Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Shipley

Report stage
Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I regret to say that in this amendment I am obliged to refer to a rather contentious matter. As I have made clear, I am not going to divide the House, but a serious question needs to be answered. I tabled the amendment to delete Clause 14 because of my concern that what the Government claim Clause 14 does is at material variance with the wording, as I see it, of the Bill. It is also at serious variance with what I understand to be the current assumptions regarding the, as it were, state and condition of the hereditament for valuation purposes not in terms of its individual condition as to the fabric but where it sits in its economic and practical environment.

As I understand it, the Government claim to be restoring matters to those understandings that prevailed previously, but the proof of the pudding shows that is not so or we would not have this clause before us because it would then be unnecessary. In my view, an earlier measure to remove the status of Covid as a material change of circumstances—which is what this is all about—was legitimate. It was deliberately circumstance specific and affected the whole country and so could rightly be described as a pan-national economic event. But the Government now seek to extend that principle to any change affecting the physical enjoyment of the hereditament as a consequence of what is described as an “economic” matter and that that should be disregarded as a material change of circumstances. In other words, it should not be possible if that change occurs for somebody to challenge their assessment.

I dispute that this approach has ever been the test of a material change of circumstances hitherto. Copious cases—Addis Ltd v Clement (VO) in particular—have clarified this. There is an obvious reason: where a public authority takes steps that deny or degrade the benefits of enjoyment of a hereditament, it is offensive that a tax unadjusted to reflect this fact should continue to be levied. This is not just a modern confection but goes to the heart of fair and just administration, the rule of law, confidence in government and the certainty and security of process that affect investment, productivity, and commitment to medium and long-term partnership. It is an essential part of a social and economic contract—unwritten it may be but there all the same. Any Government would be wise to observe these obvious and potent economic factors in administering the needs of the nation. We are talking about an ancient principle.

The Government make a distinction in relation to an economic matter affecting society at large but then go on to define this as any matter directly or indirectly attributable to a “relevant factor”. In fact, these are not economic matters at all but the fiat of some authority exercising powers that are not of general economic application to the nation at large or a significant part of it. The definition of “relevant factors” is set out at Clause 14(l)(d) in new paragraph 2ZA(3)—near the bottom of page 32 for those noble Lords following this astutely. In effect, it means that any legislation, regulation or advice of any country or public authority or steps to comply with these is to be disregarded in terms of what amounts to a material change of circumstances—so much for being ruled by our own laws. It also does not clarify the status of pronouncements from organisations such as the WHO, the UN or International Monetary Fund. So, in future, if a local authority alters the entire geometry of the use and enjoyment of a business premises through, let us say, planning powers, it will not count as an MCC, regardless of how severe the impacts may be. This provides a perverse incentive to disregard negative effects of sudden policy decisions which, as I say, may be nothing to do with economic choices.

I wonder whether when formulating these measures the Government ever considered the growing mistrust of their handling of the business rates regime generally and the effect, along with others no doubt, on high streets from trader and investor confidence, or ever paused to consider off balance sheet indications in any of these respects. The Government in seeking to differentiate general economic changes from direct physical enjoyment at hereditament level do not seem to be able to make a tidy distinction between the two, so they take a line of least resistance and bundle them together. That is Clause 14.

By way of further explanation, there are of course two poles to consider: first, those matters which affect the economy as a whole to be dealt with on revaluations—there is no dispute about that; we accept that as we accepted it in Covid. Then there are other more rapid and acute physical changes to the hereditament itself. Again, there is no dispute on that because they will continue to be treated as material changes of circumstances. In between, there are those immediate and localised regulatory and other measures affecting an individual property or those in a defined location and not shared with the wider economy of a town or a region.

I wanted some further clarity on this, so I sent some examples of queries to the department. I hope it received those and that, in replying, the Minister may be able to throw some light on them. The first one was where a local authority reduces the hours of operation of certain licensed premises to provide better amenity for nearby residents and as a result business is curtailed— I referred to the conflicts earlier today. Secondly, an important town centre car park is closed due to concerns about the concrete frame and as a result footfall for traders in that part of town declines substantially. Thirdly, a small corner convenience store is affected because the large residential block next door is ordered to be evacuated over fire safety concerns and the occupiers are dispersed into other accommodation elsewhere. Fourthly, an authority in a popular holiday area makes licensing of holiday let premises mandatory but then limits or conditions the licences it issues to reduce the impact on local housing availability and as a result the income to certain operators is significantly affected. Finally, a biosecurity exclusion zone is declared in a defined area due to an animal disease outbreak. The public are advised to stay away and traders in the area suffer a sharp downturn in business. As I understand it, every one of those would be ruled out as being a material change of circumstances by virtue of Clause 14. The only qualification is on the last one. Does the geographical extent of the biosecurity exclusion zone alter the degree to which the effects fall to be disregarded as an MCC or does it make no difference?

Let me give an extreme example of what the effects might be. A metropolitan mayor decides to ban all petrol and diesel sales in his or her area under some statutory or regulatory power or perhaps on the advice of health officials concerned about air pollution, but by virtue of Clause 14—and maybe for up to three years until the next revaluation—petrol filling stations in the area would have to continue paying business rates as if nothing had happened. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to revise Clause 14 because that, on the best authority I know, is what it will do. The best authority I have—Members of this House, particularly learned Members, excepted—is rating counsel Luke Wilcox, who provided me with a note which says

“my main concern with clause 14 as it is currently drafted is that its effects will be much wider than the Government’s stated intention. The Government’s intention appears to be to treat general legislation as part of the general market conditions affecting revaluations, rather than as matters capable of being MCCs”.

He goes on to say that

“the phrase ‘indirectly attributable to’, as it appears in para 2ZA(2)(a), is so wide in its scope that matters affecting an individual property or class of properties, such as a planning or licensing decision, will cease to be MCCs (because they are made under a general legislative provision). Such an effect would appear to be beyond the Government’s stated intention. If such a significant alteration is to be made to the established law of rating, then it should be made following proper deliberation, rather than as an unintended consequence of a provision aimed at a different policy effect”.

In all this, there appears to have been little or no discussion with ratepayers or their professional advisers, nor any wider consultation with that class of stakeholders. It is undoubtedly a major departure from what is known as the “reality principle”—namely, that rating should reflect the real circumstances of the hereditament in assessing it for rating purposes. The Valuation Office Agency’s own rating manual does not use the approach now suggested. Whether it is going to be amended, I do not know—I suppose it will be—but, as it clearly states the situation that has commonly been understood for many years, that rather suggests that the Government’s claim of restoring what they say were the previous understandings is unsupported.

Many will feel that this is getting us towards the realms of no-appeals regulations—in other words, “Let’s not have any appeals at all and dispense with them, and the whole thing can be dealt with through by the arbitrary exercise of power through the Valuation Office Agency”. But that would have profound implications for the rules-based system—something that I have referred to before in relation to several government Bills.

This clause cannot go unchallenged. Although I am not proposing to press the amendment, I think it warrants a detailed comment from the Government as to how they think it will work fairly and equitably in the context of the rating system. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the point of view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has raised this very issue, I think at Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and I have given him support because I have grave doubts about the definition in the Bill of a “material change of circumstance”.

The noble Earl has given a list of possible examples of where there should be a material change of circumstance because of what happens in the area as a whole—perhaps a planning change or a licensing change undertaken by a local authority. When it comes to the Minister’s reply, it would be extremely helpful if there could be a letter to all of us who have taken part in the debate, but addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explaining the Government’s view on each of the examples that the noble Earl has given.

I have another one to add to his list. As it stands, Clause 14 means that material changes of circumstance should relate to physical changes only to a property. That is how I interpret it. However, as the noble Earl has demonstrated, there can be many ways in which that physical property can be impacted upon and have a material change of circumstance because of what somebody else does. My example is that a local authority decides that a bus route will no longer come down one road but will go down a different one. The patronage of the shop—if it is a shop—goes down as a consequence. Is that a “material change of circumstance”? I suggest that it is and that it should qualify. I do not think that Clause 14 can apply only to a physical building. That is my position.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Shipley

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. At one of my meetings with the Minister and her Bill team I was told that it was not HMRC—or they may have said Treasury—practice to produce an impact assessment as such, and I was directed to a series of notes in lieu. But business rates have an impact on business, employment, entrepreneurial activity and the health of our high streets, and have long seemed a substantial tipping point in decisions about taking on premises, where the tax levied is 50% of the determined market rental value. That puts into shade the collective cost of things such as insurance service charges and other occupational outgoings.

There is a basic imbalance here; I have said so on many occasions in the House and elsewhere. Upfront impact assessments and post-legislative review are exactly what is missing here. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that small business relief and small business exemptions are almost an admission of the failure of the system we have.

Turning to Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I totally agree with its underlying principle that the tax base for local government finance needs to be broadened, with proportionately less of a burden falling on what we might call the traditional business rate payer. This is becoming an impediment. What are termed fundamental reviews have been a great deal less fundamental than they ought to have been. The system has been creaking for some time and one should take notice when things start to creak; it usually means that something is wrong. I very much relate to these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in this group. Underlying the whole group is a major issue: the Treasury now sees business rates as a source of general income to government, but many small businesses see them as a contribution to local services. That has got out of balance.

I strongly support Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who has just spoken. He talked about the impact of online shopping on small high street outlets and said that there was a public interest case to be made. Indeed, Amendment 29, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, probes the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief on high streets. A number of us raised that issue at Second Reading.

A number of issues are raised in this group. I have an amendment on the hospitality sector. It is not clear to me what reason there would be for not having a hospitality sector review, as I propose. It is about assessing the consistency of approach; we have spoken a lot about high streets, but this applies to the hospitality sector as well. There needs to be an assessment of whether there is a consistent approach for setting non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style. I cite public houses, restaurants, live performance theatres and exhibition spaces as examples. This is the kind of thing that government should be doing anyway, but there is a huge policy issue now around what business rates are for and how we make sure that they are being fairly charged.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Shipley

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 81, spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In doing so, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils, which I had the privilege of serving as president for many years, and my current joint presidency of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.

It is regrettable that, notwithstanding the status of neighbourhood plans as a material consideration in local planning structures, principal authorities often seem to be obliged to disregard them, despite having considerable agency in the production of these plans. I refer to the calling of referenda or, as sometimes seems equally likely, delaying of the calling, which I can only assume has sound reasons. It creates great problems, given that there is substantial commitment of time and no small amount of public money to the neighbourhood planning process.

As we move into other areas that will involve multiple local authorities, such as biodiversity net gain and water neutrality, I can see that it is perfectly legitimate for these to be dealt with at what you might call a superior level. But it remains absolutely essential that communities still have a voice, a view and a role in that particular decision-making format. If the Secretary of State’s comments mean anything when he refers to strengthening the role of communities, as I understood him to say some while back, it must be something other than lip service—something other than parishes and town councils being somehow left behind. When I say that neighbourhood plans are being disregarded, I think of the neighbouring parish to the parish in which I live, where precisely this has happened.

It is very important to understand the structure of town and parish councils, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with their knowledgeable, highly engaged and often very effective interventions in local planning processes through their structure of county and district associations as well as the individual parishes. They should not be underrated. They have access to resources you would not believe. I have come across parishes in which top planning consultants happen to be residents. These people are highly engaged, highly knowledgeable and should be listened to. Parishes have moved along massively in the past 20 or 30 years. They really are the only structure that represents the community at this level. When you think about it, there is no other authority that extends down to that level of where people really live and do things in their work/life balance. If people feel disregarded, as do many residents in my part of West Sussex, it bodes ill for engagement, cohesion and, ultimately, the efficacy of national policies. I would not want that to go unstated in the context of the Bill.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 155 and 156 in my name. These are probing amendments because I think it is very important that the Government explain their intentions. Amendment 155 provides that non-constituent members of the combined authority are not able to vote, given their status, and Amendment 156 provides that associate members of a combined authority are not able to vote, given their status. On a previous day in Committee we addressed this issue, in part. However, the Government need to undertake some mature reflection about what is proposed here.

Giving a vote to somebody who is not a full member of a combined authority is unwise. My amendments provide that there should be no vote for anybody who is not a full member of the authority. The principle is that full members are voting members, and voting members are full members, but you cannot have full voting members when they are not full constituent members, as opposed to associate members, of the authority.

The voting structure between counties and districts as explained in the Bill would provide a route for resolving any impasse that might arise if votes were allocated on the basis of population. Of course, a county would have exactly 50% of the votes. If all the district councils voted against the county—one hopes it does not come to that—there would have to be some kind of system for a casting vote. The mayor would seem to be the way forward.

After reflecting on what we have been saying on previous days in Committee, to me it seems that district councils, which are responsible for planning and economic development matters, ought to be full members of a CCA. That seems to me to be the principle. It should not be at the discretion of the CCA, which does not have a district council member, to simply award a vote to that district council member when other district council members may not have a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the previous day in Committee, when giving a vote to one non-constituent member or to an associate member, it does not follow that other associate or non-constituent members would have a vote.

So this is a probing amendment. It is complicated; I understand that. When in due course we reach Report, I just hope that the Government will be prepared to examine the structure they have proposed here. I have come to the conclusion that they should permit district councils within a CCA area to become full members. At that point, those full members would have a right to a full vote under their own terms of membership. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond to that, so that we can get a better feel of what we need to do on Report to bring in further clarification on this matter.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Shipley

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has made a number of helpful and very important points. Amendment 6 seeks clarification from the Minister on a number of problems in relation to leaseholders and the impact on the housing market of the current problems with selling properties. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response, as it would be helpful to us all to have an up-to-date understanding of his thinking.

We shall, of course, address this matter on Amendment 13 as well, as it is central to the future management of high-rise accommodation, or the less high-rise accommodation that nevertheless still suffers from some of the problems of the high-rise blocks. As the noble Baroness said, we need a way forward for the housing market in solving the problems of some leaseholders. I entirely agree with that, and I hope that forthcoming meetings will be able to address those issues.

Amendment 5, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is entirely sensible. Of course it is right to consult properly and fully in developing legislation, so I assume that the Minister will be able to confirm this afternoon his entire agreement to this amendment because it is so eminently sensible.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, although I certainly agree with the thrust of Amendment 5, it is Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I really wish to address.

Many of my years in the property profession have been spent in survey inspections, with a spell in estate agency and mortgage valuations and brief periods in block management, and I have spent a good deal of time on the forensic identification of defects. Therefore, I feel reasonably well qualified to support the noble Baroness, and I thank her for raising this important issue, which affects the residential sector. Rightly, she referred to the indirect effect of the Grenfell tragedy. That is a matter on which I have been in constant contact with the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, of which I am a patron and which has been very helpful in identifying various matters in respect of the Bill.

As the noble Baroness said, the effect on the residential market for flats in particular, and over a very broad spectrum by age and type, is now apparent. This has affected security for mortgage lending, exacerbated by the prospect of large and, as the noble Baroness said, unquantified remediation bills. Some sort of game of pass the parcel seems to be in train as to who will end up picking up those bills. It affects buildings insurance cover and premiums, and interim measures such as “waking watch” are racking up huge costs. These and the likely shortfall, as I see it, in the provision for remediation made by the Government—welcome though that is, but nevertheless there is a shortfall as against the widening scope of the buildings that might ultimately be affected—have seriously affected the ability to sell flats. It is not clear that this is in any way confined to high rise, as I am increasingly aware, as one of my children attempts to sell a flat in a four-storey modern and, I believe, conventionally constructed block.

A few days ago, a lady emailed me to say that she is a resident of a sister block to the one in Worcester Park which burned down last year. She is completely stuck with a currently worthless asset and no apparent movement on remediation. The latest Sunday Times carried an article about this, graphically illustrating the issues and defects that have been found to be present in a number of remaining identical buildings that are still standing.

Before this gets yet more problematic and starts affecting potentially a far wider range of properties than at present, the Government need to use their powers and influence to get all the interested parties round a table—constructers, lenders, insurers—and point out, as the noble Baroness said, the reputational as well as economic and social damage that needs to be contained beyond the issue of direct liability and who shoulders that, and require their active co-operation to resolve this in a constructive manner and not leave vulnerable homeowners, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry.

I appreciate the criticism of the EWS1 form, but it came about because of a particular need to do with mortgage lending. It is now being required for a much wider range of purposes, for which it was never intended. Why? Because it was the only tool available. The Government could step into this obvious void and make sure that some other form of certification solution was provided. But they, or somebody else, would have to take responsibility for that, and I realise that that is an issue. Meanwhile, the potential liabilities make it ever less likely that those without specific accreditation to do the necessary inspections will be willing to undertake such work and, indeed, they may not be able to get professional indemnity insurance either.

The Government need to get ahead of the curve here. If these measures are rushed into effect with full force immediately and without additional steps, there will be more serious disruption and collateral damage to come. I suggest there be a phased and managed approach aimed at containing the ill effects, restoring trust and confidence, above all, in the measures being put in place and limiting financial loss while dealing, most importantly, with the most pressing issues where residents’ safety is at the greatest peril. None of this is without risk; nor is the normal “Not my responsibility, guvnor” liability-passing response appropriate in these abnormal times, given the number of national issues we face and the effect on the wider economy.

This means temporary but probably arbitrary cut-offs, probably in height terms—11 metres may be the right figure for blocks of flats—perhaps with certain other definitions, then dealing with those and drawing the net more widely later on and inevitably, as one will, picking up legacy issues from older regulatory sign-offs on the way. Some sort of lower-tier interim certification, which the noble Baroness referred to, perhaps by a non-specialist, would enable low-risk properties to escape the contagion that might otherwise engulf the sector. I wonder if this is what the Minister will propose in Amendment 7. I will listen with great interest to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme this morning, in which I heard him say that the cost of removal and remediation of dangerous cladding from residential buildings should be as affordable as possible for lease- holders. This afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear what this means. I understand that builders and freeholders may have responsibilities in meetings such costs, but where a leaseholder is not a freeholder, why should they have a responsibility to pay out?

The uncertainty for so many leaseholders who are stuck trying to sell their properties or are worried about their possible financial exposure needs swift resolution. The amendment would protect leaseholders who are not freeholders, and tenants, from extra costs, be they single or staggered lump sums, increases in service charges or increases in rents. The responsibility for making safe a building with a fire risk should not lie with the leaseholders or tenants. The amendment would make it clear that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for those costs when they are the ones exposed to risk through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment, which would protect leaseholders and tenants, is justified.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this is an enormously complex issue, as I outlined in an earlier amendment. The current legal framework makes liability for the matters that have been referred to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord a patchwork, and entirely uncertain of outcomes. So significant are the matters at stake that in a normal course of events it may be years before matters are resolved by the courts. We need a quicker fix than that, which is why earlier I suggested that the Government should take a firmer hand in this and not leave it to the industry and markets to sort out. In other words, there is a strong case for government intervention. I welcome this amendment, although not precisely on its own terms, because I think it has some potential flaws. However, certainly the opportunity to debate the issue is absolutely vital.