which is positive. It combines the seven district councils of the current county council, plus the two unitaries of North Lincs and North East Lincs. The issue I want to raise concerns transport funding. In this statutory instrument, the constituent authorities remain the highways authorities but central funding goes directly to the mayor, who then has the responsibility of cascading the funding to each of the three existing highways authorities. Can the Minister describe how fair allocation can be assured and whether using this mechanism will add to bureaucracy by adding yet another layer of governance?
The Lancashire Combined County Authority will, as we know, consist of the existing county council, the unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn and Darwen, plus the 12 existing district councils of the current county council. We have had the devolution White Paper. If its proposals are accepted—I hope that there will be some challenge to them—this will result in the demise of district councils. For Lancashire and Lincolnshire, this would result in another wholesale local government reorganisation within a short period, with the added confusion that accompanies such structural change. Those of us who are involved understand what might happen; residents will not. Have the Government considered these two separate reorganisations and how they will be managed without causing confusion and additional costs?
As I said at the outset, this is the right move for strategic decision-making. However, I look forward to the answers to my queries from the Minister.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s exposition of these SIs. I completely understand why we are moving in this direction: greater efficiency and effectiveness. I very much hope that the Government can, as this process moves on, increase the level of effective devolution and perhaps even give some real independence over revenue to these authorities so that they can develop their full potential.
In addition, when we reach Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill, I will propose that, rather than hereditary Peers being the eligible candidates in by-elections, it should be people nominated by these new authorities and their mayors. We can use the existing mechanisms that we have to start to introduce a measure of regional representation into the House. I hope that the Government will have their imaginative hat on when we come to that. The mechanism is in place; let us use it to move in a direction that many of us would like to go in and to take at least a small step.
I am a resident of East Sussex, which is one of the candidates for the next round of this measure. I note that the local proposals involve a mayor for the whole of Sussex, thereby recreating not the original county council but the original kingdom of Sussex—perhaps we might have a prince rather than a mayor. What concerns me most is how the towns and communities in these new unitaries will come to cherish, assert and grow their own identities. I very much hope that I can persuade the Minister to circulate widely to all the councils that are candidates for this, as well as their constituent parts, examples of how communities flourish in unitaries, including what structures and relationships make that happen well.
The process of transition from “a county plus districts” to a unitary system will be hugely time-absorbing for the councils involved. They will have no space in their heads to do anything other than make that work well. The constituent communities underneath that need to understand how to play their part and how best to organise themselves so that they have a real role to play in what comes afterwards.
Looking in particular at East Sussex, along the seaside, we have Rye, Hastings, St Leonards, Bexhill, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Seaford and Newhaven. They are all immensely different places. Each has its own identity and its own way of doing things. In the interior, you have towns such as Lewes, which are really different, as well as ordinary country towns such as Uckfield and Heathfield. There is a huge variety of different communities within what will be one unitary: different histories, different spirits.
Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, let me first of all say that national security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I confirm to the House that the Government take the threat of extremism very seriously and will continue to work with partners to tackle extremism in all parts and forms. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review of extremism in 2024. The Government will set out their approach to countering extremism in due course and will update Parliament accordingly. I am sure that many of the issues that the noble Lord raised will be part of that review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, knowledge and understanding of communities is crucial in this regard. Councillors are elected to serve their communities and know them well. Does the Minister agree with that proposition? Does he also agree that plans to create large wards make that more challenging for councillors? Will the Government therefore keep ward sizes appropriate to their role in knowing and representing their communities, and will the Government provide additional support to councillors in that critical role?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me reassure the noble Baroness that, having been a councillor for 16 years in the wonderful district of Burnley, I understand the fantastic work that local councils do. I reaffirm the Deputy Prime Minister’s position that we want to work in equal partnership with the local authorities and we want to give them more power. I would not be able to comment on the size of the wards because that is the responsibility of the Minister, Jim McMahon, in the other place.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 19 November 2024. The other place debated them on 8 January 2025. The regulations relate to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority. Via Section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, they will enable these authorities to borrow money for use against their relevant functions.
Presently, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority are already able to borrow against their transport functions, and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is able to borrow against its police and fire authority functions. The East Midlands, as a combined county authority, is unable to borrow against any of its functions.
The regulations before us will enable the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority to make use of borrowing powers for purposes relevant to their current and future functions. This will bring all three authorities in line with existing combined authorities and fulfil commitments made in their original devolution agreements.
On consent, I bring it to the Committee’s attention that all three authorities and their respective constituent councils have given consent to the conferral of borrowing powers. Similarly, the three authorities have agreed their respective debt caps with HM Treasury for 2024-25.
The regulations will also confer the East Midlands Combined County Authority’s constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the combined county authority. The power will be held concurrently with the East Midlands constituent councils; the East Midlands Combined County Authority will be able to exercise the general power of competence only in relation to economic development and regeneration. The conferral of this power will fulfil the East Midlands’ original devolution agreement and enable the combined county authority to support local businesses and charities, as well as strengthening the area’s visitor economy.
As the conferral of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the East Midlands constitutes a new power, Section 48 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 applies. I can confirm that the requirements under Section 48 have been met, and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority and its constituent councils have consented to this conferral.
I come to the final part of these regulations, which will make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations. Specifically, these are by: first, amending a typographical error so that the combined county authority is the local housing authority for housing needs, laundry facilities, shops, recreation grounds and housing purposes, and with respect to buildings acquired for housing purposes; secondly, enabling the mayor of the combined county authority to arrange for a committee of the combined county authority to exercise mayoral functions; thirdly, allowing non-constituent members of the combined county authority to have voting rights in an authority committee; and, finally, clarifying the voting arrangements for the combined county authority, including the requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass its mayoral budget. These amendments have been discussed with the East Midlands and its constituent members, with the councils and the combined county authority consenting to the amendments being made.
These regulations, which are supported by the authorities and their constituent councils, are a necessary step in fulfilling the original devolution agreements that had been reached. Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and deserve: growth; the more joined-up delivery of public services; and policies being done with communities, not to them. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these are important changes to the devolution in the three mayoral authorities referenced by the Minister. In general, I and my party support devolution, of course, but we remain concerned about the mayoral system being adopted across England because of the way in which it concentrates too much authority and decision-making in the hands of one person. So, it is a “yes” to devolution, but mayoral authority may need some adjustment to make it more democratic, particularly as it is happening in this statutory instrument, with more powers being extended to mayoral authorities—hence budgets becoming enlarged, sometimes substantially. It seems to me that, if there is more capital borrowing, there will be a requirement to fund that borrowing, and there will therefore be an increase in the mayoral precept. My first question for the Minister is this: will there be a cap on either capital borrowing or mayoral precepts so that we understand the extent of the borrowing and the cost to the taxpayer?