Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.

Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.

However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.

We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.

We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.

Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that

“the House as a whole”

will have

“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]

Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.

There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?

I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as usual I declare the fact that I am a current councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her explanation on the SI and the reasons behind it. Like my fellow noble Lords, I recognise that we need to get on with these major infrastructure projects. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, gave the example of Heathrow, but one can also think of the Lower Thames Crossing, which I understand has received approval just today, after about 800 million pages of planning documents.

It is important that we do that, so in principle we support the need for the SI. The Minister has reiterated to us how important it is to get on with these things, but to do so by completely ignoring the public and the local planning process is a concern to this side of the House. We really want the assurance that it will be done only in exceptional circumstances and where speed is absolutely necessary. We recognise that the planning process is far from perfect; I too look forward to debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This very much seems to be a mechanism to shoehorn through a process in a system that does not work. We really ought to look at making the system work.

I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on why it is so necessary to do that and her assurances on why it is necessary to circumvent local planning processes and local transparency. I also support the calls from fellow Peers that local involvement should be maintained and representations to the Minister should be still able to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was assuming that it would be an application made on land already owned, but I will write to the noble Lord and set that out in further detail.

On his other point, my understanding is that all things are, technically, judicially reviewable, but I will find out the detail of that and set it out. Obviously, if we are going to put an urgent and national process in place, we want it to be able to speed through as quickly as possible, but, in the planning world, it would be most unusual for there to be no process of review should that be needed. I will get our planning team to check that for the noble Lord, and I will write to him with the exact details.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I have a question; it is not dissimilar to the one from my noble friend Lord Young. As I understand it, from what the Minister has laid out, it will in essence be up to the Minister or Secretary of State to determine whether this is urgent, nationally significant and so on. My real question is: what constraints will there be on him or her in determining that? Where is the opportunity to challenge, review or assess? I know that the Minister is going to come back on the issue of judicial review. Clearly, we do not want to have an urgent process be bogged down by it for two or three years; however, we would want some constraint on it. So what process is in place to ensure that the Minister is not in a position to determine all of this by himself or herself?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating those points. I set out that there is a set of criteria deeming whether an application is of national importance. The applicant will need to say which of those criteria they are using to say that it is of national importance. The same applies to the urgent procedure: the applicant will need to demonstrate one of those criteria for it being urgent, and the Secretary of State will decide whether or not that is the case. Out of the criteria I set out, the applicant will need to demonstrate that at least one applies. That is how it is going to work. I will have to come back to noble Lords on whether it will be reviewable.

In conclusion, the two new routes for planning permission that we are seeking to implement are necessary and timely; all noble Lords agree with that, I think. These regulations represent a crucial step to their delivery. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations, which address this critical requirement for a proportionate planning procedure for nationally important Crown developments.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the spirit of all three of these Motions and I especially commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock, for making their Motions fatal. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reassure us and tell us, in effect, not to worry our pretty little heads and to stop panicking—he did not use that language, I am. It was then interesting that there was quite a lot of laughter on the Benches opposite; there is this sense of, “What is all the fuss about?” I suggest that this is not a game and it really matters for voters. There is a lot at stake here, not least the reputation of the democratic process.

For the last week or so, Government Ministers have talked about a fictional drama as though it is factual evidence, concluding that a Netflix series should inform policy on countering the radicalisation of young boys, so maybe the Government will accept my factual, if anecdotal, evidence of how the cancellation of council elections is fuelling the radicalising of young people to become cynical about democracy. I was recently giving a talk to a student group about the importance of democratic engagement to a free society, and I was taken aback by just how cynical they were. The majority said, “Democracy is a sham”—that was the popular sentiment. I was even more surprised when their evidence centred on councils, not something that the young generally chat about. One of them summed it up when he said, “They cancelled the Romanian presidential elections and banned the popular candidate from standing. Now our Government have cancelled the council elections because they are scared that austerity Labour will get a drubbing”. Whether we like it or not—and I argued against that slightly conspiratorial tone, by the way—we can see why they might draw that conclusion.

Beyond those young cynics, there is a lot of anger about this issue. Five and a half million people feel that they have had their votes cancelled and they feel cheated. It is being discussed in workplaces, in the pub, on phone-ins and on social media. People will say things like, “There are challenger parties doing well in the polls. They don’t want to see how they get on”. There is a certain volatility around politics at the moment and people want to make their views heard. People are frustrated that, for example, just when voters are facing council tax rises and horrible cuts in local council services, they do not get a chance to comment locally. In rural areas, where those on family farms are so worried about recent policies, so worried that their livelihoods are going to be destroyed, they do not get a chance to vote. We have been told that these are being postponed for only a year, but a lot can happen in a year: in less than a year, some devastating policies have been brought in by the Government that people might have a view on. That will be true as well, so I would rather that people were given a vote, even if then they had to have the election again, than just be told, “Don’t you worry, you’ll get a vote eventually”.

Local issues matter to people. If noble Lords were listening this morning to the discussions on the media about rats as large as cats and the bin strike in Birmingham, they will have heard people passionately talking about what is happening in their local area. We have to understand that people want their voices and their views to count, and many feel robbed by this decision. They do not want to be fobbed off by technical excuses about the importance of devolution and somebody at the top making a decision that will give them more democracy at some time. They are basically being told that voters’ access to the ballot box should be trumped by a policy reorganisation. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, suggests, it seems to make a mockery of the notion that these devolution changes will bring more accountability.

The lack of consultation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Byford, is especially egregious. Although I have a lot to say on devolution, on these devolutionary forms and their shortcomings, now is not the time and I will not say it now, but I think it would be wrong for the Government not to at least note that people feel that this is a contemptuous disregard for voters’ aspirations to exert their rightful right to vote for or vote out politicians as they choose, as they expected to. They are disappointed and many people are actually looking at parliamentary TV, for once, to see which way we go today. Who would have thought that that would happen? But there you go.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire who is not participating in this process. I speak in support of the regret Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. As chairman of the Local Government Association, I campaigned vigorously for greater devolution, and I am still very supportive of devolution. I also led a unitary council for 10 years and can testify to the benefits of unitary councils. However, if we are genuinely to have devolution and well-run services, it needs to be locally led, with real powers and local accountability. We cannot treat local government as little more than a delivery arm of central government, tied up in regulation, with budget controls and with central targets and funding pots.

When this country saw the biggest improvement in health, education, social support, infrastructure and so forth, it was all locally led. If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, local government was truly empowered, delivering education, health, social care, social support, infrastructure and even gas and water supplies. It was genuinely financially independent of central government. Over the last century, central government has steadily eroded the role of local government, placed more controls and reduced its financial freedoms while increasing burdens on local councils.

I am a believer that form should follow function. We should see real devolution which would enable genuine financial independence from central government, with a much greater role in economic development, community health, education and skills for getting people back to work; this would enable every area to flourish with real levelling up. This is what the Government should have started with, because locally we could have then answered the question of what would be appropriate structures to deliver this. It would also significantly reduce local argument as the prize and objective would have been clear to all.

Instead, we have top-down reorganisation. The Government have been clear that they intend to use their large majority in the other place to force through unitarisation and have mayors across the country. There is a clear message that funding will be tight, so councils will have to make significant savings, which the Government expect to be delivered by unitarisation. It is understandable that, in these circumstances, many councils have concluded that it is better to participate in order to have some control over their destiny and potentially some meagre rewards, rather than be done to by government diktat.

So I have sympathy with those councils that, due to the need to meet a government-imposed timetable, asked for a delay in their elections. But it did not need to be this way. The Government could and should have worked with local government. They should have brought forward real proposals for real devolution with a clear timetable that respected the democratic process. They should have brought forward proposals to address some of the biggest issues in local government, such as social care and SEND. They should have looked at how, by addressing the perverse incentives, the blockages in the system and creating genuine local place-based working, these could have been addressed.

You cannot look at local government reorganisation without looking at, for instance, the healthcare system and how that works. But, no, this Government are favouring imposition over co-operation, avoiding the difficult decisions and not delivering real devolution. That is why I will be supporting by noble friend Lady Scott’s Motion to Regret.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, that has been a really interesting debate. I understand and I have listened to the concerns around the Chamber. The Government have been very clear on our manifesto commitment to widen devolution to more areas. We have been clear on our vision for a simpler, more sustainable local government structure, alongside transfer of power and funding out of Westminster through a devolution process. We have been clear on our willingness to take all the appropriate steps needed to deliver this vision, working with councils to fix the foundations of local government and support communities to join the devolution revolution.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to challenge the Government’s intentions in relation to saving our high street. The Government are in a quandary: retail, hospitality and leisure businesses have continued to benefit from Covid-related relief, which is currently at a rate of 75% but will fall to 40% from April and not exist in the following year. The challenge for the Government then will be to square the circle of the commitments made.

The slogan of saving the high street depends on ensuring that businesses at the heart of the high street are not priced out of financial viability by large changes in business rates—hence the Bill. However, the evidence from Wales and Scotland—which have and have used the right to alter the Covid rate relief in a previous year—is that the effect of the reduction in Covid relief was a rise in business closures above what would normally be anticipated.

As will be debated in the next group of amendments, large retail stores are an essential ingredient for a thriving shopping centre in a city, large town or retail park. It is already clear that retailers are moving more and more of their business online, partly in response to consumers but also as a consequence of the rising costs of bricks and mortar retailing—our high street that the Government intend to save. The high street will not be saved unless these larger stores are classified with all other RHL properties and charged the lower multiplier. A failure to do so simply underlines the Government’s inability to appreciate the rising taxation burden imposed on high street retailers.

Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, seeks to push the Government into wider reform of the system to fulfil the promises made about charging more to fulfilment warehouses—the Amazons of this world—to help level the playing field with traditional retailers. As the Minister knows, I have regularly provided evidence of the iniquity—I should have said inequity, but it is probably iniquity as well—of the business rating system, which has failed to be radically changed in the face of the online revolution. If the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, wishes to test the opinion of the House on his proposals to push the Government into making deeper and lasting reform of the property taxation issue, we on these Benches will support him.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

Amendments 2 and 11 are broad amendments that seek to retain the standard multiplier for all retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments, rather than them facing higher business taxes. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to raise the issue of higher taxes on RHL businesses above the £500,000 threshold, as the Government’s stated policy intentions are not reflected in the reality of this Bill. We share similar concerns about the impact that this will have on high streets, which is why my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has tabled an amendment to protect anchor stores and I have tabled an amendment on the cliff-edge effects of the £500,000 threshold.

Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, seeks to introduce a review of the introduction of a specific use class that targets businesses that operate solely out of fulfilment warehouses—the Amazon tax. The Bill does not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that online giants are paying their fair share of business rates. Indeed, we expected this Amazon tax to be introduced through this Bill, and it is disappointing that the Government have not delivered anything close to such a reform in this legislation. As such, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, should he choose to press it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for a very constructive and positive meeting yesterday. This group of amendments seeks to amend the approach taken in the Bill regarding the targeting of the higher multiplier. They would require the removal of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure from the higher multiplier and commit the Government to undertake a review of the merits of creating an additional multiplier and use class for fulfilment centres of retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets. As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers for these properties that have a rateable value below £500,000. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation.

In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable value below £500,000. I thank noble Lords here today for their contributions on this topic.

The Government recognise that a small number of RHL properties fall above the £500,000 threshold. However, the helpful information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that this is comparatively small. As per the current rating list, of the 16,700 properties in England with a rateable value at or above the £500,000 threshold, a little over 3,000 fall into the shops subsector. There is more behind this: of those falling into this subsector, around 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves fewer than 1,000 stores, of which around 600 are located in London and the south-east. For most other regions, the number of shops affected is fewer than 50.

A similar pattern is present when looking at hospitality and leisure sectors. That data also shows that 670 hereditaments fall into the assembly and leisure subsector, of which 380 are located in London and the south-east. Only 550 fall into the hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering subsector, of which 450 are located in London and the south-east. So the impact is not widespread when it is considered that there are over 450,000 shops; over 80,000 hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering properties; and over 180,000 assembly and leisure properties with a rateable value below the £500,000 threshold. It is imperative that any tax cut is funded sustainably, so the Government do not intend to remove any properties from the higher multiplier.

Against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach that ensures a sustainable solution to ensuring that the permanent tax cut for RHL properties can be funded from within the business rates system. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I respectfully ask him not to press them.

I turn to Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and I appreciate his interest in Burnley warehouses. This amendment also concerns the new multipliers and how we might target online retailers that operate from large distribution warehouses and tend not to have a presence on the high street. This matter has attracted interest not just during the passage of the Bill but in the course of several reviews of business rates over recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

5: Clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(9BA) The Secretary of State must by regulations increase the figure in subsection (9B)(b) on 1 April 2029 in line with the average aggregate change in rateable values, as recorded by the Valuation Office Agency for three tax years preceding 1 April 2029.”

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, I shall speak to Amendments 18 and 20, which are consequential. The amendments seek to introduce an increase in the threshold for the higher multiple, in line with the average aggregate increase in rateable values in the three years preceding the re-evaluation of the business rate multipliers. I am concerned that the Bill will introduce a stealth tax that will result in more and more businesses being subject to the higher multiple, if the higher multiple is fixed at £500,000 and does not increase with rateable values.

I listened to the points raised by the Minister in Committee and adjusted the amendment so that it considers the re-evaluation that will take place in 2029. Although the Minister claims that an alternative system will be introduced, this is uncertain. As such, it makes sense to introduce protection in the Bill.

Amendments 7, 15 and 19 seek to introduce into the Bill the definition provided for the RHL relief, which seems unnecessary given that the definition already exists in government guidance.

I look forward to the response from the Minister on the issues that have been raised. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 7 and consequential Amendments 15, 19 and 22 probe the Government on the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This is absolutely critical because those businesses currently receive 75% relief, which will fall to 40% in April, and the relief will be non-existent by April 2026. The Bill introduces the lower multiplier by way of reducing the impact of the removal of the Covid relief. It then becomes crucial for businesses to know which multiplier will apply to them.

The House of Commons Library’s detailed briefing stated that there is currently

“no definition in law of ‘retail, hospitality and leisure’ properties”.

It would be really helpful if the Minister confirmed that this essential definition will be determined in secondary legislation.

Throughout deliberations on the Bill, the Minister has repeated that RHL properties in the new regime are identical to those that received Covid relief. If that is so, surely the legal definition must already exist and can be shared in our debates on this group of amendments.

During the debate in the other place, Daisy Cooper MP wanted to know whether large RHL businesses that currently have a £110,000 cap on the Covid relief received will have that cap removed and benefit from the lower multiplier. If that is the case and they get the cap on their relief removed but also benefit from the lower multiplier, it will mean that smaller businesses end up subsidising the larger chain stores within this definition of RHL. Again, I feel sure that it is not the Government’s intention to let small shops subsidise larger ones. If that is not the case, can the Minister explain what is going on?

Can the Minister confirm that the new rating system being introduced in April 2026 will be fixed for three years, as he stated in earlier debates on the Bill, and that the small business relief will be uplifted in line with inflation? That is very important for small shops in villages and small towns. Currently, rateable values of less than £12,500 receive 100% business rates relief, and then a sliding scale exists. It is therefore critical that the rateable values are revised upwards to reflect property values. Otherwise, ever fewer businesses will qualify—fiscal drag for business rates. This is also the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in relation to the higher threshold being introduced. Failure to increase the £500,000 threshold results in pulling more businesses into the higher rate.

In the end, as we have heard from across the House this afternoon, tinkering with the system fails to address the fundamental problem that businesses are not what they were 100 or even 20 years ago, and property taxation must change to create a fairer, more equitable approach that does not penalise traditional businesses, which end up providing a larger portion of the tax take than is justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I alluded to this point in Committee. The review with stakeholders and businesses is currently taking place. We will come back as we look at the reform of business rates. In the context of the business rates review and reform, consideration is being given to hereditaments that are near, above or within a small distance of the £500,000 threshold.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Although we remain concerned regarding the increased business taxes as a result of the impact of fiscal drag, having reflected on the Minister’s assurances we will not be pressing Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group provide for reviews of different aspects of the Bill. In moving Amendment 21, I will speak to Amendment 33 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

It is very clear from everything that we have heard in Committee and on Report that we are still very much in the dark as to how this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will affect our high streets. It was billed from the beginning as a measure that would save our high streets—that was clearly how it was marketed in the Commons. However, without the details that we seek, and without the context of those details, we really do not understand.

The differences between these several amendments are, more or less, on the timing of when the review would happen. In our Amendment 21, the timing is that, before the Act comes into force:

“The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on businesses, high streets, and economic growth”.


If the Government are serious about their assertion that they are going to save our high streets, they need to be able to support that. Nothing the Minister has said at any point has underpinned that this will save our high streets.

An impact assessment must consider the impact on different types of businesses, including small ones, and the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets, and whether the provisions will have a measurable impact on economic growth. That is the key because, from everything my noble friend and others have said, it seems that at the end of this process most businesses will be paying more in rates than they are currently paying—and how that delivers any kind of economic growth is something of a mystery to me.

So that is the nature of Amendment 21. We also support the other amendments in this group. Amendment 24 in particular requires the Secretary of State to review the impact on

“businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000”.

That of course brings us to the plateau issue. I will leave the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches to speak to that, but in the event that she decides to push the amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will support it. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, and Amendments 24 and 34 in my name. Amendment 23 seeks to include a review of the impact of this Bill on businesses. The lack of any kind of assessment of the impact that this policy will have on businesses needs to be addressed—hence this amendment.

Amendments 24 and 34 seek to include a requirement for a report on the impact that the £500,000 threshold will have on businesses. I am particularly concerned about the cliff-edge nature of the £500,000 threshold and its impact on business decisions. A business crossing the threshold, even by £1, will see an almost 20% increase in business rates payable. This is bad enough for most businesses, but a business in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will see a near doubling. For instance, an RHL business with a hereditament of £495,000 that invested in its property just enough to push it over the threshold would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of the Bill. This is meaningful in terms of business decision-making.

Not only is this unfair but it is a distorting tax. This Government say their priority is growth, but think about all those businesses up and down the country facing this dilemma and the impact on their individual decision-making. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this and I appreciate that this is being driven by the Treasury and its simple spreadsheet analysis. However, these are real decisions with real-world impacts, not simply numbers on a spreadsheet.

This Bill was initially presented as one that would increase the tax share of out-of-town warehouses, dubbed the “Amazon tax”, but that is not the Bill we have been presented with. As the Minister has said previously, only around 10% of businesses paying the higher tax will be warehouses. This Bill will actively encourage businesses to stop investing in their property to avoid paying a hefty increase in business rates. We want to develop our high streets. We want to encourage businesses to invest. This not only disincentivises that critical investment but creates a perverse incentive at the margin.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

24: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: threshold effect(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

34: Clause 6, page 6, line 21, at beginning insert “Subject to the review required under section (Review: threshold effect) having been laid before Parliament three months before the start of the financial year,”

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

To reiterate a point I have made before, local authorities are part of the whole process. They will work with central government and my department in particular to have regular, continuous monitoring of how the work is going. That is how we will communicate, but local authorities are heading part of this and they are signing off the board.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As usual, I will have to talk about my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Unfortunately, no one in Central Bedfordshire received the money so I do not have the interest that the noble Baroness has. I just wanted to understand the accountability and the structure. We are going to have community boards. Who will the money, and the decisions on it, lie with? Will it be the board or the council? Who will be the accountable body for the money? Who will determine who will be on that community board? Several noble Lords have mentioned democracy and who the representatives of the people are, so can the Minister please clarify that?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The relevant local authority will act as the accountable body for the funds, with the responsibility for ensuring that public funds are distributed fairly and effectively. A monitoring and evaluation strategy will be published in the summer. This will set out the framework for assurance and accountability expected from grant recipients, so watch this space.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I have relevant interests in local government, as recorded in the register. I hope the Minister has understood every bit of what he has read out, because it is very complicated—that is not meant as anything more than a statement—particularly as there are no examples in front of us as to what the impact of the changes will be.

This statutory instrument needs to be understood in relation to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage. That Bill, if enacted without amendments, will change the norms for business rates income, on which local government absolutely depends for a significant part of its income. The changed multipliers that the Bill envisages will, obviously, also alter the amount that different businesses will pay in non-domestic rates. This, in turn, will alter the income that different local authorities will receive as part of the 50% business rates retention scheme.

That impact will affect local authorities in very different ways. Local authorities with many properties that exceed the £500,000 rateable value boundary set in the Bill will gain in income. These businesses are primarily in major cities and include, for example, office blocks, hotels and major premises of that sort. Local authorities that are more reliant for income from retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their income in the 50% retained element decrease.

During the passage of the non-domestic rating Bill, I sought—and was granted—an assurance that local authorities will not be penalised as a result of the changes. However, that is on the national, global level. This statutory instrument is, I guess, the attempt to deal with these changes so that individual local authorities do not lose income or, conversely, gain too much income. The key question is whether that can be achieved in full. Is it possible under the new system that is going to come into effect in a year, whereby the Covid relief will gradually slip away and the new multipliers implemented will change the balance of income from businesses across the country? I have been assured that the national figure of income will not change. Will individual local authorities have assurance from the Minister that they will not lose out as a consequence of the changes? I accept that this is a very complicated set of calculations, so it would be absolutely fine if the Minister would prefer to write to me.

As the Minister will know, 43% of local authorities are on the verge of issuing 114 notices, so in this instance every penny will count. That is why I am asking the question. The lack of hard examples in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s introduction makes it really difficult to judge the implications of this instrument, so any further evidence will be extremely helpful for folk like me to understand what is going on.

My other point is about the changes to the 100% retention authorities; I want to know how that is worked out and I think it needs a bit more explanation. If those with 100% retention are no longer going to be able to retain 100%, how is it going to be worked out? Those authorities will expect to retain 100%. Again, I understand if the answer needs to be in writing, because this is not obviously easy or straightforward.

Finally, the issue that these changes bring to the fore is the current inability of councils to raise local income—be that in a small tourist tax, as the Manchester combined authority is now doing, or by any other means. A bit more flexibility for local authorities in raising their own small amounts of additional income would be of enormous benefit to many councils as they struggle to make ends meet. It would be worth knowing why flexibility in raising income does not seem to be in the Government’s agenda, because it would help to stem the enormous downward pressure on local public services. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and a written response if needed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I mention my interests as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of this SI. While these are technical adjustments that may sound reasonable on paper, it is useful to consider the wider impact of government actions in relation to the business rates system, particularly as it pertains to our small and medium-sized enterprises alongside larger businesses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned, this is a very complex system, so when we make changes to it there tend to be unintended and uncertain changes. That is the whole reason we have this SI in the first place. I would like some assurance on that, which I will raise in a moment.

I turn to the regulations themselves. The primary change is to adjust how the levy and safety net payments are calculated for authorities that retain a greater share of business rates. The most notable change is ensuring that these authorities, sometimes referred to as 100% authorities, do not have to bear the brunt of additional payments that should, in fairness, be a central government responsibility.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support this rise in planning fees, so I apologise now for repeating some of the very good points that the Minister made. She should not expect me to keep saying that for ever, but I do on this occasion.

We have all known for years that planning departments are underfunded; they are not covering their costs, and the position is simply unsustainable. I am interested that the Government have decided to go for an interim position rather than a full cost recovery. I can kind of understand their wanting it to be balanced, but I wonder whether the work has been done on what will be needed to get to that position, which we believe we should get to.

As the Minister said, planning departments have long been subsidised by the taxpayer through council tax; they have been bearing the burden of the costs of planning applications, which do not directly benefit them—particularly for individual householder applications. It seems completely illogical that everyone should contribute to an individual’s home improvements, which usually add value to just their property.

We welcome the change of emphasis from the last Government, who did at least increase the fees in December 2023—but I always felt that their agenda seemed to be to keep fees down. I note that a Conservative Member of Parliament in the other place described the rise as “eye-watering”. My riposte is that he clearly does not know what builders are charging these days, as the planning fee, which is an essential tool to getting the development right, is but a tiny fraction of the total cost. Two friends have recently had extensions to their homes, and when I hear how much they spent on the projects as a whole, I feel that £528 is probably the lowest in the grand scheme of their costs.

Major housebuilders are demonstrably making money, and their applications take the most time and expertise, so a rise to begin to cover costs seems entirely reasonable—more so given the financial challenges that local government faces. Some of the pre-app talks and site visits can be really extensive and time consuming.

If we have a concern regarding sustainability, it is about the recruitment and retention of planners. The ambition to recruit 300 new planners is laudable and welcome, and it seems churlish to point out the fact that it equates to just one planner per authority—but that is the reality. The Home Builders Federation pointed out, through a freedom of information request, that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity.

The recruitment and retention problem is exacerbated by differential salaries. The best young graduates appear to be snapped up by the major housebuilders, as they can afford to pay significantly more than local authorities. Especially in areas of high house prices, that can make recruitment even more of a challenge.

The Minister will know that some local authorities are working together to look for solutions by co-operating rather than working against each other, competing for the same people and even poaching. Career opportunities can be better for an individual if they can work across several councils, especially with smaller districts.

The RTPI has pointed an important fact—that there is a lack of robust data on how many planning officers we have in each region and local planning area. Accurate data would help to pinpoint where resources and training are most needed, so perhaps the Minister could give us some more detail on the changes to the Pathways to Planning programme.

We think that all these increases are necessary and overdue, and accept that it is sensible to tie this to an annual increase. The fact that previous rises were not index-linked was part of the problem. The gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened significantly over time.

There has been some talk of monitoring and ring-fencing of funds. Because of the parlous situation of local government funding, will local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul? In my experience, most councils will honour the intentions of government when money is handed out for specific needs, and we see no reason why that would not be the case here, without the need to mandate it or introduce checks. This Government are committed to decentralisation, so it is essential to let go and trust local authorities. Trying to micromanage budgets could be unnecessarily overbearing. We believe that councils should make all their own spending decisions. The Government already have mechanisms in place to monitor planning performance.

The Minister was right to point out that councils get no fees from the massive extension to permitted development rights, yet when there are problems with those conversions, the planners are drafted in to give advice and help to put things right. The key is that if there had been a need to obtain planning permission, the issues would have been sorted out right at the beginning. Will the forthcoming planning Bill be more helpful in this regard? We hope so, and in particular we look forward to allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. A degree of flexibility to adjust to local circumstances and needs is essential.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate my declaration of interest that I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. These regulations propose important changes to the planning process, including substantial fee increases for householder applications, prior approvals and approval of details reserved by condition; and a new three-tier structure that will differentiate charges for householders, non-major developments and major developments. I thank the Minister for going through the instrument in some detail, and I will try not to repeat too often what she said.

Although His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose these regulations in principle, we recognise that careful consideration is needed to ensure that these changes serve the interests of both home owners and developers.

The proposed increase in planning fees reflects the increasing demands on planning authorities and the need to recover costs, as the Minister mentioned. The fee for household applications will rise by 105% overall. We agree that these higher fees are necessary, as they ensure that planning authorities will have the resources to operate effectively. However, we must also be mindful of the impact on home owners, especially those who wish to make relatively modest improvements on their homes. We need to strike the right balance between cost recovery and affordability, ensuring that these fees do not place an undue burden on householders already facing financial pressures.

In addition to the householder fee increases, there are Section 73 increases, which, as outlined, will range from £86 for householders, £586 for non-major developments and £2,000 for major developments. This three-tiered structure is logical, and it is fair that the larger developments pay more, but we must ensure that the distinctions between the different types of development are clear, transparent and rational. We must also consider whether these fees inadvertently discourage smaller-scale developments or overburden individual home owners.

Finally, for biodiversity net gain approvals, there are increases of over 100%, from £145 to £298. What is the cumulative impact of all these fees? That is vital. What will they do for various developers, householders and so on? It is right that we get the right resources, but we also need to ensure that we do not overburden developers or small SMEs and enable them still to have financially viable projects.

The aim of these fees is to give resources to planning departments, so it is vital that they then deliver. Given the amount of frustration I get from householders, developers and so on about delays in the planning process and bureaucratic hold-ups, it is important that the fees result in faster, more efficient decision-making. We cannot just raise fees; we have to deliver faster, better planning processes.

I take this opportunity to note that, as mentioned earlier, the proposal to increase planning fees was originally a Conservative proposal—we did it in the previous Government—but I commit again that we need to fix the planning system so that stuff gets done in the allotted time. Timeliness and efficiency must accompany these fee increases.

Looking further ahead, I will touch on some of the proposals in the NPPF, which is really important. One reason we have delays in the planning process is that the planning system is complex, difficult and uncertain. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to simplify the planning process, and we welcome these efforts. We hope that they deliver a simplified planning system, but I also urge caution that simplification, while an important goal, should not come at the cost of clarity or integrity in the planning system. We need a process that is both simpler and more certain, and delivers quality developments so that businesses and individuals can have confidence in the decisions that affect their properties and developments.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the necessity of these fee increases and the proposed changes to the planning system, we urge the Government to ensure that the reforms strike the right balance. The Official Opposition are not opposed to reform, but we call on the Government to ensure that the planning system remains accessible and fair, particularly for smaller developers.

Moreover, as we look at these fee increases and the broader changes to the planning system, we encourage the Government to reflect on the need for a system that is not only more efficient but more responsive and certain. It is essential that the planning process delivers timely and effective decisions to business communities and home owners alike.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, when supply goes down and demand goes up, prices increase. What assessment have the Government made of reports that landlords are leaving the rental market at the highest rate ever? Many are citing rental reforms as their reason for leaving.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If I am honest with the noble Lord, I think the pressures on housing come from 14 years of not taking the housing market seriously. We have carefully assessed what the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill might be, and we do not believe that it will have a significant impact on the supply of private rented housing in the market. Supply has been consistent for several years, and we want to maintain that and to make sure that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers the right balance of support for both landlords and tenants. There are many really good landlords, and we want to give them the help and support they need through the Bill, as well as supporting our tenants.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that point. He also talked about delays, which I will pick up in a later group when we talk about implementation; I have not forgotten about the important points he raises. On the point he just made, the Budget analysis takes into account the 2026 revaluation, so that point is covered by the Treasury in its work in the build-up to the Budget.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I did not quite understand that point. The Minister is saying that the revaluation has already been taken into account in the figures that the Treasury is coming forward with. Does that mean he can share the revaluation with us?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify this for the noble Lord. As I said repeatedly on day one in Committee, the Treasury will publish an analysis when it sets its multipliers at the Budget, but the work that is going on in providing that analysis will consider all the issues, in particular the issue the noble Lord raised about the 2026 revaluation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 addresses the issue that, despite the Government’s claim that they would reform the business rates system, the Bill does not offer that. We heard concerns from several noble Lords on the previous day in Committee that this is not a Bill that will support the high street and level the playing field, as promised in the Labour manifesto. My concern is that businesses will face substantially higher costs. These proposals are supposed to support the high street, with a so-called Amazon tax, yet this is clearly not the case. It is a blunt instrument that will substantially increase taxes on all properties with a rateable value above £500,000. As such, it risks harming the very businesses it is purportedly designed to help, such as anchor stores and other retail, hospitality and leisure facilities fundamental to the high street.

There is a second concern that we have already raised: the cliff-edge nature of these proposals. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have done some very basic analysis of this. For example, a retail, hospitality or leisure business with a rateable value of just under £500,000 would today pay rates of around £175,000, assuming a 0.2 discount and a multiplier of 0.55, whereas if it were to make a small investment and tip over that threshold, it would pay £320,000. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I allow for a little approximation in those numbers. There are plenty of examples of this. For instance, locally to me in Bedfordshire, Luton Hoo, which is currently looking at some investment, has a rateable value of £490,000. Will that investment go ahead, knowing the additional costs? Even more locally—as Members are aware, I am a councillor and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire—near my own ward, a garden centre in Toddington faces the same issue. Again, I am aware that it is looking at some investments.

We have also touched on the impact of future revaluations. The Minister has been keen to point out that this will impact fewer than 1% of properties and only 3,100 retail outlets. He said that he wants to be clear and transparent, so can he tell us how many additional properties will be above the £500,000 threshold after the next revaluation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers specifically to the idea of a commercial landowner levy as a proposed tax reform to replace the business rates system. I support the sentiment of requiring government to consider genuine reform, rather than the lack of change that the Bill provides. I do not agree with the specific reform proposed by the noble Lord, but I acknowledge the need to adapt the system to ensure that online businesses that operate from out-of-town warehouses pay a fair, proportionate share of business rates. Given that the Bill has been brought forth, it seems reasonable to assume that the Government have delayed any plans they had to reform the system, which will damage businesses up and down the high street. They promised lower business rates but are reducing the relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, sending an incoherent message to our high streets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 seeks to require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the measures in the Bill, once passed, on broader non-domestic rating policy and to set out what potential changes may be required and/or what alternative approaches to non-domestic rating have been considered. The Government are committed to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government commenced that journey at the 2024 Budget, when we announced our intention to permanently—I say that again: permanently—introduce lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, as well as a higher rate on properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above to ensure that the permanent tax cut is sustainably funded.

At the Budget, the Government also published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, setting out priority areas for business rates reform and inviting stakeholders to have a conversation with the Government on this matter over the course of this Parliament. The areas of interest for further reform as set out in the paper include: incentivising investment and growth, considering the frequency of revaluations and ensuring that the system is transformed to make it fit for the modern 21st century economy. The paper also focuses on tackling avoidance and evasion; for example, through the Government’s intention to publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.

I am delighted to say that those conversations with stakeholders on priority areas for reform have commenced and are ongoing. I thank all those stakeholders who have been in contact to offer their valuable insights and experience of non-domestic rating. Furthermore, on 17 February, the Government published the Business Rates: Forward Look policy note, which provides an update on key milestones for the Government’s overall business rates reform agenda. As set out in that note, we are reflecting on engagement undertaken so far and the views expressed as part of that process. It also sets out that we anticipate further stakeholder engagement on specific reform options ahead of the Autumn Budget, when final decisions will be set out.

I am aware that there is support from Liberal Democrat noble Lords and Members of Parliament for the replacement of business rates with a commercial landowner levy. What is important to the Government is that we have a tax that works. It is not the first time that this House has heard suggestions for a tax on land values or a levy on landowners: it was as common a debate in the last century as in this one. What all those debates show is great uncertainty and a lack of evidence of the benefits: any benefits to the high street would be far from certain. We are clear on the need for reform but, to minimise disruption for businesses, the Government will make improvements to the existing system over the course of this Parliament.

Before I conclude, let me address the points that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised on investment. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific examples of live non-domestic rating bills but, as part of the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, we will look at the effectiveness of the improvement relief scheme, which helps businesses that invest in their property. I look forward to our engagement, post Committee, in more detailed conversations. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. I agree that the system is broken and we are trying to fix it. It cannot go on year after year on an ad hoc basis. We need certainty and sustainability so that people can have a clear and fair system. As we said in our manifesto, we will continue to support leisure, hospitality and retail, and those above £500,000 rateable value—fewer than 1% of properties—will contribute to make sure that our system is fair and balanced.

I hope I have provided reassurance as to the seriousness with which the Government are approaching our stated task of reforming the business rates system, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is not me.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I deputise? Before I do, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. In moving Amendment 3, I shall speak to Amendments 18, 37 and 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, and in favour of Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

Amendment 3 seeks to introduce discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier. The other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott—Amendments 18, 37 and 43—question whether the Treasury is the right authority to define these hereditaments. The purpose of these amendments is to seek the Government’s reaction to the proposal that local authorities should have a role in deciding which businesses pay the newer, higher multiplier. Local authorities are in a unique position to comprehensively understand the challenges and circumstances faced by their local businesses, which a centralised body certainly is not.

For all its strengths, we know that His Majesty’s Treasury does not have the local knowledge and in-depth understanding of the needs of individual high streets to make informed decisions on business rates that work in the best interests of the local areas. Local authorities are on the ground and are intimately familiar with the economic, social and cultural landscape of their high streets and areas. From my own experience in Central Bedfordshire, I know the positive impact that a well-run local authority can deliver for its high streets. We are interested to hear how the Government seek to empower councils in these areas. We have heard a great deal from the party opposite about the value of devolution; this is a good example of where the Government should put these sentiments into action. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott look to empower local authorities to tailor policy to best suit their local area’s specific needs.

Fundamentally, policy is about not only implementing rules but creating a framework that works in practice. Therefore, it is essential, even if the Government are unable to accept the amendments in this group, that local authorities are consulted properly before the Bill is passed. Can the Minister set out the consultation process undertaken to date and confirm for the Committee the further steps that his department will take to consult local authority leaders on these changes? Can he also update the Committee on how this change to our business rates system will interact with the Government’s wider plans to reorganise local authorities? We know that the environments in which businesses operate vary dramatically throughout the UK. However, this issue is neglected in the drafting of this legislation.

It is concerning that the broad applications of the definitions of hereditaments, which will be determined by the Treasury, will not address these regional disparities and enable a focus on what works locally. When created by the Treasury, definitions are designed with an overarching and national perspective and may risk creating unintended consequences for local businesses. They do not account for the nuances of local businesses, which are well understood by local authorities, so we must be cautious about adopting a one-size-fits-all approach when introducing legislation that will undoubtedly have significant implications for local businesses. The Government risk implementing blanket definitions that are disconnected from the realities faced locally.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which seeks to remove the power of the Treasury to define a retail, hospitality and leisure property; this addresses the fact that it is local authorities who decide what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property, in line with the government guidance. In tabling this amendment, the noble Lord appears to have many of the same concerns as those expressed in my noble friend Lady Scott’s amendments. I look forward to hearing his speech. We did not discuss this matter before Committee so I was pleased to see on the Marshalled List that I have a friend on this issue on the Cross Benches; I thank and offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and hope that we can work together constructively after Committee.

To conclude, I hope that all noble Lords will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group of amendments. I look to the Minister to engage proactively with the issues addressed in this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has taken the words out of my mouth. I support much of what he has said.

The starting place for my comments on this group is that the Bill seems to reverse the attempts to regionalise power from the centre; it would take the ability to define these hereditaments back to central government. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said clearly, the definition of RHL properties needs local expertise. There are regional disparities, to which he referred; it is terribly important to understand that. Regional disparities are huge. This measure is a generic product, but it is subject to huge regional variations. One size does not fit all hereditaments. That is an important starting place. It is no accident that the government guidelines allow local authorities to define RHL in accordance with the existing government guidance. That is very sensible. They are the people on the ground. They understand the give and take, as well as the commercial flows, involved.

A large supermarket on a high street may be the only anchor present in that town, being vital to the health of the high street, probably with a car park or a bus stop, and the only source of sufficient turnover of pedestrians to justify its presence in the high street at all. It has to be understood that, if these anchors pack up and leave, high streets really do suffer. There is a terrible price to pay for letting them go and anything that imperils their presence has to be terribly carefully decided, which is why it is a local issue, not a central government one. I strongly urge the Government to allow local authorities to continue to make these decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to our debate on this group of amendments, which deals with the role of billing authorities and the definition of hereditaments.

During the debate, I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whom I thank for his support in raising yet again the impact on anchor stores on the high street, which is quite fundamental. I fully support the sentiment of Amendment 32 in his name. It seems plainly obvious that we are closely aligned; I hope that we can work collaboratively before and during Report and that the Minister will both listen to this argument carefully and see what can be done to improve the Bill’s provisions on the definition of hereditaments.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support for discretion. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was concerned that it may mean somewhat less funding for councils in the north of England. That is absolutely not the intention; I would be delighted to look at this matter further and have a conversation outside this Room.

The Minister made a couple of points about certainty. All businesses like certainty but they also want equity. Our concern is about equity and what is reasonable and fair. I was slightly puzzled by what the Minister said—I would be grateful if we could have a conversation on it later—about this idea of “centrally set but locally implemented”. That does not feel like local discretion; it feels like local implementation. I would be keen if he could speak more on that point.

Finally, local authorities have the ability for some local discretion. However, my understanding is that that would be funded locally, which is not particularly desirable.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is saying “Let’s have some conversations to follow this up”. As I have said to all here, I am happy to sit down with any noble Lord or noble Baroness to discuss any point, in particular post Committee, before we get to Report. I would absolutely welcome a conversation with the noble Lord.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister.

We must steer away from blanket definitions issued centrally by the Treasury, which does not have the thorough oversight of local businesses in all parts of the UK. Local authorities have a particular understanding of the business landscape in their areas, so while the definition of hereditaments introduced by the Treasury may work in some places, it will not work everywhere or be appropriate to others. This can be avoided if local authorities are issued with a power to determine a hereditament or other type of property.

As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, rightly pointed out in his Amendment 32, local authorities already determine what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property. We must therefore ask why the drafting of this legislation provides complete power to the Treasury to define a retail property or a hereditament. Would it not be more suitable for local authorities to define property types? I would argue that, with their first-hand local knowledge, local authorities are best placed to define terms in a way that reflects the realities and suits the needs of their local areas.

Unsurprisingly, many questions have been raised in the debate on this group of amendments, so I look forward to the Minister—I thank him for his willingness to engage with us—providing more clarity on the matters discussed. I hope we will engage positively on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

There are ways of targeting so that we exclude properties that I presume we do not want to target; perhaps some do, but we on this side certainly do not. We do not want hospitals to have an additional bill to pay when they are already struggling to make ends meet. All this will do is extend waiting lists. If hospitals are having to pay even more for their business rates, folk will wait longer for their essential hip replacements. The Minister said that this measure was going to be fair and sustainable but I bet that, if you asked a hospital trust board whether this will be fair and sustainable, it would say no. I need to hear from the Minister why this Government want to impose—albeit as an unintended consequence of this rough and ready Bill—further costs on our NHS hospitals when we know that they are already struggling financially. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving this amendment and outlining the unintended consequences of this Bill. The proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier is an issue that has sparked considerable debate in the wider community.

The amendments in this group propose two key changes: to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier; and to expand the definition of healthcare to include hospitals and medical and dental schools. These changes seek to address the concern that critical services in the healthcare sector could be disproportionately affected by the Bill’s provisions. These amendments address very real concerns that services could be disproportionately affected through this legislation, revealing further unintended consequences of this Government’s Bill.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it seeks to remove healthcare from the higher multiplier, directly responding to concerns raised by hospitals and other healthcare providers that are already under significant financial strain. Exempting healthcare from this additional tax burden could protect vital services, ensuring that they can continue delivering essential care without being further impacted by this Bill’s provisions. The National Pharmacy Association has warned that pharmacies across the country are at risk and may be forced to cut hours because of the Government’s triple whammy of increased business costs this April. It cannot be right that access to healthcare is threatened by the Government’s appalling tax policies. Will the Minister give the Committee a commitment today that the Government will change course on their tax policies if it is proven that access to healthcare will be reduced as a result of their policy?

Amendments 20 and 23 seek to clarify and broaden the definition of healthcare, ensuring that medical and dental schools are included in these protections. Given the importance of these institutions in training future healthcare professionals, it is worth considering whether their exclusion from such protections could affect the quality and sustainability of the healthcare workforce—particularly at a time when the sector is facing increasing demand. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will safeguard the future of our healthcare workforce in the light of these concerns.

Finally, Amendment 39 repeats the proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier, reinforcing the argument that this sector should not bear the weight of a tax system that may further stretch its already-limited resources.

I would like to touch on the cliff-edge nature of the £500,000 threshold; this has been mentioned in previous debates by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lady Scott. A local health facility might want to add one consulting room. If that pushes it over the £500,000 threshold, it may no longer be affordable. We need to think carefully about the cliff-edge nature of this measure; I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some additional thought on it and come back to us.

In conclusion, these amendments ask important questions about the impact of this Bill on healthcare sectors. Although the Bill seeks reform, we must ensure that essential services are not disproportionately affected by the higher multiplier or excluded from necessary protections. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has brought forward a compelling case for the need to reconsider the treatment of healthcare in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the Government plan to address these concerns and ensure that vital healthcare services are not unduly burdened; I look forward to his response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. In the previous debate on the amendments in group 4, just a few moments ago, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. Of course, the same considerations apply here. This Government fully support the healthcare sector, but it would not be fair to exclude some and not others. To sustainably fund the lower multipliers, we must ensure that we can raise money from higher multipliers; the only fair way to do this is to apply it to all hereditaments at £500,000 and above.

As I said in the debate on the previous group, it is important to look at the facts. The Valuation Office Agency’s statistics show that, of the 16,780 properties caught by the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health subsector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 and we do not have separate data on medical or dental schools. The impact on this sector is therefore limited and, where it applies, much of it falls on the NHS. The Autumn Budget fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review, which will deliver new mission-led, technology-enabled and reform-driven budgets for departments. We will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments in the round, including any impact of the higher multiplier, when setting these budgets.

On the questions about the Bill creating more cliff edges in the system, the new higher-rate multiplier will apply to properties above £500,000, which will fund and support the high street in a sustainable way. However, the discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget highlights that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the system may disincentivise expansion. It committed to explore options for reform. The Government have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform, and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform. That is open until 31 March 2025.

On the specific question about examples of properties that the noble Baroness mentioned, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the rate bills of specific ratepayers, especially as one of them is a domestic property. To conclude, set in the context of these facts and assurances of how we will approach the issue in the spending review, I hope the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

That element is missing in our debate: town centres provide vital places for people to go and meet other people. Those of us fortunate enough to come to this place meet a lot of people, but some people are lonely. The one place where they can get out to meet folk is in their local village or town centre. That is why it is vital that Amendment 51 is accepted by the Minister as a simple application of the NPPF to the Bill, to safeguard the whole health of a town centre because of its inherent value to not just businesses but the community they serve. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, all of which address the lack of detail provided by the Government on their intentions with this Bill.

Amendments 16, 34 and 42 probe what types of hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure. I am inclined to assume that the definition will remain the same as that which we used to define the requirements for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, and these are indeed the criteria listed in the noble Baroness’s amendments.

These may be unnecessary amendments, given that eligibility for retail, hospitality and leisure relief is already set out in the Government’s guidance for the scheme. However, we discussed our concerns about the power of the Treasury to define this in an earlier group. Crucially, businesses that are already worried about this Government’s plans need certainty and to be able to plan for the future. The Minister said that they need certainty; would not putting a clear definition in the Bill be a good way of delivering that? I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response, as we are likely to return to this part of the Bill on Report.

Amendment 51 seeks to probe the intended application of the Bill in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework. I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s confusion because, in the Labour manifesto, the Government promised reform of the business rates system and explained that such reform would include a larger burden on online businesses that operate from out-of-town distribution warehouses. Contrary to those statements, the Bill will actually have negative consequences on the high street. The noble Baroness is right to question whether the Government intended the higher multiplier to affect the high street in the way it will or whether, despite knowing what the impact would be, they chose to proceed anyway. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that there will be further clarity from him on the application of the Bill.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I rise quickly to support Amendments 16, 34 and 42 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to reiterate my point about clarity for businesses. Businesses want to plan two or three years ahead but cannot. We have a limbo at the moment for about 18 months to two years, and this Bill leaves us in that position. I ask the Minister to go back to the Government and ask for some clarification—that is, some sorts of figures so that businesses can plan for the future.

Solar Panels

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important question for all the growth that we are predicting for our country. My colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working very closely with the national grid to improve grid capacity; it will be essential to have that going forward. We need to make sure that that is the case, both to drive the growth that we want to see, because energy is vital to that, and to keep our energy security for the country the way we want it as we grow the economy.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, there is currently a potential conflict between the Government’s desire to ensure all rental homes have a minimum EPC energy efficiency rating of C and planning restrictions for buildings that are either listed or in a conservation zone. This is forcing many housing associations to look at selling many affected but much-needed affordable homes. What will the Government do to address this issue?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had issues around energy efficiency improvements to heritage and listed buildings. It is important to get the balance here right, though. Of course, we want to drive energy efficiency and we will be working with all the conservation associations, including Historic England, to look at what more we can do to drive energy efficiency as effectively as possible while still preserving the very important heritage aspects of the buildings in this country.