Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

As a point of information, I have proposed purpose clauses for at least six Bills in the last three years.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will continue. When my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower tabled a purpose clause on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, argued that it was unnecessary because it restated some of the language in the Long Title of the Bill. In contrast to the amendment that we are debating today, my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment included a legal duty on the Secretary of State, as well as establishing a purpose clause giving it legal effect. This is all water under the bridges, though, and we hope that our friends on the Benches to my left will not criticise our use of purpose clauses when scrutinising future Bills. As I say, we on these Benches are very comfortable with purpose clauses which seek to probe the intentions of the Bills that this Government are bringing forward, so I welcome the noble Lord’s amendment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says in his explanatory statement, there is a real question mark over the Bill’s impact on the Government’s plan to deliver on their stated aims of protecting our high streets and encouraging investment. Later in this Committee, I will seek to probe the impact of the Bill on larger anchor stores, which are often the key drivers of the footfall on our high streets and keep smaller businesses alive. I will also seek to understand more fully the impact that the Bill will have on the retail and major food shops, including supermarkets, which people across the UK rely on.

We know that the Government’s original intention was to hit international businesses that have large, warehouse-style business premises, such as Amazon and other international tech giants, but it is not clear that the Bill achieves that goal effectively. There is a risk that the increased costs of multipliers will be passed on to consumers in very unexpected ways. The higher multipliers that the Bill will introduce are a tax on business. We need to understand better what impacts this business tax will have on jobs, growth and prices. The impact assessment that the Government have published to date is utterly inadequate. Although I am really very grateful to the Minister for his engagement on the Bill so far, I feel that we will need to hear much more detail from the Dispatch Box on the real-world impact of the Bill if we are to proceed with it.

I turn to my stand-part notice, which seeks to question whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the Government’s intention to create a system whereby hereditaments over the value of £500,000 pay at a higher multiplier. What they have failed to include in any part of the Bill, or indeed in the Explanatory Notes, is an explanation of why £500,000 was chosen as the threshold for the higher multiplier. Indeed, £500,000 seems entirely arbitrary, and the Government have not explained why that is the number.

As was mentioned by several noble Lords from across the House at Second Reading, the Bill raises more questions than it has answers, and there is a complete lack of clarity. Not only do we not know why the threshold is set at £500,000, but we also do not know what the actual multipliers will be. The Government’s choice of setting the threshold in this way means that many businesses on our high streets will be forced to pay this higher multiplier.

I agree that the business rates system needs reform, but I do not for a second think that this Bill achieves the reforms that our high streets need. There is an understanding across the board that businesses that operate online and occupy out-of-town warehouses should pay a larger amount of business rates, and such reforms have been nicknamed an “Amazon tax”. But the Bill does not achieve that on its own terms. We know that thousands of large shops will be caught by this threshold, and we cannot support a Bill that risks a decimation of our already struggling high streets across the country simply because the Government have failed to do their homework and have got their numbers wrong.

We will be probing the Government’s proposed threshold as the Bill progresses. It is the job of Ministers to get this right, and we will be listening carefully to the Government’s responses to this challenge. The Labour manifesto committed to reforming the business rates system and to

“level the playing field between the high street and the online giants”,

so why does the Bill not do that? The arbitrary threshold set by the Bill will damage many high-street businesses and, coupled with the reduction of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, will not fulfil the Government’s claims that they intend to reduce how much in business rates these businesses actually pay.

Again, the Explanatory Notes reference the higher multiplier as applying to

“distribution warehouses … used by online giants”,

but simply including a cut-off of £500,000, while it will tax online giants, will not protect other businesses. Although the majority of the businesses with a rateable value over £500,000 may be warehouses, not all of them are. Through a failure to target the policy effectively, the Bill is likely to have unintended consequences that will have a ripple effect on other businesses on our high streets.

It is important to look at this Bill in the context of the wider decisions that this Government have made that force businesses to have higher costs. The Government have increased the minimum wage, which we support, and they have increased the employer national insurance contributions—a hidden tax, a job tax, that will hit the retail sector with a bill of £2.3 billion a year. Although this Bill alone may not cripple businesses, when considered with the other taxes that the Government have imposed on businesses, it very well could be the thing that forces businesses to close on high streets up and down the country.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has provided a good contribution to this debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider the concerns that we have both raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The noble Earl alluded to a balloon being squeezed; we should remind ourselves that this is an expanding balloon. The costs faced by local authorities, of which a huge proportion—well over 50% and approaching 80% in some areas—is adult social care, are a rapidly expanding balloon that we are seeking to get our hands around and fill. This has enormous ramifications for not just high streets but the other services that local authorities are required and able to deliver on the budgets they get from rates and central government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I understand that he may be concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the higher multipliers. We share this concern. We need to hear more detail from the Government. They are wrong to seek legislative powers to implement the higher multipliers without giving Parliament—and, more importantly, businesses—any clarity on what they are likely to be. We do not have an estimate of the revenue from the new multipliers. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation.

In principle, we are open to and understand the big concerns surrounding online giants, but more details are needed on this Bill, which we do not believe meets the policy aims. The principle of higher multipliers for certain ratepayers is a sensible idea when done well, so I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendments 2 and 4. This Bill does not do it well with its arbitrary £500,000 threshold, but the principle of a higher multiplier for businesses that tend to pay less of other taxes can benefit small independent shops.

I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendment 45—although I understand the sentiment—because, in the way the Bill is structured, high street businesses will be supporting other high street businesses through the higher multiplier. This is not sufficient reform. If we are to engage with the Bill on its own terms and seek to make it effective, the threshold will need changing the most. If the online giants were to pay a larger proportion of tax to enable a tax reduction for high street businesses, I would be inclined to support the Bill.

Before I finish, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because, when you hear them talking, you will understand this sector of our economy. They understand what businesses know and think. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is right to say that there should have been a much more in-depth consultation with all types of businesses, but it is difficult to do that when you do not know the effects on those businesses then or cannot give any indication whatever of that.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because I have heard her stories of online giants in Yorkshire. I was pleased when I saw this coming, as perhaps the Government were going to deal with that issue for her. Sadly, I think they are dealing with part of it while, at the same time, putting our high streets in danger.

I am sorry that I disagree with the noble Lord that the Treasury should fund this reduction, but these are important points that the Government should consider carefully and answer fully. I hope the Minister will respond with much more clarity than so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

They are not from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They are in my name.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Once again today, I apologise to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

For the Committee’s information, there is a misprint. It should have read “grassroots music venues and larger venues”. If I had spoken before the noble Baroness, I would have explained. The Royal Albert Hall is clearly not a grass-roots venue.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That confused me, but I thank the noble Lord.

Amendments 7, 13, 19, 24, 30 and 38 all seek a similar thing: to allow the Treasury the power to exempt other hereditaments from the higher multiplier as it sees fit. While I understand the desire to introduce flexibility into a Bill that does not seem to have been fully thought through, it is important that we empower local authorities rather than afford the Treasury further powers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will speak for myself rather than the noble Baroness. What we have seen in the various themes in this group is the malign effect of a blunt instrument. My noble friend Lady Pinnock raised the important issue of public sector buildings that fall into the trap of high value and therefore the higher multiplier. Clearly, we need to understand the overall financial effects on those organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke well about manufacturing. We tabled the same amendments in the Commons, where one of the implications of what the Government said was that manufacturing does not have to be in a town centre, on the basis that there is somehow an ability to up sticks and go without huge capital implications and lots of other things.

If we are talking about a mixed economy in town centres, things such as light engineering and printers, as well as other businesses such as accountants, design agencies and all sorts of things, add to their plurality and success. When you remove from a town centre the people who work or live there, you remove a huge proportion of the trade that the sector that the Government are seeking to boost relies on. Not everybody has to come in a car to buy a sandwich from a shop. They might work or live there. That is an important part of trade that this Bill seems to ignore.

I turn to my Amendments 14, 31 and 41. I was going to clarify at the beginning that the explanatory statement should have read that they are to probe the impact of the higher multiplier on large venues and, for other elements of the Bill, on grass-roots venues. There were two issues, and I somehow managed to conflate them into a mess.

I spoke earlier about unintended consequences. This Bill has lots of potential unintended consequences. The Music Venue Trust calculates that just the move from 75% to 40% business tax relief from April 2025 will create a demand for £70 million more in additional premises tax from the GMV sector, as I am going to call grass-roots music venues, that in 2024 returned an entire gross profit across all 810 venues of just £25 million. In other words, the sector will be asked for well over twice—nearly three times, in fact—what it made in profit last year. Some 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2024 and, in 2025, they continue to operate an overall profit margin of just 0.5%. This is a very marginal activity. I believe that, given the tone of the Budget and the commitment to consider the culture area of our economy in the spending review, this must have been an unintended consequence or an omission of protection, rather than an intended tax rise. I look to the Minister to confirm this.

As an aside, GMVs have specific space issues in their business characteristics that are not recognised properly in the general rateable value process. That is a separate issue with which a review would, I hope, deal.

I return to the consequences of this Bill. There are two areas. The first is an option for the Government to create multipliers that are designed specifically to encourage activity we wish to see. This goes back to the flexibility point that other noble Lords mentioned. For example, specific multipliers for cultural spaces would go a long way to support creative growth and the regeneration of our high streets, both of which are key elements in the Government’s wider agency, but there is an immediate, separate issue facing cultural spaces that operate in properties over the rateable value threshold of £500,000.

Just like schools and universities, there are big venues around the country, such as the Royal Albert Hall, the Underworld, the Roundhouse and the Royal Festival Hall—there are others, I am sure, but not a huge number—that fall above the £500,000 threshold. For those businesses, there needs to be some differentiation according to their activity. I come back to what my noble friend said about universities. Why are we including them in this measure? Why are we including police stations? Also, why are we including large-scale cultural icons? The idea of flexibility will help with other issues, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend will talk in our debate on a future group of amendments. Without that flexibility, what we have is a blunt instrument, as I have said before.

I come back to music venues: we believe that these venues will be penalised unless something is done. Can the Minister respond to either this debate or some consultation with experts so that we can make sure that that does not happen? Grass-roots music venues are the R&D of our music industry. They are where almost every band starts. Bands start in their bedrooms, they then move to the streets, and then get to a grass-roots music venue. They may end up in the Royal Albert Hall, on television or whatever, but GMVs are where our music industry comes from. That ecosystem also supports wider nightlife and hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs, food businesses, takeaways, taxis and nightclubs, all of which have physical premises in the community.

There are two issues here. One is the removal or reduction of relief for grass-roots music venues across the country, which will, on average, put them out of profit and into loss. The second is the application of the higher multiple on particularly large venues around this country. I do not think that the Government intended to deliver either of these outcomes for our music industry, but they must intend to improve and change the system in order for these catastrophic issues not to happen. So I hope that the Minister, either now or with consultation, can come back with two different solutions for these two sides of a very important industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I apologise.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the extra burdens on local authority budgets that might come be funded by the new burdens policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I will also speak to the rest of the amendments in this group. They focus on protecting the essential services that are provided up and down the high street.

Amendments 8 and 25 in my name seek to exempt community shops that are open for more than 18 hours a day. Within local communities, there is often a shop that is open for longer hours than general retail premises. Often, this can be a garage forecourt which is open 24 hours and has essential things for people working in the night-time economy, who may be on a different clock to us. These shops provide essential services for those living in that surrounding community. Without them, there may be fewer customers on that high street, which we believe would begin to damage the surrounding shops and businesses. People often rely on these stores with longer opening hours, so exempting them from the higher multiplier would ensure that they can continue to provide a vital service to local people.

My Amendments 9 and 26 seek to exempt hereditaments that have a post office on the premises from qualifying for the higher multiplier. A post office does not make the same level of profit as the shop, but it provides essential services that many people rely on. Does the Minister agree that it would be unacceptable for shops providing these services to close because they are inappropriately hit by the higher multiplier?

Amendments 10, 17, 27 and 35 seek to exempt premises shared with banking hubs. Less than two weeks ago, many in this House discussed the importance of banking hubs in a debate on bank closures and the particular impact on rural communities. The shift to online banking inevitably brings to light issues of accessibility. While digital banking services are convenient for many, they are inaccessible to others, particularly those living in rural areas. The elderly and the disabled are often significantly impacted by the lack of physical banking services. Age UK has found that over 4 million over-65s in the United Kingdom with a bank account did not manage their money online, placing them at a high risk of financial exclusion. Bank closures have also been found to negatively affect those with disabilities, with a Which? survey concluding that 50% of respondents would be negatively impacted by not having access to a physical service.

The previous Conservative Government recognised the detrimental impact of bank closures on groups in our society and collaborated with the banking industry to establish shared banking hubs. Operated by both the Post Office and banks, these hubs offer essential banking services, including cash withdrawals, deposits and in-person consultations. We must continue to look to mitigate cases of financial exclusion, and I draw noble Lords’ attention to my Amendment 26.

This group of amendments deals with a matter of utmost importance for millions of people across the UK who rely on these essential services. I therefore encourage the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised in the debate.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is another example of the blunt instrument in operation. We have talked about increasing tax on public services, some of which have the ability to recover the money via new burdens, while some do not. But these services are offered by private sector organisations, and we know for a fact that they will not get recompense from the Government for this, which will increase their costs, reduce their profit and may eliminate their viability altogether. When post offices and Crown offices are retreating from the high street, this is not a good time for those businesses.

In a moment we will talk about flagship operations. I put it to noble Lords that banks and post offices are flagship operations. People travel to towns to visit a post office and banks, and then they spend their money on other things, so by denuding or putting in peril those sorts of operations, we are removing the attraction of town centres. We are making sure that they do worse rather than better. That is the first point.

Secondly, I have a relative who owns a shop in a country town—I do not have an interest in that shop—and one of their biggest difficulties is banking their money. They have to drive 20 miles twice a week to take bags of money to bank it because there is no longer a bank. The removal of a banking hub would make that even harder. It also drives shops to go fully digital, which means that people who do not want to use digital and want to keep using cash are no longer facilitated by those businesses. I have seen businesses that can no longer handle cash simply because they no longer have the necessary banking facilities.

Once again, we are looking at the RHL sector, but these businesses serve the RHL sector and make their lives operational. I am happy to support the various amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how taxing post offices and banking hubs will help the RHL sector in our town centres and high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 in this group seek to introduce a statutory index-linked uplift in the threshold for the higher multiplier in line with inflation. These specific amendments relate to the level of the threshold in future years, so I am grateful for this opportunity to have a brief and specific debate on the threshold.

We have already probed the Government over their arbitrary threshold of £500,000, but I hope that, in response to this group, the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s current plans for uprating the threshold in future. There are no measures in the Bill to prevent more businesses being caught by this threshold over time. We are told that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller high street businesses to be hit by the higher multiplier, but inflation and a fixed threshold mean that that will be an inevitable result of this policy. I remind the Committee at this point that, thanks to the Government’s Budget measures, inflation rose by 3% in the 12 months to January 2025, up from 2.5% in the 12 months to December 2024. As the hereditament valuations rise over time, more and more businesses will be paying higher business rates.

If the Minister feels that the CPI is not the correct index to tie this threshold to, we are open to discussions about that. Our goal here is to probe the Government’s willingness to explore increases in the thresholds going forward to protect small businesses that should never have been caught by the higher multiplier threshold from facing higher taxes by the back door. Can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller businesses to be hit by these higher taxes? If the Government do not intend to hit smaller businesses with higher taxes, can the Minister give us an undertaking to look at the threshold and consider including in this Bill a measure that would deliver either an index-linked uprating of the threshold or, as a minimum, a power for Ministers to uprate the threshold without having to bring primary legislation before the House again? We are generally cautious of new regulatory powers but, provided that a power was limited to uprating and excluded the possibility of lowering the threshold, that might be a way forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think this might be the last group today; I would say that we have done very well to get this far. I shall speak to these four amendments. The first three make an assumption that the £500,000 threshold was right in the first place. Of course, that is really addressed by the fourth amendment, so I am going to speak to it. It is right that there should be some form of uprating, but I am more intrigued about how the figure of £500,000 was alighted on in the first place.

If we were looking at something that was broadly financially neutral, I do not know how we would know, because we do not know how the flexible upper rate will be applied, so we do not know how much money that will raise. We therefore do not know whether £500,000 was the right number to make it financially neutral. Was it chosen for a business reason? Are businesses of that size particular sorts of business that we need to factor in, in a different way, or was there some other sociological plan involved in choosing £500,000? My big question for the Minister is who chose the number. Was it DHCLG or the Treasury?