Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to vary some non-domestic rating multipliers and to remove the charitable exemption from private schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of this Act and is intended to invite the House to consider whether the Bill meets the Government's stated aims of protecting the high street and encouraging investment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to his place and say that the whole House was sorry to hear of his family’s loss.

We on these Benches welcome this Bill as a narrow tinkering of a broken system. It may have some beneficial effects, but I remind your Lordships that the non-domestic rates system has been broken for years, and if this tinkering distracts from a full and proper review of the system, then it is a malign influence rather than a benefit.

From scrutinising the Commons debate on this Bill, it seems that the Government sought to limit debate by asserting that its purpose was to use multipliers to manipulate the non-domestic rates of a subset of businesses in what it calls high streets. This measure is focused on retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments. Having done this, the broad government claim is that our high streets will somehow be protected and that investment will be encouraged. In wording Amendment 1, we attempted to include words that spelled out the spirit of the Government’s Commons claims, but I have to say that the Public Bill Office resisted all attempts to include the concept of protecting high streets and encouraging investment in the purpose statement. The PBO has confirmed the narrow nature of this Bill.

The Government cannot have it both ways. If they accept the restraints of their own handcuffs and restrict this Bill to varying multipliers for this subset of businesses, the Minister cannot claim to be protecting high streets. There are at least three reasons that make this true. First, high streets are much more than retail, hospitality and leisure, as we will see from various groups of amendments. If the Government’s actual purpose is to protect high streets, they would spread its activity more widely. This will be effectively asserted from these Benches and from those of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

Secondly, the Government present no evidence that their claims to be protecting high streets will actually come to pass. As we know, the non-domestic rating system is complex. It is further complicated by the application of reliefs, which will vanish as these multipliers arrive. Increasing the multipliers for larger businesses is another complication. In addition, there is the issue of valuations—this is the elephant in the room that this Bill ignores. They are always up. There are many puts and takes that affect the individual business rates that a business pays and what its competitors pay, yet there has been no attempt at an impact assessment. I have to put it to the Minister that no one actually knows the effects that this Bill will have.

Thirdly, we know that there are some important consequences for activities that fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure focus that could be badly affected by the consequences of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Pinnock will highlight the issue of medical and health-related premises, and I will seek to demonstrate that an important sector of our creative industry—independent music venues—will be hit hard. In both cases, we need the Minister to confirm that increasing rates for these activities is an unintended, rather than an intended, consequence. Both these activities are important parts of well-functioning high streets, although of course there are other activities that also contribute. This is a consequence of blunt targeting, and it needs to be sorted.

I propose this amendment with a heavy heart, because the narrowness of the purpose allowed by the PBO identifies the limitations and faults of this Bill. But there is hope. First off, the Minister could accept my noble friend’s Amendment 51, when it comes up. That is a good starting point but, otherwise, I am sure that we can work with the Minister to come up with a new Short Title and Long Title that will allow us to properly set about protecting our high streets. My colleagues and I stand ready to help the Minister in this regard. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I stand to introduce the second group, in which, conveniently, there are three amendments, all in my name—

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny of the powers in the Bill and its conclusion that nothing needs to be drawn to the attention of this Committee. I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and assurance on the purpose of the Bill in order to enable the withdrawal of Amendment 1 and that my explanation of Clause 1 will enable noble Lords to agree to it standing part of the Bill. It is the clause we need to provide the permanent support in business rates for which the high street has been calling.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. The nature of this debate has set the scene for some of the groups that we will debate later—the £500,000 limit will certainly come up shortly, as will the other issues. The overall point suggested by the Minister—that we must have this move, or that this move is a helpful precursor to wider reform—is one that I would question. I do not see why this must happen without the wider reform; it is not needed unless it is in the context of something that is more total around the system. Let me repeat myself: there are so many puts and takes in this system that it is hard to know how individual businesses and their competitors are going to be affected simply on the basis of where they stand on a particular road. There is much to be done but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I would have been very happy with this Bill as an interim measure. I am sorry—this sounds a bit like a Second Reading speech, but it is not meant to be as I am picking up on my noble friend Lord Thurlow’s point. If we are going to replace business rates, let us see a signpost towards what that looks like now, because confidence is running out rapidly on the whole question of business rates, with unpredictable and probably not very pleasant consequences.

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Coming back immediately on that point, what criteria will the Government be using for that revaluation? In other words, what are they seeking to confirm or otherwise from it? Can the Minister recognise that the point made by my noble friend, which I am sure will be made otherwise, is that when you multiply two numbers together, if one side of the equation is substantially smaller, the sum becomes low? If the valuations are 100 times less out of town, versus those in town, you can mess around with the other number as much as you like, but it will still be a tiny number out of town relative to town centres. Does he recognise that valuations are crucial to this and that, while this is all well and good, until valuations are sorted out, we really are fiddling around?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, on that specific point about criteria, I want to be clear that we have had a one-year ad hoc system and we are trying to build a sustainable system, which will have a three-year rating on non-domestic properties. We want to see how we will get there when we see what the situation is in the fiscal climate; that will be a big part of addressing how the Treasury will set the multipliers. The Bill is not about setting multipliers. It is up to the Treasury to set those. I will come back to the impact in a moment.

In relation to the different level of multipliers, of course it is a complex system. However, the highlight of what we are trying to do is to have a sustainable system that funds itself and, by asking less than 1% of properties to shoulder a bit more, ensures that we support the high street and properties of low valuation. We are trying to have an equitable system that is sustainable and can pay for itself. We recognise that there are different scenarios and situations but, ultimately, we want to ensure that the system is much fairer than it is now and creates more certainty.

--- 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.

This is another example of the unintended consequences that this Bill will have on valuable sectors of our economy. Businesses up and down the high street are changing, and sporting facilities, cultural centres and music venues are an integral part of not only our economy but the very communities in which they exist. However, this amendment seems particularly London-focused in the examples provided. There are excellent venues up and down the country; I go back to Wiltshire and the community-based The Cause in Chippenham, but there are many others, as I am sure noble Lords know from their local areas. I am also interested in the definition of “grassroots” in the noble Lord’s amendment. The Royal Albert Hall is a well-established, world-famous venue, and as such I am not certain—

[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.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I speak in support of this group of amendments. I declare my interest that I do not have the expertise that I have listened to this afternoon, so I will just do my little bit. I thank the Minister for his reply to the questions I sent him on the multiple retail shops that will be affected by this increase due to the larger rate for valued properties.

I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. There will be 3,260 retail shops affected by these changes, many of which are supermarkets. If the Government increase the multiplier by 0.1%, this would increase costs by about £3.7 million per year on these properties. This would be passed directly on to customers who shop in these shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets, and would also damage the large anchor stores in shopping centres, which are under pressure already from the online warehouses which this Bill tries to target. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has already detailed the value of these large retail stores to the high street and shopping centres much more expertly than I. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider these amendments urgently, because they will add costs to these businesses.

The Minister also made clear why no detailed impact assessment or calculations have been done. This is due to these rates being set in the Budget, and the revaluation, which will be a disappointment to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The cost to large businesses is unknown. The Bill could damage these larger businesses just to support smaller ones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, stated, we just do not know what the final financial impacts of this will be. I spoke to a leisure business this weekend. It has no idea what its rates will be in 2025-26 and therefore finds it very difficult to budget for what it will have to charge and how it will manage its subscriptions in the coming year.

Regarding Amendment 13, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill tries to protect the high street. The high street is not only retail, hospitality and leisure, so I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to try to ensure some flexibility in the future for these types of businesses to be added in. High street businesses will change in the coming year as high streets need to prosper, with new types of business. These could include veterinary surgeons—a business that I have an interest in—who want to come to the high street and need to be encouraged with possible lower rates.

I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who spoke with passion about government and local authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who spoke in support of the manufacturing industries and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who spoke in support of music venues—all of which need more clarity and information in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

As regards grass-roots music venues, we do not expect many to fall above the £500,000 threshold. Although we do not hold data specifically on music venues, we know, for example, that pubs, which often play an important role in the grass-roots music scene, have an average rateable value of only £16,800.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think I clarified that there were two issues. If the Minister looks in his data, he will find that the Royal Albert Hall is classed as being over £500,000, and I specifically asked about the Royal Albert Hall, so we require an answer to that. The point about grass-roots venues was not about the £500,000; it is about the loss of the relief, from 70% to 40% in the coming financial year, which will put them below the waterline, on average. That was a specific and different question that the Minister may want to answer separately.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I did say that I would come back to the noble Lord on his specific question.

[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 ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl very much for that clarification, but if he looks at my remarks later, he will see that I said that we do not expect “many”—not any—grass-roots music venues to fall above the £500,000 threshold. As I said, although we do not hold data specifically on music venues, we know, for example, that pubs, which often play an important role in the grass-roots music scene, have an average rateable value of only £16,800.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked how the lower multipliers will affect vacant property. The Bill allows for the lower multipliers to apply to vacant RHL properties. I assure the noble Earl that we intend to apply these new multipliers to occupied properties in the same way as we do to vacant properties. That will be consistent.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched on the important point of why an impact assessment has not been prepared. Let me be absolutely clear and repeat my previous points on this: policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions and are therefore not required to be accompanied by an impact assessment. However, His Majesty’s Treasury committed to publishing an analysis of the new multipliers at the Budget.

A further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties. I repeat this for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who raised this in particular: a further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties and, more generally, a power to widen the lower multipliers to other sectors.

I acknowledge the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to provide greater flexibility within the Bill, should it be deemed appropriate, in future, to apply the lower multipliers to other types of property. However, the Government were clear at the Budget that the intention is for the permanently lower tax rates to apply to qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of RHL relief that has been extended year on year. This has been an ad hoc system, and year on year is not the most effective way for businesses to plan.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I think I heard the Minister say, on a different group, that this will apply for three years. On that basis, we cannot really expect a root-and-branch change of the system until either the end or beyond the end of this Parliament. Would that be a reasonable assessment?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. This will come into force in 2026-27; we are talking about the revaluation and review being three years after that. Again, this provides more certainty, because we do not want year-on-year unpredictability in an ad hoc system. This is a sustainable process, and it will give us a chance to see what the environment and fiscal climate will be at that time. Again, it is for the Treasury to set the multipliers.

Against the current fiscal backdrop, widening the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers would potentially reduce the level of tax cut that could then be provided to that cohort. Similarly, widening the scope may require a higher tax rate on those properties paying the higher multiplier to enable the Government to deliver a permanent tax cut.

The amendments for manufacturing could, of course, widen the lower multipliers somewhere beyond the town-centre and high-street environment. As we have heard from stakeholders, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses tend to occupy properties in higher-value locations with higher footfall, which in turn drives up the rateable value and rates bill. The Bill will rebalance this. The same cannot generally be said for manufacturing, so the case for special treatment for it here is weaker.

The Government are supporting our manufacturing sector through other means. At the Autumn Budget, we announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period and up to £520 million for a new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund.

I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Live music venues are currently eligible for the existing RHL relief. The definition of RHL, in terms of the new multipliers, broadly follows the current definition, which will be set later in secondary legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry; I am just trying to process that. Are you saying that, going forward, they would continue to benefit from the lower multiples as RHL-qualified businesses?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

In terms of over £500,000, we are going to have the same policy applied to all sectors. We are not doing carve-outs, but in terms of any relief that music venues are having below that, the definition of the new multipliers will broadly follow the current definition and will be set out in secondary legislation later this year.

I think I have answered the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but I will make a few points again about the impact on the public sector. The fiscal inheritance demands tough choices in order to fix our public services to create long-term growth and investment that will support businesses, but we have sought to mitigate the worst impacts of these choices. It would not be fair on businesses if we excluded the public sector from the higher multiplier.

In relation to the points made by noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I repeat, in particular, that the Government will work to ensure that, as far as practically possible, local government income from business rates is unaffected by business rates tax rate changes. The Government are making good on the promise to reform the local government funding system. I talked about this on the previous group. We will pursue a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government in partnership with the sector and with the principle of giving councils early notice.

There has been a wide-ranging debate on this group. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will understand, as we consider these amendments and those in the three groups that follow, that we should not seek to carve out certain properties from the higher tax rate or bring other properties into eligibility for the lower multiplier. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

--- 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.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I will say a few words in support of the excellent Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It had not occurred to me but is worth saying here that, just as an anchor is critical to the economic health of the high street and the social contribution that comes with it, so are these very small and vital retailers—if that is the right word—for banking facilities, as well as the small facilities open all hours, 18 hours a day or whatever it may be. They are critical. In fact, they should perhaps be considered in a conversation about revising the use classes order because, as we heard with the good examples given, they are essential to the health of the local community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their Amendments 16, 34, 42 and 51. I understand the intention of these amendments is to understand further, first, what hereditaments will be included in the definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties; and, secondly, the intended application of the new multipliers to high streets.

The definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be set out via secondary legislation later this year, as I repeated earlier. However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this broadly to follow the definition that is used for the current RHL relief; I note that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are familiar with this definition, as their amendment draws on the guidance published by the Government. When introduced from 2026-27, the new multipliers that this Bill makes provision for will apply to all relevant hereditaments, regardless of their geographical location.

It is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower RHL multipliers: one for RHL properties with a rateable value of between £51,000 and £499,999; and another one for RHL properties with a rateable value of below £51,000. All qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be eligible for these new multipliers. This approach will best ensure that support is targeted towards RHL businesses based on the high street while working within the existing business rates architecture. We are moving from a stopgap, ad hoc, year-to-year relief scheme to a permanent lower multiplier that provides greater certainty for business.

It is also the Government’s intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above—a point that I have made previously. Again, this will affect all properties that meet that criterion, regardless of their geographical location. 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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the use of the relief definitions. If I have got this wrong, I am very happy for him to tell me so, but my understanding is that the bottom level of below £49,000, I think, were not paying business rates at all. Is that correct? Will they now be classified along with everyone else and pay business rates with the appropriate reduction put on to them, in which case they will go from paying no rates to some—albeit less than the full rate, as we would have seen it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Just to clarify, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has got it wrong because the zero, as in no business rates, is for rateable values—£12,000 in particular—and it is then tapered, so the relief decreases as it goes to £15,000.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Do they now come into the system or do they continue to have a zero rate under the proposals of this Bill?

[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.

--- 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?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

It is not DHCLG these days; it is MHCLG.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Whatever it is called these days—they keep changing it, and I never normally address this particular crowd. Was it the Minister’s ministry or was it the Treasury? If it was the Treasury, I rather think we should have a Treasury Minister here to answer the question of why it was a £500,000 limit, because it seems to me that it is a very round, arbitrary number. It would have been more convincing had it been £550,000; it might have looked like some thought had gone into it. This looks like a dart-throwing exercise.

So can the Minister explain what was behind the number? Is it trying to balance the money raised? If so, how can you know when your top rate is a top rate and is not necessarily applied? If it is the nature of a business, what is it about the nature of the business? If it is from an analysis of every single £500,000 business, what criteria were used to make that analysis? In other words, where did it come from?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 concern the rateable value threshold above which the higher multiplier may apply. This is set in the Bill at no less than £500,000, as we have heard repeatedly in contributions by noble Lords. The Bill allows the Government to set a higher threshold through regulations if they wish, but the amendments would require this threshold to be increased annually in line with CPI.

Alongside the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has given notice of her intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. It would therefore be appropriate at this point if I set out why Clause 3 should stand part.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, raises a reasonable question as to whether, and if so how, the £500,000 threshold should change over time and other noble Lords have also raised this point. Of course, we would expect that, over time, the value of properties and therefore their rateable values will increase as the economy grows. As these rateable values grow, the current threshold in the Bill of £500,000 will, relatively speaking, be smaller and more properties may be drawn into that category. That is the issue that the noble Baroness is probing with these amendments.

However, I do not think these amendments are the answer to that issue. First, and perhaps most importantly, rateable values will not increase annually in line with inflation or with any other measure of property value or the economy. Rateable values are set every three years at revaluations, and between those revaluations will not change other than for matters such as physical changes to the property.

The Government have set out that our intention for the 2026 rating lists is for the threshold for the higher multiplier to be set at a £500,000 rateable value. The Government consider that this will best ensure that sufficient revenue is raised to provide for a meaningful level of support for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and will do so in an objectively equitable way.

The 2026 rating list will last for three years, and those rateable values will not increase over that period, other than if, as I have said before, the property is expanded or improved, for example. By extension, the 2029 revaluation will be the next logical moment to consider whether the £500,000 threshold remains the appropriate minimum for the new higher multiplier.

In approaching these considerations, the Government will need to examine how rateable values have changed at the revaluation but also what support is to be provided to retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, consequently, how much revenue is needed to be raised from the higher multiplier.

I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that there are several factors the Government will need to consider and balance, beyond just the changes in rateable value. More broadly, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that in relation to the proposed amendment, the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold in the relevant regulations should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether MHCLG or the Treasury decided. It was the Government who decided. As much as I love darts, it definitely was not a dart-throwing exercise.

I will now expand further on Clause 3 so that, I hope, noble Lords can agree that it should stand part of the Bill. We have discussed several amendments in relation to Clause 3 today, so I shall try to keep my remarks to the point and not go over previously covered ground too much.

Clause 3 is concerned with how we will determine to which hereditaments those multipliers should apply. It is split into three main parts, concerning occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2), unoccupied hereditaments in Clause 3(3), and hereditaments on the central rating list in Clause 3(4). Properties on the central list are typically utility networks spanning many local authority areas, such as the gas, electricity and water networks. Each of these parts of Clause 3 are essentially identical, so to save the Committee from repetition, I will explain the provisions on occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2) only.

The most important part of Clause 3(2) is the small amendment made by Clause 3(2)(a) to existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under those existing powers, the Treasury already has the ability to determine in regulations which multiplier applies to which property. Those powers, in respect of occupied properties, are in paragraph 10(9) and 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. Clause 3(2)(a) amends that part of the 1988 Act to extend those powers to cover also the new additional multipliers. This means that the Treasury will be able to determine by regulations which properties pay on which multiplier.

As with Clause 1, we have included in Clause 3 safeguards as to how the Treasury may use these powers. These limit the higher multipliers to hereditaments with a rateable value of £500,000 or more and limit the lower multipliers to only qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments.

Finally on Clause 3, the existing powers for determining the application of the multiplier allow the Treasury to do that by reference to a list of factors found in paragraph 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. This is a non-exhaustive list that includes factors such as its rateable value, location or use. Clause 3(2)(c) expressly gives the Treasury the scope also to determine the application of the multipliers by reference to the description which the Valuation Office Agency puts in the rating list.

I hope that this further information provides the reassurance and clarity needed for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and agree that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.