Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not taken part in any of the debates around independent schools in your Lordships’ House, and, for the record, I am entirely the product of the state education system in the east of Leeds. However, I have been prompted to get to my feet today on the back of the very sad news that was announced yesterday of the closure of Fulneck School, in Pudsey, Leeds. It was established in 1753, during the reign of King George II, and will now close its doors for the final time in July.

Fulneck, for those who do not know, is famous for educating, among others, the great Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith and the late great Dame Diana Rigg—otherwise known to some as Mrs Peel—along with a very close friend of mine, who was absolutely devastated to hear the news this morning. Fulneck is part of a Moravian settlement in Pudsey, which includes a grade 1 listed church and many other listed buildings. It is a unique part of the heritage of Leeds and the broader West Riding of Yorkshire, a large part of which will now be lost for ever.

I will not argue that the imposition of VAT is the only reason for the closure of the school; in fact, the school’s own statement refers to problems of falling numbers in recent years. However, the statement points to significantly rising administrative costs. Surely the broader point here is that, for a large number of small, independent schools across the country that have been struggling to keep their heads above water in recent years, the imposition of VAT and increases in employer national insurance are policies that will sink them.

As a result of the closure, 300 or so students will now have to be educated elsewhere within the locality; most, presumably, will have to find places within the state sector. I note that the school lies within the parliamentary constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, which is represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I support my noble friend.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register.

I have spoken in Committee and on Report about the damage that retaining Clause 5 will do to the sporting success of many talented young people in the UK who gained admission to independent schools from the state sector through sports bursaries and scholarships. The reason for this was that, in response to parental demand, many independent schools have invested in state-of-the-art sports facilities, top-level coaches, and the sports psychologists, nutritionists, physios and support staff whose presence in many of our independent schools have delivered success at international and national level, while offering those facilities, out of hours and during the holidays, to local communities through their dual-use policies.

The costs imposed by VAT on school fees, increased by higher national insurance contributions and now by business rates, means that to balance the books those schools which survive will have to reduce the many sports scholarships and bursaries currently available to talented young people. Talented young people from a wide range of backgrounds in the maintained sector would otherwise never have access to facilities and coaching expertise of this type.

To demonstrate the scale of the support, I previously drew the Minister’s attention to 14 athletes on Team GB at the Paris Olympic Games who came from Millfield School, 13 of whom came through its means-tested financial support mechanism. Those athletes brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal—four gold, three silver and one bronze. The career path for our talented athletes has provided opportunities for thousands of young sports men and women who could not afford to go to independent schools and benefit from their sporting facilities without the bursaries and scholarships on offer. At the Paris Olympics in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists had been given the chance to attend independent schools, many of whom had their fees paid in part or in whole through means-tested bursaries and scholarships.

The statistics prove the point. I would not be worried if facilities in the state sector were a substitute; that they are not is not a party-political point. Sports facilities at local authority level and state school level have been in decline for years. We had a magnificent Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. The regeneration of the East End of London was a resounding success, but we did not leave a sports legacy to London or to the country. Playing fields continue to be sold; public swimming pools are closed. Even Sport England has this month lost its statutory ability—which has had a great effect in keeping playing fields open—to appeal against the loss of sports facilities removed as part of the proposed planning reforms.

I see no evidence that these arguments were addressed in another place yesterday. By raising them today, I urge colleagues from across the House to vote for this amendment and protect the opportunities afforded to many of our aspiring young Olympians and Paralympians. I ask noble Lords not to deny those young people the same number of bursaries and scholarships that independent schools have been able to make over many years. I hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will bear these arguments in mind when they consider whether to vote to retain Clause 5 in its current form.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have not to date spoken on this Bill, but there are couple of matters which need to be aired regarding the history of charity. I am a director of a charity, and my daughter attends a private school—let us get those on the record.

The history of charity in this country goes back a very long way, with a particular flourishing during Elizabethan times. The charities of that era were often health related, certainly education related and often to do with hospice and almshouse care—of course, this Government have decided to raise a jobs tax on hospices, which we have been discussing this week. The concept of charity was founded very much on education.

Through the latter end of my illness, my wife would drive me home at weekends for home visits. We found all manner of routes through south-east London to avoid the worst of some of Mayor Khan’s blockages that have been created through London—it did not stop us from paying the ULEZ, of course. On one of the small roads, I came across a charity called the Portuguese speakers community centre. I thought, “Well, well, well, there is such a thing”. I am sure that it does the most amazing work. On most high streets, we see a variety of charities. Lots are to do with animal support—the PDSA, Cats Protection and all manner of other charities. They all do very good work. However, they were not envisaged as the charities of the day when the big flowering of charities came to pass in Elizabethan times, but education most certainly was.

So, for the first time in the history of this nation, we are deciding to have a two-tier charitable system. Whereas that charity route of old—education—is no longer deemed of charitable-worthy status, the Portuguese community centre, for instance, which I am sure does good work, is. It is a strange day that we pass through with this legislation—it is a very sad day. The amendments in Motion Q1 will at least give the Secretary of State pause for thought and an easy way out in the future. I almost guarantee that those thoughts on raising lots of revenue will never be realised. Schools will close and, because of the VAT increase, children will move to the state sector and be a cost to the state in their education. Let us note this day and heed what is being told to the Government: “You will rue this decision”.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I support all the amendments in this group, especially Amendment 25 from my noble friend Lord Lexden, who put his case so powerfully. It is shameful that the Government refuse to recognise the extraordinary role that independent schools play in the care of those with special educational needs. If, even at this late stage, they do not agree to the modest suggestions put forward by my noble friend, they will stand charged with putting the interests of party dogma ahead of the needs of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I declare my interest as chairman of governors at Brentwood School, president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and Institute of Boarding, and, for this group, chairman of the Royal College of Music.

When I spoke in Committee on the issue of gifted arts students, I made one simple point: in an economy that is flatlining, the creative economy is one of the few areas of sustained economic growth with unlimited potential to expand even further. It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs, is part of a huge export market and contributes billions in revenue. We should nurture it, not attack it. Music, as well as being a huge British success story in its own right, powers it by supporting so much of its rich tapestry, including film, television, computer games, drama, advertising and so on. In turn, its future depends absolutely on first-class music education in schools, conservatoires and universities, providing a pipeline of talent into the sector. Without that continuing education, and new musicians and new teachers entering the profession, music dies. It is as simple as that: no pipeline, no music.

But music education—where it all starts—is in real crisis. I acknowledge that this began under the last Government, but we have yet to see any signs of change, despite the new Government having been in office nearly 10 months. From primary schools right the way through to the end of full-time education, music remains under threat as never before.

With music education already in such crisis, why on earth would the Government want to make matters even worse by jeopardising the very real achievement of specialist music, dance, choral and drama teaching in independent schools? The amendment from my noble friend reflects the success and importance of the Music and Dance Scheme schools and their unique contribution, and that of our leading choir schools, to artistic life in this country. Nearly 1,500 pupils—the stars of tomorrow—receive means-tested bursary support to attend renowned specialist performing arts schools which are the envy of the world. Their position is already under threat because most parents are now charged VAT on their fee contributions, with only a small number receiving increased funding to offset it. That is bad enough, and we should not pour fuel on the fire.

This amendment is based on a proposition that is very simple for even the most dogmatic of minds to understand. The future of these schools, which are already facing such pressure, and their continuing ability to provide world-class teaching can be made more secure if they are protected from full business rates. The Government say that their entire agenda is focused on growth, yet here we have a policy that is absolutely anti-growth. Even on the number one item on their agenda for this Parliament, their opposition to independent education is so all-consuming that they are prepared to jeopardise it on the altar of ideology. I hope that even now the Government will see the strength of these arguments and accept my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 27 and 29 in my name, and I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response to my amendments in Committee, our subsequent conversation and the clear personal priority that he attaches to sport, particularly for disadvantaged communities, and the way it can bring them hope and opportunity in life.

There was a time when this Chamber had many contributors to any debate that impacted the world of sports policy. One notable absentee, who retired from the House three years ago, is my noble friend Lord Coe, and I am sure that the whole House will want to take this opportunity to wish him well as he seeks election on Thursday to become the first British president of the International Olympic Committee.

I made my case for these amendments in Committee. Both amendments highlight the lifeline received by many of our top sports men and women who have benefited from the sports bursaries and scholarship policies of independent schools. Today I also make the case for the widespread community use of the many outstanding sports facilities of independent schools, the expertise of their coaches, their support staff and the groundsmen and groundswomen who coach and support their pupils and offer their facilities and services to local communities through dual-use campaigns. Amendments 27 and 29 would provide protection for schools where 10% or more of students receive sports scholarships or bursaries and separately would discount all sports facilities from schools’ business rates.

These proposals reflect the commitment of independent schools to spreading opportunities in sport through fee assistance schemes and public benefit partnerships, including sharing facilities and coaching staff. Sporting opportunities are a key focus for some independent schools, and sports awards form part of the £1 billion in fee assistance delivered by independent schools in the last academic year. What is really important is that more than half the money is means tested, ensuring that support is targeted where it is most helpful, yet the imposition of VAT and the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are now compounded by the proposed imposition of business rates. Schools will inevitably have to cut back to balance their budgets, and the casualties will be the opportunities for sport and recreational activity for many dual-use local community clubs after school hours.

In moving the first of my two amendments, I drew the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to elite sport as well. At the Olympic Games in Paris last year, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Rio in 2016, it was 31%. At London 2012, it was 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians and Paralympians are more than four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall because of the bursary and scholarship policies on offer.

Let me give the specific example of Millfield, which delivered 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games, who between them brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets? Where will the scholarships and bursaries be paid from?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

67: Clause 5, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
“(5A) An institution is not to be considered a private school for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) if 10% of students are in receipt of bursaries or scholarships for sporting excellence.”

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 67 I will also speak to Amendment 69 in my name. Both highlight the importance to this country of the contribution made by the sports facilities of independent schools and the expertise of their coaches, support staff, groundsmen and groundswomen in the independent sector. Both amendments seek to find ways of protecting and promoting opportunities for young people in sport. Both reflect the deeply damaging effect that the combination of the imposition of VAT and rates, and the increase in national insurance contributions, will have on the future success of British sport at all levels.

I declare my interests in sport, which are set out in the register. I will today draw on my time as a former Minister for Sport, chair of the British Olympic Association during London 2012 and, more recently, my three years as chair of governors at Haberdashers’ Monmouth School and now as sports ambassador for that school, which is in support of the outstanding leadership work undertaken by the great Welsh rugby international, Richie Rees, director of the Haberdashers’ Monmouth School sports academy, who pilots the school’s successful sports programme.

In speaking to these amendments, I contend that the Government should encourage state school sport wherever possible and do everything they can to encourage the independent sector to promote opportunities for sport in its schools, and, most importantly, for school sport with the local clubs and communities that use their facilities. The strength that these programmes generate at the base of the pyramid is what, at its apex, delivers our world-class, leading sportsmen and sportswomen. I appreciate that in doing so, I need to justify the importance of sport in schools. That is not difficult. We live in a time of growing obesity. School sport promotes physical health improvements, develops social skills, encourages teamwork and is central to learning how to win and how to manage losing. Sport boosts self-esteem and confidence; it teaches discipline and resilience; it is a major mitigating factor against absenteeism in schools; it promotes optimism, generates pride and positively impacts on academic performance by enhancing focus and concentration.

The phrase “Mens sana in corpore sano” is as relevant today as it was when Juvenal wrote it. Our young people should be encouraged to be not only physically fit and well but mentally sound and balanced, and sport provides the framework for a healthy mind in a healthy body. It teaches resilience, yet the state sector in this country lags close to the bottom of the global league for engagement in sport, adequately trained PE teachers and sports facilities, many of which have aged beyond their life expectancy. This is not a party- political point; a steady decline applies to all Governments over the past 20 years. Local authorities have consistently fallen behind in the provision of, for example, swimming pools, sports facilities and open spaces. Sports is a discretionary line item spend in local authorities and, inevitably, has taken the first hit in budget savings.

I emphasise to the Committee that the independent sector needs government support, not state-imposed business rates as in Clause 5. I draw the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to sport. At the Olympic Games in Paris in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Rio in 2016, it was 31% and, in London in 2012, 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians are over four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall. For me—and, I am sure, for the Minister—the tragedy behind those figures is the reality that there are so many talented young people in our state schools who are capable of representing this country at national and international level, but whose talent in never recognised nor developed, who have no access to sports facilities and good coaching and who miss the opportunities that every country from New Zealand to Poland, from France to Germany and from China to the US provides.

As my friend the Minister—he is a friend in sport—knows, in Burnley, the provision of and opportunities for sports takes young kids off the escalator to crime. It is relevant to the work of every department of state, from prison management to foreign policy, from health to education. Yet a majority of state pupils aged 14 to 16 —over 50%—are now doing only an hour of sport a week in school. The figure is worse still if you take into account the time it takes for many pupils to reach the lesson and get changed. A third of our children cannot swim. British school sport is in crisis.

Sadly, this is not a growth section of the Bill, but another example of where we drive yet another nail into the delivery of sport in independent schools. The reason that is so important is that independent schools have, rightly, had to make sure that their facilities are open to local communities and that the local population can come to use those facilities in their catchment areas. For all the independent schools now faced with the costs of VAT and rates, they will have to cut costs and reduce sports bursaries and scholarships to meet the savings demanded by government.

This will negatively impact on the delivery of sport in the UK. It will have a major impact on our sporting success, not just in terms of medals and national representation, but in the development of sports coaches, pupils and support staff who move out into the community—into the fields of participation—and on the development of excellence in a sector that has seen a steady decline in participation and growing obesity in society. To level the playing field more resources must be invested, both in state schools and though support for the work that independent schools do with communities. The solution is not to jeopardise the success of our young, up-and-coming students who benefit from sport and facilities in the independent sector.

We must reflect on the fact that many children are failing to meet the UK Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines for sport and physical activity. It is recommended that children participate in an average of 60 minutes of sport and activity every day, either in school or outside, but 50% of them are missing the target, while 29.6% are not even averaging 30 minutes of activity per day. The total hours of PE taught in English state schools annually has dropped by 41,000 hours since the 2012 Olympics—a decrease of 12%. There has been a 7% reduction in PE teachers in England in the same period.

This Bill will, I contend, worsen the situation since support for sport bursaries, free access for local communities to many independent schools’ sports facilities and the dual use of such facilities will have to be cut in order to balance the books after the imposition of Clause 5 and VAT on school fees. This will impact all independent schools.

Let me give the Minister the well-known example of Millfield School, which delivered 13 out of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 out of 14 of the Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games who brought home between them seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets?

It would be fine if, when we looked at the country as a whole, the Government could stand up and say, “Don’t worry, the state sector is doing fantastically well in the provision of school sport”. Sadly, the reality is that that is not the case. As I say, this is not a party-political point. It is a tragedy that more than half of children aged between 16 and 18 are now estimated to be doing no school sport. Swimming is in crisis. Last year, Sport England found that 30% of children cannot swim 25 metres unaided when they leave primary school, a 7% increase on 2017-18. More than 400 public swimming pools have closed since 2010. One-third of primary schools now deliver 10 or fewer swimming lessons to pupils before they leave. The many children who have accessed independent school facilities, at the cost of those independent schools, will now find that those independent schools have to make significant savings. I agree with Sir Keir Starmer, who bemoaned that children were being locked out of emulating their heroes last year due to the lack of PE provision. The dual use of independent schools’ sports facilities is critical to addressing that issue but it is under threat, which will make matters worse.

People who are not physically active as children are, in turn, far less likely to be active in later life. The crisis in school sport is contributing to the long-term obesity epidemic. By the age of 11, 22% of children are already obese, which increases to 26% among adults. This measure, coupled with VAT on school fees, will make the outcome worse. Inactive children become inactive adults, who then become inactive parents. We need to reset children’s lifestyles if we want to change the nation’s health. If we did that, we would save far more than the VAT, rates and national insurance contributions proposed by the Government. This is not a problem that has emerged over the past six months; I fully recognise that. The London Olympic Games saw an unprecedented urban regeneration legacy in the East End of London and a great Paralympic Games, but it saw little to no sports legacy, which I have consistently argued for both inside and outside the House.

These two amendments seek to stem the tide of dual use in independent schools and to move away from that tide going out by increasingly looking to a solution that ensures that we can protect and support school sport in independent schools, especially where it reaches out to local communities, local clubs and state schools, which come in to use those facilities. The Government are telling all independent schools to cut costs, make savings, and put up fees to balance their books. Would the Minister be prepared either to sit down and think through finding a way of supporting British sporting success by accepting one of these amendments or to take them away to see what can be done to support British success in sport in independent schools and, through dual use, in communities that desperately need to rely on such schools for the use of their facilities in future and that reach out, as many independent schools have had to do, to the benefit of young children in the community who simply do not have access to sports facilities except in independent schools?

Dual use has been a magnificent development in independent schools over the past 10 to 20 years. It is now firmly embedded, but it is under threat because it is so costly for schools to continue to have that dual use, free in many cases. I was recently at Tonbridge School and noticed that it has a new running track put down every four years. The reason it is every four years is because it has double the number of people using it because the local community come to use it. Now, it says it may have to make savings by resetting it every eight years and reducing the number of people who use it.

If we took one of these amendments or worked hard together to resolve examples like this, it would be to the benefit of sport in this country, in the independent sector and, just as importantly, in the state sector as well. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to have an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I congratulate him on his love of and belief in cricket. I must say that one of the great heroes of Burnley, the noble Lord’s hometown, is Jimmy Anderson, and he, at his best, would have been very useful yesterday, when we were getting beaten by Afghanistan. He was no doubt inspired by Jimmy Anderson. Just for the record, the Minister very kindly mentioned the silver medal I got, but, although I may be looking old, I actually got it eight years later—not in Munich but in Moscow. It takes its toll, this place, after 20 years. I wish him well with Burnley’s promotion prospects. He is sitting alongside a very fine, assiduous Whip, who has heard quite a lot of football in the last couple of months. I wish him well but please, go easy on Leeds, because that is my club and we want to make sure that we get there first.

On a serious note, I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the importance of public benefit and charitable status and that he is seeking to continue to expect that to be delivered by independent schools. It is incredibly difficult for independent schools that now face up to 25%, if you put together the VAT, the cost of national insurance and the impact of this Bill. It would be difficult if you were to slap 25% on the costs of any business. Many parents find it exceptionally difficult to pay the fees to go to an independent school and get the benefit. It is difficult for the Government to turn around and say, “We are going to increase those fees by 25% by state diktat”, and still expect schools to do everything they are doing with the local community, at their cost. So, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will have a conversation, take this away and just see if there is something we can do, particularly where independent schools work effectively with local communities and provide opportunities for local children to use the facilities and often benefit from coaching expertise. We need to continue to support that and it is very difficult to see how we can support it at the moment, when around 25%, on average, will be lost to the balance sheet of those schools.

I look forward to meeting the Minister on that subject but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, today’s Committee consideration is about fees, not about the merits of permitted development rights. It is about whether local authorities receive an income commensurate with the need to encourage and ensure that the relevant properties are developed. On the basis of the evidence of the consultation exercise undertaken, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance, although I note that there may be dissenting voices, particularly to the effect that £96 might be too low a figure for a local authority to provide this service.

As the Minister said, these draft regulations will allow councils to collect fees for prior approval applications in relation to new permitted development rights, allowing class E commercial to residential conversions, the addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings and, most significantly, for PDRs related to universities. I had expected the principal concern to be whether the £96 for universities fully reflects the possible developments, which could be considerably more complex and far-reaching than the limited addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking on this and the basis of the charge for universities for prior approval for a university building.

Of course, these regulations are part of the changes to local plan-making and methods of making developers and houseowners contribute to the infrastructure that supports their schemes, and can thus be seen in the context of the forthcoming planning Bill. The question whether these are reasonable sums to cover the proper resource for local authorities and planning departments has been well made and answered by my noble friend the Minister.

Permitted development rights since 2013 have had far-reaching benefits. Costs should naturally fall on the owner or developer, not the council tax payer. It is right that these categories of development should not have to go through the whole planning application system, and I only wish that, when I was Planning Minister, PDRs had been a key tool in the planning system armoury at that time.

The new planning Bill is intended to ensure that local plans provide more certainty over the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land, and will no doubt have an impact on the charges made here. Fee structures will no doubt need to be further reviewed as part of the changes to planning policy. However, I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that these charges do not impact on or change local planning oversight and local authority responsibilities and powers as applicable to PD rights. For example, can he confirm for the record that the powers that local authorities retain to intervene about the aspect of the building, the effect on traffic, flooding and impact over, for example, an aerodrome within two kilometres—to name but a few—remain untouched by this measure? The rights to intervene are critical, not least in town centres, and with these rights continuing in place I hope the Committee will join my noble friend the Minister and approve these regulations.

Finally, on a related yet—I totally appreciate—separate issue, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could also update the Committee on the Government’s intention to introduce map-based and interactive local plans based on data standards and digital principles. At the start of this month, the Government announced funding of £1.1 million for a pathfinder programme involving 10 local authorities and council partnerships testing digital tools and data standards in a local plan preparation before more formal proposals are brought forward. I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide, although I fully appreciate that this question goes beyond the scope of the regulations before us, which I support. In this context, I would therefore be happy if the Minister could write to me on the subject.

Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I accept that leaseholders are victims and recognise the need to strengthen redress so that we can go after the people responsible for the shoddy workmanship. That is something we will bring through as we announce the building safety Bill shortly.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I would be grateful if my noble friend could update the House on any progress the Government have made to ensure that developers contribute to building safety remediation costs.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We believe that developers should contribute and make buildings safe without passing the costs on to leaseholders. There have been a variety of announcements by developers: Bellway has announced a cladding removal fund of £46.8 million, Persimmon one of £75 million and Taylor Wimpey has pledged £125 million. The Government have also announced a gateway levy on high-rises, as well as a developer tax that will raise £2 billion over 10 years.

Tower Blocks: Cladding

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have to be clear that the agreement is with the building owner and not with individual leaseholders. No leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of government funding for cladding remediation. Of course, where building owners voluntarily decide to carry out works at the same time, we need assurances from them that this can be covered.

[Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]]

My Lords, had there been any engagement with Ballymore at official or ministerial level regarding the remediation of the ACM cladding prior to the fire at New Providence Wharf, given the vital importance of interaction between government and the housing sector on the urgent measures which require funding and implementation?

Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, on the face of it, the regulations before the Committee are as simple as they come. However, my noble friend the Minister will recall from his previous encounter, over business rates relief for sport and charities, with me and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who will of course be opening the bowling for the Liberal Democrats, that what appears to be the simplest of balls can lead to a Minister being nutmegged at the crease. While we hope that that will not happen today, I intend to press the Minister on a few key issues relating to these fees. I thank the Energy Saving Trust and all those who have offered advice on this issue.

I also draw on my experience as a resident in Ayrshire, Scotland. For while, as my noble friend the Minister has said, Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by the draft regulations, I believe there are important read-across policy implications which are pursued in Scotland and which the Committee may reflect on in the context of these regulations.

As the Minister has said, this is a straightforward SI relating to the statutory fees charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates—EPCs—display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for England and Wales. Fees, as he confirmed, are applied to the two classes of data registration, covering domestic and non-domestic properties. There are significant benefits in having the energy performance certificate register and the service it provides, including readily available access to information and data. I strongly support any initiative that provides easy-to-access information and data on the land and built environment at cost.

However, there are likely to be considerable changes to building regulations. It is important that these changes are provided as far in advance as possible, so that contracts can also be amended as far in advance of any proposed changes. This would improve the lodgement process and minimise the requirement for the Minister to return to this Committee in future years over fees. Would it also be possible for government to consider sending registered EPCs by email rather than having to log into a labyrinthine database to retrieve them, as this can be inadequate and time-consuming? If so, this would provide value for the money spent. We need constantly to review and improve the system to which these fees apply.

Policies could be implemented in England that have made a real difference in Scotland and, indeed, Wales, such as the existence of a focused, directly funded scheme for installing energy efficiency measures and efficient heating for fuel-poor homeowners and private renters. I remain convinced, as I have previously proposed in the House, that this policy would be more efficiently delivered centrally. That said, in the context of these regulations the question as to how frequently charges will be reviewed and revised is important, which brings me to certainty. This is important because it bears on the frequency of registering for EPCs for properties in England and Wales. Governments can offer two very important things for energy efficiency measures to work: money, of course, but also certainty.

To develop the supply chain and to unlock investment from the private sector, a defined and adhered to long-term policy framework is needed. The biggest issue when talking to the supply chain is always the chopping and changing of energy efficiency schemes. While the nature and detail of schemes matter, that they should not be changed frequently is almost as important as what those actual details are. The supply chain can adapt to and thrive on most variants of energy efficiency schemes; what it cannot deal with is uncertainty and discontinuity.

Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales have long-term energy efficiency policies and programmes. In this vein, one of the key components of a stable policy environment is to make energy efficiency, particularly domestic energy efficiency, an infrastructure priority. The Scottish Government have done this and reaped the benefits.

Although individual energy efficiency installations are obviously relatively small in scale, the energy efficiency of buildings is a key parameter in the overall efficiency and productivity of the economy, and the aggregate costs and benefits are of major infrastructure scale. Raising domestic energy efficiency to EPC rating C would generate 150,000 jobs, have a budget of the same magnitude as HS2 and would save the energy equivalent of six Hinkley Points. It thus makes sense for energy efficiency to be an infrastructure priority, and once it is, this drives investment and policy certainty and sends key signals to the supply chain.

While I accept that a modest reduction in fees is now possible, I question whether the reduction is not exceeded by the duplication, time input, form changing and system adjustment for such a small change for domestic properties simply because the Government have invested in new cloud-based digital platforms and moved away from the fixed hardware model that has been in place, as my noble friend the Minister said, for the past 13 years.

A recent report by the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government have no plans to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law. That is what is stated in the report. The UK’s stock of 27 million houses includes some of the worst insulated and least energy-efficient homes in Europe. I share the views of Members of another place that I hope the Government will take the example of what is proposed in this related SI to move further with the agenda and deliver a big improvement in work to meet our climate change targets by making homes in the UK warm, dry and affordable to heat.

Should there not be some consideration of linking the fees to improvements in the future homes standards to be introduced in 2025, so that sellers can make a marketing point that there might be no charge where homes are at least 75% more carbon-efficient than when they were purchased? Correspondingly, would these charges not be an opportunity to charge more for those homeowners and businesses who fail to meet targets? They could effectively become a financial penalty and reward scheme. It would provide an opportunity for everyone concerned to have skin in the game, rather than the less efficient mechanism of being urged to take action by government. This would add further impetus to the sector.

With these suggestions now tabled, I hope my noble friend will present a defensive straight bat in response to what I appreciate may have been six difficult balls to defend. We know that he can do no more than play a defensive shot today—wild attempted sweeps to six would be a fatal error—since the last thing the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I want to do is to take the wicket of such an impressive and erudite Minister.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the subject of support for amateur sports clubs which I raised in Committee. I, too—I might as well clarify it now—do not expect to divide the House at the end of this debate. Of course, the Minister might just manage to inspire me by his answer, but that is not normally his style. Let us see if we can be consistent about that.

The reason why I am raising this again is that, although the Minister gave me some answers, I want a bit more detail and thought about how the Government are planning for the future of sports clubs and sport itself. The Government have accepted their importance by giving them some support throughout the lockdown period, but the problems sports clubs have will, as in all sectors, not stop the minute they get back. Actually, the minute we start activity again, problems will be exposed and identified. All of them can be accentuated by finance. Business rates are part of that. That is where it comes from, so let us see if we can get some idea of whether the Government are prepared to go across department and across thinking to make sure that they accept that this group is worth keeping on.

Why are sports clubs worth keeping on? It is quite simple: in this country we have a tradition of sports clubs running themselves and being set up without government support, often with the help of employers—indeed, employers have set up sports clubs which have survived when the employer has gone. We have a tradition of self-help which has provided the infrastructure for sport to take place. At amateur level, sport is dependent on that structure. These clubs and centres depend, for example, on their bars and on renting out rooms for other functions to keep themselves going. They are small businesses and act in the business environment even with charitable status. They have a consistent relationship of raising their own funds. How the Government are thinking slightly longer term to make sure they can carry on doing that is vital.

Let us not kid ourselves: there is a major problem coming through here. I do not know how enforced inactivity has at the moment encouraged people to retire early from a club; for instance, retiring at 32 as opposed to 35. There has been a break in activity. To take a classic example, you will not get fit as easily as you did and you have started doing something else, so you ask yourself whether you want to go through the pain and discomfort of getting back into shape. It is one of the first considerations. Also, perhaps people think they should spend more time with something else. It is when that interaction stops that people stop going. We all know that; anybody who has been involved in this knows it. I do not know how rugby union is going to handle it, having had probably the biggest break. It is probably the biggest example of this model. It will have to restructure. I do not know how, but it will be something to come back to. The Government have said they value these clubs and all the activity outside, education and structure. Clubs are going to have a problem structuring how they take on their activity and how that relates to funding.

Rates is part of that, so I will be looking to get from the Government today an idea of how they think this bit of government fits in. The idea of getting an initial review and then a continuing one is very important. Let us face it: I am not an expert on rates. Having attended a couple of meetings with my colleagues, I decided that I probably do not want to become one. This is a complicated, difficult thing. Something that has no intellectual friends is probably business rates. There is probably someone hiding in a cupboard in Whitehall who quite likes them, but that is about where they are. Can we have a look at how this local taxation affects sports clubs? How are the Government taking this on? Sports clubs are important. We are hearing about social interaction and mental health problems. Sport is a great medium for that. It is the social connection that goes through. It is physical connection and support, and something that is tied into so many other bits of government that it is not true. I hope that when the Minister answers this amendment he will give us an idea of how his department is taking a lead or feeding in on this, because it is one of the links in the chain. If this link is strong and healthy, the rest of that chain may just survive. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in sport as set out in the register. It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and support Amendment 2 in his name. During the passage of this Bill, the noble Lord and I have simply sought to point out that, at a critical time as we seek to emerge from Covid-19 in 2021, it is hoped that the Government will finally take the vital opportunity to initiate new policies. This includes the adoption of this new clause to give a new national impetus to sport, recreation and an active lifestyle, which was missed at the last opportunity created by the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Building Safety

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have spoken to lenders and there were positive statements by Barclays and the chief executive of Nationwide in the announcements. They welcomed this and recognised that the additional £3.5 billion helps to provide certainty, admittedly in high rises. The financing scheme remains open to all, both social sector and private sector leaseholders, to ensure that they would not have to pay more than £50 a month towards the remediation of unsafe cladding. In the round, the announcements we have made will give confidence to the market to be more sensible on valuation in future, I hope.

[Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this Statement is welcome as an important contribution to the absolute priority of safety in our housing stock and building back better. Will my noble friend consider expanding the remit of the building safety regulator to whom he has just referred to take into consideration the need to continue to upgrade the least efficient social housing stock, reduce carbon emissions and bills, tackle fuel poverty and save the budget to help 600,000 households reduce carbon emissions by subsidising the costs of energy efficiency? All these have an impact on safety.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising the issue of how we can ensure that we achieve our zero-carbon commitment. The building safety regulator has oversight of building control bodies and monitors their performance. We hope that oversight will improve the efficacy of building regulations across the board. I point out that climate change mitigation and adaptation are intrinsic components of building regulations and will remain so.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, but I also make clear that I support the intentions of both the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Addington will speak to his Amendment 7 shortly. Amendment 2, just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, sits four-square alongside our Amendment 5 and I am happy to add my support to the case that he has put forward.

I remind the Minister that the Government’s previous intention was to have the revaluation come into force this year. They had moved that forward from the original 2022 date because of the deteriorating situation of the high street retail sector and the very clear disconnect between outdated valuations and current purchase prices and letting rates. The most obviously outrageous example of that is, of course, the underpricing of out-of-town distribution centres and warehouses.

Covid-19 has changed the situation in two significant ways, the first of which the Government have responded to, but the other is the one I want to draw particular attention to and which Amendment 5 seeks to address. As it was unrealistic to carry out the necessary work on the ground to carry out valuations because of lockdown and infection control restrictions, the date of 1 April this year was set in place of 1 April last year.

That is one of the responses, but it does not take account of the other impact of Covid. There has been a huge acceleration in the existing trend of retail transferring from the high street to online. It is interesting, indeed compelling, that the Association of Convenience Stores, which has 35,000 local shops and forecourt sites in its membership, has reported that 42% of independent shops polled would have gone out of business already if it had not been for the Government’s business rate moratorium—that is the drastic impact on income for the physical retail sector. We can see from the business pages of any national newspaper that many high street names have closed down or downsized, or are being asset-stripped by hungry online operators buying up their brand. This is an acute crisis, but also a chronic one. Everyone understands that the online shoppers newly recruited by the pandemic have found that it is an easy way to buy and is perhaps better than trudging round in the rain. Nobody expects the retail business of the high street to return to its former levels.

On these Benches, we very much welcome the 100% business rate discount that the Chancellor has introduced. We believe that, in any case, it will need to be extended until there can be a return to what I might call peacetime trading. But those peacetime retailers cannot expect to return to the same volume of sales. Every one of them knows that their turnover will be down and their already dwindling profits will be even less in the post-Covid, peacetime marketplace. When the Chancellor’s scheme ends they will face what were already unreasonably high rating valuations still in full force. Many will be forced into closure. The shutters will come down across the country, leading to a spiralling reduction in footfall and undermining the viability of what remains.

I said at Second Reading that it would be good to see some joined-up thinking by the Government, with a seamless move from the Chancellor’s support scheme for retail running through to the new reduced level of business rates that will come with this measure, as far as the high street retail industry is concerned. I must say to the Minister that it is no good the cavalry coming over the hill two years later simply to count the dead. Either the cavalry must come sooner or the Chancellor must extend his scheme to fill the gap—or a properly planned bit of both. Otherwise there will be precious few retail business left to take advantage of the lower rates bills that we all expect this measure to offer. Hence our amendment: an impact assessment, as the Minister well knows, does not just look at the impact of doing what is proposed, but poses the important question, “What other ways have you looked at to achieve the same outcome?”

Such an impact assessment as we propose would show pretty clearly that delaying implementation of the new valuations to 2023, whatever the actual valuation date, will lead to far more businesses failing and far more damage to the high street than having a 2022 start date for the new system. It would show that extending the Chancellor’s scheme to bridge whatever gap remains would be excellent value for money, bringing a huge financial and community well-being dividend to put the high street back on its feet. It would also certainly show that any gradual phasing-in of the improvement beyond 2023—so that it was in some way cushioned and delayed the benefit to the retail sector—would be terminal. I suggest also, perhaps slightly with my tongue in my cheek, that it would set an interesting precedent, where two government departments look at a policy in the round and agree a sensible way of taking in each other’s washing rather than taking separate decisions—one on the 100% business rate discount and the other on the start date of the new valuations—in two different soundproof silos.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before I move to the detail of our amendment, this Committee provides us with the opportunity to set out the critical importance of making the case for further government measures to support sport, recreation and an active lifestyle as we emerge from the Covid epidemic.

The Government are to be congratulated on the steps that they have taken: the £300 million sport winter survival package, which specifically should help the top-end spectator sports in England and provide important support to rugby union, horseracing, women’s football and the lower tiers of the national football league; and £100 million through the national recovery fund to support publicly owned leisure facilities impacted by Covid-19. However, this is nowhere near the £1.75 billion investment package to protect the world-class arts, culture and heritage sector, which was designed to help the showcase institutions as well as the small local arts and culture initiatives across the country.

Consider the scale of this investment to help sport alongside the £2 billion announced to investment in cycling and walking, not by DCMS but the Department for Transport last May, since when—as recently as last weekend—the Sunday Times led on the front page with the impending loss of £110 million to professional sport if gambling logos are banned from sports shirts. Sport on television has provided a beacon of hope and escape for millions of people during the current Covid lockdown—a massive ray of respite amid the boredom and gloom of lockdown. In that context, there has been more coverage of the return to terrestrial television of the England-India test series starting in Chennai tomorrow than there has been of actual coverage of matches in many an overseas test series in the past.

The Government have responded well to the need of our elite sports men and women with safe and necessary exemptions from many of the Covid regulations. These exemptions will need to continue when the new travel quarantine regulations are announced shortly. The Six Nations depends on the exceptionally safe arrangements made for professional sport and the vital good sense of those involved to observe strictly the bubbles in place to protect them. Neither the French team—nor, for that matter, Andy Murray, when he resumes the ATP tour—should be required to spend two weeks in the Gatwick Holiday Inn when they arrive here.

Of course, even those who represent our country would not expect to be, nor should be, vaccinated before the vulnerable groups of all ages in society. I hope, however, that when that cohort is complete, consideration will be given to many of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes ahead of their vital international training, selection and competition schedules later this year.

That is the backdrop to today’s call to extend the business rate holiday granted to the retail, hospitality and leisure sector indefinitely, and the opportunity within six months of the passing of the Bill to publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the viability and health of amateur sports and sporting activity. I hope to abolish them for that sector altogether.

The holiday has been invaluable to sports organisations that own their property, including national governing bodies, professional clubs and community clubs and organisations. However, the rates bill in the past has often been the anchor that dragged many sports clubs towards the rocks of administration and financial difficulties, and at this time we must focus on how we increase opportunities for everyone to follow an active lifestyle. Declining participation rates, a major drop-off in sport after school years, the loss of playing fields and the reduction in local authority spend in England—sport and recreation is a discretionary-line item spend in their accounts, rather than the compulsory priority that it should be—have collectively led to the absence of the much-hoped-for sports legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Obesity levels, boredom among the young and lack of opportunities for all pepper the landscape over the UK.

In contrast, I can only praise my noble friend the Minister’s commitment and support for sport in successive policy areas in his department. At Second Reading, he listened carefully to the representations made, as he did previously to my noble friend Lord Botham on this subject. He knows that the business rate holiday can directly benefit community sports clubs, with their sole objective of providing healthy and enjoyable recreational and sporting opportunities, ensuring that all ages re-emerge into the light stronger, fitter and more active in future years than suggested by the pattern of growing obesity and falling participation as a proportion of our growing population, which we saw in the years approaching the pandemic. That alone is one of the major reasons for the increasing call on the NHS in the 2010s. It was in danger of being overburdened before, let alone during, the pandemic.

Like me, the Minister knows that the country faces stubborn inequalities, that the activity gap is widening and that places and spaces, community sports clubs and leisure facilities are critical to providing opportunities for a more active nation to emerge from the epidemic—yet the hardest hit are in deprived communities. Such clubs proliferate in our poorer communities, not least in the East End of London, where life expectancy falls one year for every Underground station passed on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Stratford. Life expectancy is 10 years less there. That is why the Government need to support the Sport and Recreation Alliance, with its campaign to boost activity, from traditional or formal sport to the informal fun and enjoyment that many people can derive from outdoor recreation, movement, dance, and physical activity. Let us make sure that local clubs registered as community amateur sports clubs are exempt from business rates for ever.

My hope is that the case is considered to extend similar support to all sports clubs which provide community sport and recreational opportunities. In comparison to other sectors, business rate liability for the community sport sector remains unfairly high in relation to income. Community sport clubs often have limited financial resources, as they seek to increase membership subscriptions in ways that are affordable, thus enabling community participation without those subscriptions being extortionate.

The cohort of sport and recreational facilities in this country is ageing; too many are falling into disrepair. The costs to operate, repair and maintain are onerous. The result is that sport pays a disproportionate level of business rates, which in themselves are a brake on the key policy objective of making this nation healthier and more active. Sheffield Hallam University recently published a report on the social and economic value of community sport and physical activity in England, valuing it at £85.5 billion. The analysis valued physical and mental well-being at £9.5 billion, mental well-being itself as well as mental health at £42 billion, individual development at £282 million, and social and community development at £20 billion. That evidence makes a compelling case for investment in community sport and physical activity. One keyway in which that can be achieved is a major change in how my noble friend’s department and the Treasury approach a new system of support for exempting those clubs involved in community sport schemes from the business rate system.