Birmingham City Council

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that the people of Birmingham are at the heart of this issue. They are first in our thoughts. I agree that urgent action is necessary. That is why I spoke with the leader of Birmingham City Council today to see whether there was anything further we could do to support them. He believes that the way to resolve this is to get around the table as quickly as possible, and that is just what he aims to do.

On the noble Lord’s comments on how the situation arose in the first place, there had been serious financial and governance failings. Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice, which effectively says that the council does not have control of its finances, in September 2023. It did so due to accepting a £760 million liability that arose from those equal pay claims, along with in-year budget deficits that arose from the Oracle IT system. It has been working through a very intense programme of activity to put those issues right. It has not been easy for the leadership of Birmingham City Council; nobody goes into local government to cut services or make things less easy for their residents. It has been doing that with the commissioners, who are working very well with the council and have produced a frank and honest report. There is a copy in the Library if any noble Lord wants to look at it. I agree that preserving public health is vital. That is why the director of public health in Birmingham and the UK Health Security Agency regularly review what is going on there, to make sure that everything is done that can be to ensure that the public health situation does not deteriorate any further.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to serious financial failings in Birmingham, and the Statement admits that:

“Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue”.


Does the Minister agree that this situation might not have arisen had it not been for the abolition, just over a decade ago, of the Audit Commission, which had a role in delivering best value as well as formal audit responsibilities? Taking Birmingham as an example, might the Government consider whether that decision was wise and whether something needs to be done to improve long-term audit of local authorities in England?

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

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I have no difficulty at all with the thrust of this statutory instrument, but I have one or two queries.

Throughout her speech, the Minister referred to Crown development, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that this concerns

“planning permission for the development of Crown land”.

Does this apply only to development on land that the Government already own? Or, as the Minister said, is this about Crown development, possibly on land owned by other people or organisations? If I am right and this is confined to the development of Crown land, as the Explanatory Memorandum says on pages 1 and 3, is there a definition of “Crown land”? We are familiar with the Crown Estate but what exactly is Crown land?

Secondly, can the Minister give us some examples of the sorts of development that might be relevant to this statutory instrument? I understand the process that she described, but I did not get a picture of exactly when this would be used by the Government. It would be helpful if she could flesh that out.

Thirdly, this measure applies to development that is urgent and in the national interest or

“securing planning permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development”.

Is that justiciable? In other words, would it be possible to slow down the whole process if somebody came up and said, “This is a misuse of this statutory instrument. This is not nationally important or urgent”? In that case, the whole objective of this SI—to speed things up—could be nullified if the decision to use it was justiciable.

My final point is a petty one. I notice that, on pages 2 and 3, a whole lot of legislation is being amended. It is not clear to me why the Caravan Sites Act 1968, for example, has to be amended as a result of what we are doing in this SI. Is there some particular caravan site occupying a site of enormous national importance that might have to be used for the purpose of some giant infrastructure scheme? Looking at pages 2 and 3, one sees a whole series of pieces of legislation, and it is not absolutely clear why they all need to be amended to bring this SI into effect.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.

Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?

I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,


and paragraph 10.2 says:

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.


It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.

[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.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor, a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, and a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. In fact, these are the three bodies referred to in Amendment 32, which is in this group, under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage and for yesterday’s meeting—I appreciate that very much. If it is any comfort to him, that is at least part of the reason why I felt that I should not press these amendments today, most principally because they go to the heart of the philosophy of how the financial backcloth of rating is dealt with. That would be a very diffuse target at which to try to aim at this stage in the Bill.

Before dealing with Amendment 2 and speaking to Amendment 11, which is also in my name in this group, I remind your Lordships how we got here. During our deliberations in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the 2024 Budget, in which the Chancellor set out a Budget to “fix the foundations” and to take

“difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy … Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street”.

The Government’s manifesto pledge did a good deal more than just support the high street: it talked about dealing with the online giants. That is why Amendment 1, which we just voted on, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, causes me to remind your Lordships of what I reminded them of at an earlier stage of the Bill: the very large number of non-target species that are swept up by this particular Bill. I enumerated a significant number of them—not all, I might add—of which hospitals were one.

The Minister went on to say that the Government intended to provide

“a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country”.

He then referred to this whole

“challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited”.

We can fairly say that business ratepayers have been subject to an unsatisfactory means of levying this particular tax for a very long time. I have been on my feet on innumerable cases during the two periods that I have been in this House challenging that perception and showing how this is very negative in its effects on business confidence.

The Minister said that the system

“should work in a sustainable way”.

There are two bits of sustainability: whether the Treasury can balance the books and find the most convenient shortcut through in dealing with its affairs, and what you might call the politically most expedient way. The other way is the one that looks at how businesses make decisions and how the prospect of a surcharge impacts on what businesses do. I have said many times in this House that it is a poor tax that itself starts shifting the dial for people trying to get away from its effects.

The Minister said that

“the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets”.

I find it difficult to relate the benefit to the high street by the means shown in this particular Bill. The Minister also said that the process that the Government has alighted on would be equitable and would

“capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants”.—[Official Report, 24/2/25; cols. GC 444-45.]

Fair enough, but it catches an awful lot else besides, so it is very poorly targeted.

On 17 March, in the other place, in a Written Answer to a Written Question from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Exchequer Secretary commented first on the Valuation Office Agency publishing its official statistics detailing the number of non-domestic properties in England with a rateable value of £500,000 and over, broken down by sector. He then went on to say:

“There is no special category code for ‘internet retail warehouses’. You may find the data for ‘retail warehouses and food stores’, and ‘large distribution warehouses’ helpful”.


I do not find that in the least bit helpful. These are charging people who are not part of the target species. It appears that the Government have no idea how many large warehouses are occupied by the online giants that they claim to be targeting in the first place.

There are lots of questions here, some of which have already been put on previous occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Why was this threshold set at £500,000? What is the metric? How are the Government able to justify this figure? The manifesto said that the reforms would

“raise the same revenue … in a fairer way”.

When the Government are planning to raise an additional £2.65 billion by making businesses pay for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief and discounts, which up to now have been funded centrally, that makes me wonder precisely what the business of raising the same revenue in a fairer way amounts to.

If the intention was really to charge more to online giants, one would have to ask why the 90% of hereditaments to which the supplement might apply—the £500,000 rateable value and above—are dealing also with warehousing and other things that are clearly outside that. Some 90% of what they propose to charge does not fall within the category of online giants. It goes on from there. I have already raised the question as to why we cannot get to a more comprehensive reform of business rates—already referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—because this is starting to be an active disincentive to businesses.

That question is not answered by saying that other variable cost elements for businesses are better in this country than elsewhere. This is a direct, in-your-face fixed cost that businesses have to deal with. I cannot see that this is consistent with a growth agenda that intends to attract inward investment.

My interrelated Amendments 2 and 11 are aimed at not worsening the situation for the large retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the inclusion of which in the supplement cannot be justified on property terms. I would prefer the discounts to be applied to all such RHL properties, but this would be even less acceptable to the Government. However, it involves the removal of less than 25% of the total rateable value to which the Bill proposes to apply the supplement. When one looks at the mathematics of this, it really does not stack up. Even at the maximum level of potential supplement, it is substantially less than the extra revenue that the Government will raise from shifting the costs of the RHL relief from the Exchequer to the business rate payer—so it is not very large beer.

I said yesterday in a meeting with the Minister, and I say again, that I and a lot of rating practitioners, and certainly business rate payers, would be a great deal happier if we could have an assurance that the Government will move at reasonable pace to remedy the deficiencies of the current business rate system by whatever means. There needs to be comprehensive thought about this whole process so that we do not simply drift on and create more and more division and less and less confidence. Even at this late stage in the process, can the Minister give a reassurance that this is forthcoming within the current Government, for the better achievement of their aims on investment and growth? I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have great sympathy with the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and agree with the conclusions that he has so carefully reached. I know that these Benches would support his amendments.

Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, concerns an important issue. The Government promised in their manifesto to make the payment of business rates fairer and more balanced between retail distribution warehouses and high street shops. Indeed, the Chancellor said in the last Budget that she wanted to shift the burden. Yet all the signs are that nothing will happen until next year at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the timing for the outcome of the review that the Government apparently are undertaking. I say that because this is, as the noble Earl made clear, an urgent matter. Business rates are a major burden on retail high street shops. Sainsbury’s said a few months ago that half of its total tax bill is for business rates.

The system needs urgent reform. One step would be to accept the proposals in this group of amendments. In particular, Amendment 32 sets deadlines for when the Government must have acted. I hope that, if there is an opportunity, we on these Benches can support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to talk for more than a moment, as I have Amendment 32 coming in the next group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 in my name and to speak to its consequential Amendments 8, 12 and 16.

These amendments seek to retain the standard multiplier for anchor stores, given their ability to drive business on our high streets. Throughout Committee, there were several noble Lords who acknowledged the importance of these stores and the role they play in the commercial ecosystem of our high streets up and down this country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support on this matter.

As anyone who has worked in local government will know, when you get an anchor store such as a large Tesco, M&S or Primark—or one of those rare but well-loved independent department stores—on the high street, it allows the high street to flourish. I can certainly attest to that from my experience. The importance of these stores absolutely cannot be overstated. Without them, many high streets would seriously suffer due to the reduced footfall.

It is those very shops that draw people to the high street, and their presence encourages people to spend in the smaller, independent businesses. So the reason that these anchor stores should not be subject to the changes in the Bill is due to their role in aiding those small businesses. The Government claim that the Bill helps small businesses because it will leave them with reduced business rates, but if the anchor stores move away from the high street, they will not be able to sustain themselves at all. The Minister has many times continued to state that there are only a few of these stores in number, but if it is your high street that contains one of these, or if you want to bring one into your high street, then it is very important to you.

Not only will this push current stores away from the high street, but it will also mean that in future, when businesses are evaluating where to open new branches, they will be increasingly likely to choose locations out of town, where property costs less and where they will not be forced to pay the new higher multiplier. Large businesses will leave town centres, and I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the future of our high streets and the reduction in footfall that it will cause.

If the Government continue to increase costs on businesses in the same way as they have begun, there will not be any businesses left on our high streets to tax. The combination of the minimum wage, which we support, and the increase in employers’ national insurance has already led to many businesses increasing their costs or reducing their head count. This may well not be the most costly tax they face, but it could end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

My amendments would give the Treasury the power to define specifically what an anchor store is. I am sure we are all aware that it is not the easiest term to specify, as the Minister mentioned in Committee. I understand that it might be difficult but, with the input of or indeed the discretion for local authorities included, I am sure the definition can easily be reached.

In order to safeguard our high streets, we must protect the businesses that allow them to thrive. We understand the need to create a more fair and equitable system, but that is not what the Bill promotes. As such, we are highly concerned about the consequences, whether intentional or not, that it will have.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the topic of manufacturing. It is a sector of huge importance and must be protected.

I hope the Minister will recognise the importance of exempting these stores and will accept these amendments. If he does not, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The issue of anchor stores seems fundamental in increasing footfall into traditional shopping centres, and it is right that there should be a power to exempt those anchor stores from higher rates.

One note of caution that I want to mention is that a Government would need to ensure that there was not a tendency by landlords to try to increase rents in the face of lower business rates. I am sure there are ways in which that can be done. Where councils are the landlord then they would have control of that, but when the landlord is in the private sector we need a mechanism to ensure that that can be done—and it should be done. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am sure she will have the support of these Benches.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned Amendment 4 on manufacturing. My noble friend Fox is in another meeting in the House at this very minute, so I will be saying a few things about that amendment. It is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. There has been a drop in confidence in the sector since the autumn. There is a big increase in manufacturers’ costs. Reductions in markets, making business development more difficult, have become very clear. Orders in general are reported to be smaller in size. The Brexit impact urgently requires a reset with the European Union. Manufacturing industry has high energy costs, and there are now concerns surrounding tariffs which are affecting confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 in my name. I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Lexden for his support. I also strongly support Amendment 30 from my noble friend Lady Barran. I refer noble Lords to my previous declaration of interests.

Let me explain why this amendment is important. Throughout all the debates on independent education that we have had in this House, as indeed they have had in the other place, the Government have shown themselves seemingly impervious to rational argument. Frankly, they have buried their head in the sand, wilfully refused properly to engage with the independent sector and ignored the strength of feeling in this House and the opinion of experts in the field.

The unpalatable truth that they will not acknowledge is that their policies, of which the measures in this Bill are one central strand, simply will not end up benefiting the state sector in any meaningful or visible way. The 6,500 teachers promised are likely to be a fantasy and will end up being just another broken promise. But the policies will end up profoundly impacting the independent sector and the lives of tens of thousands of pupils and their hard-working parents, and that will have far-reaching consequences not just for the schools themselves but in countless other areas.

Heartbreakingly, as we heard in the debate on the previous group, it will impact on the way in which our society cares for vulnerable children, those with special needs and disabilities, and their carers and families. It will impact on local communities that currently benefit from thriving and imaginative partnerships with state schools, on faith communities and on military families. It will impact on gifted children who benefit from bursaries, something that many independent schools are cruelly being forced now to review, and of course it will impact on jobs at independent schools, especially when closures of schools inevitably and tragically happen.

It is crucial that all this is rigorously scrutinised and that Parliament has an opportunity to examine the consequences of the policies contained in the Bill, taken alongside the other tax changes being made on VAT and on national insurance—a combination of measures that the Government’s impact assessment failed to do, as it related only to business rates. That is what we, particularly in this House, are here for: to scrutinise, examine and challenge. But we need a comprehensive assessment of the facts, undertaken by the Government themselves, to be able to do that, and that is what this amendment would deliver. The Independent Schools Council, which does such an exceptional job in championing the sector, and the other associations that form part of it will conduct their own analysis. Ultimately, however, it is the Government who are responsible for the delivery of public policy in these areas and who must be held accountable by Parliament and the electorate.

The Government say that their measures, including those in Clause 5, will raise a certain amount of money to be invested in state education. I doubt it will raise anything like that, but let us see. They say they will be able to recruit additional teachers. I very much doubt it, but let us see. They say there will be no consequences for children with special needs and those in faith schools—let us see. If they are really confident that their policies can deliver what they say without damaging consequences elsewhere, why would they not want to have a review of them to prove the point? What are they fearful of?

Perhaps it is just possible that they might be wrong and will end up undermining and weakening the independent sector, which is the envy of the world, without delivering for the state sector—which means, of course, that they would have to think again. We need answers to that. That is why I believe they must commit to a thorough review of their policies, then Parliament, including our House, can scrutinise it, debate it and make recommendations for change.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with both amendments in this group. If you believe in “education, education, education”, you should not tax independent schools in the way that the Government have decided they want to. The Government have argued that taxing independent schools will increase the number of teachers in state schools, but the Government’s own figures show that they reached only 62% of their postgraduate secondary ITT recruitment target in 2024, so there will be pressure to increase the pay of existing teachers rather than to appoint new ones. In any case, most of the extra £1.5 billion estimated to come per year from this clause will go on special educational needs.

I suggest, very much in line with Amendment 25 from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Government’s priority should be to cut the backlog in assessments for education, health and care plans, rather than taxing parents who want the best for their child with special needs and think it can be delivered only in the independent sector. There is a very basic issue of principle here: the right of a parent to opt out of a state system where they believe their child would benefit from that. When they have paid their share of general taxation and foregone a place in the state system, thus saving the state money, then paid additionally for their child’s schooling, I submit that it is wrong in principle to tax them yet again for that decision to send their child to an independent school.

I have concluded that Clause 5 is a distraction. It will fail to deliver the Government’s ambitions for the state sector, and it is better for our education system as a whole to remove Clause 5.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, again, I support the amendments in this group. Perhaps I should clarify for the Minister that I do so, to paraphrase something said in a different context, on the basis of being without a directly selfish economic or strategic interest in the issue. Let me highlight why I say that, in coming from a background of education in Northern Ireland.

This provision does not affect Northern Ireland, as the Minister rightly pointed out; it is an English-only matter, because all these aspects are devolved issues. Consequently, from that point of view, it will not impact on any of my former constituents in that regard, nor indeed on Northern Ireland. We have a strange patchwork of school types across the United Kingdom in our delivery of education. Northern Ireland’s background is largely one in which the independent sector is extremely small. Indeed, you could make an argument, particularly at post-primary level, that on the definition of what most people would regard as independent schools, there is perhaps one independent school in Northern Ireland that is directly akin to those in England.

I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible, but from that point of view there are three main reasons why these amendments need to be supported. First, the prospect of imposing additional burdens and taxation on schools sits deeply uncomfortably with me. The idea of penalising parents by saying, “Because of the educational choice that you are making, we are going to single out your schools for an additional financial burden to tax education” is fundamentally wrong.

Secondly, there is at least a perception—I am sure the Government would deny it—that this is a highly ideologically driven proposal and part of a wider set of seeming attacks on independent schools, as seen particularly by the changes in VAT. As such, there is a concern that, rather than looking at what is of educational benefit, this is some red meat being thrown out to some ideological Labour supporters. It is an easy target to go after.

The third reason is that of unintended consequences. We are asked to look at different figures and projections as to the impact that these various changes will make. As I highlighted in the previous group, this is perhaps a less significant change than the changes to VAT, but again, it will have a level of tipping impact and lead to the closure of schools. This is not mere theory.

If I may draw on an example of relatively recent history in Northern Ireland, roughly 12 years ago, the then Minister of Education, who was a member of Sinn Féin, made changes to a level of funding that was available to preparatory schools in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the vast majority of fees were paid by parents and the schools were largely supported directly by them; it was at least 70%-plus. The state paid a small proportion of what would normally go to support children in state schools. There was a significant cut made to that. It was not completely wiped off the face of it, for the reason that the then Minister would have had to bring it to get executive approval had it done so. The arguments used were that it was some sort of financial benefit, which could then be ploughed back into state education, so it was an egalitarian move.

What was the ultimate impact of that? For many of those schools which were already under a level of financial burden, it became the final nail in their financial coffin, with the end result that, 12 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has gone down by just over a third and the number of pupils going to those prep schools is down by more than 40%. That single move made a number of those schools unsustainable.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I, like my noble friend Lady Grender, welcome the Bill. I thank the Minister and her colleagues for getting the Bill to this stage after several years of waiting. I agree with her that the Bill brings forward the most significant changes in the sector for 40 years.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, on his outstanding maiden speech and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown.

A key difference of this Bill when compared with the Renters (Reform) Bill of a few years ago is that Section 21 is to be abolished before court reforms are delivered. Anything further that the Minister can tell us about how processes in the courts can be speeded up would be helpful. There will I think be significant discussion of that in Committee.

That said, the Bill takes us in the right direction. My party conference a few years ago debated Section 21, and two conclusions emerged. Conference wanted repeal of Section 21 and it wanted to protect good tenants from bad landlords. But it also wanted to protect good landlords from bad tenants. So, as the Bill progresses, I hope we can assess it against those criteria.

I suggest that there needs to be a third test. There are lots of solutions proposed in the Bill, but we must beware of just solving one problem when, in so doing, we create another. One example is restrictions on taking rent in advance: should it be one month or two months? On the face of it, one month in advance plus a deposit would seem to be sufficient. Yet some prospective tenants might find it easier to pay more rent up front, particularly those from overseas who have difficulty providing traditional affordability checks. So Committee will be important in assessing the policy of one month’s rent up front, which I understand was a late decision by the Government.

Another example of unintended consequences would be in relation to student housing. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has amply covered that issue, and I think there are problems there. Purpose-built student accommodation is rightly exempt from the Bill, and ground 4A allows student houses—that is, houses in multiple occupation—to be reclaimed to prepare for the next yearly intake of students. That exemption is the right approach, but what about the wish of many landlords to extend ground 4A to one-bedroom and two-bedroom houses and flats? They are not HMOs, but the removal of fixed-term tenancy agreements may worsen things for landlords renting out such accommodation because two months’ notice given midway through the academic year could lead to a loss of student accommodation, as landlords might then decide to leave the student housing market altogether and release those one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation units on to the wider private rented market. We must use Committee to examine that issue further.

Clause 98 and Schedule 4 refer to the decent homes standard. The Government are introducing a decent homes standard into the private rented sector for the first time, and I fully support their wish to do so. However, timeframes for improvements and more information on who will be responsible for resourcing them are needed, because one-fifth of homes in the private rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard. The Government will need to be clearer about the minimum standards that will be shown on the private rented sector database, which I strongly welcome because it will bring key information together in one place and can be used to assist with enforcement and rent repayment orders.

I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association because I want to say that, for the decent homes standard to be met, it would help if licensing schemes could provide a way for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing without the need for a tenant to have complained. As we know, many tenants are discouraged from complaining. In the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can create selective licensing schemes to improve poor standards, but they cannot require the physical state of a property to be improved as part of that licence. That is an issue for us to examine further in Committee, which I hope to be involved in doing.

Another question that I have is about market rents. Market rents have to be defined, and there may well be problems in doing so because the market is different across the country. Rental increases will be limited to once a year, but tenants would benefit from clarity on what level of rent increases would be appropriate. I suggest that uprating in line with CPI would be an appropriate method. Again, I look forward to examining that further.

There have been a number of claims at Second Reading today that restrictive regulation will reduce the supply of rental homes. I am not sure that is true. At the moment, there may be some signs of it, but we will have to wait a while until we see exactly what the circumstances are. I accept that we have to be careful about assessing whether the prohibition of fixed-term contracts increases the number of landlords choosing to offer short-term lets outside the private rented sector.

At its heart, this Bill is about standards in the private rented sector. It is not about pursuing good landlords but about pursuing bad ones and improving standards. For that reason, I strongly support the Bill in its overall intentions.

Council Tax

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If there were to be a revaluation, there would be winners and losers. This is one of those issues where whatever we did would cause further problems in the system. It is a widely understood tax and there are high levels of collection. However, the Government are taking part in the fair funding review—we have issued a consultation on that—to make sure we level up the playing field for local authority funding, so that areas which need the money most get the most money.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, council tax is a regressive tax and for the past 10 years, Governments have been loading part of the increasing cost of adult social care on to council tax. Poorer households are therefore having to pay more in council tax than they otherwise would. The Government are going to spend the next three years coming up with a plan for adult social care. Is that delay fair on poorer households?

Building Homes

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that question, because in a housing crisis where we have so many people in need of affordable homes, it has been such a shame that Section 106 homes that could have been funded were unable to be picked up because of the lack of capacity within affordable housing providers.

The Government have been very aware of the problems affecting the sale of Section 106 affordable housing. Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework, Homes England also launched a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of these homes. This is a great role for Homes England to fulfil. The Government are now calling on all developers with uncontracted Section 106 affordable homes to proactively and pragmatically engage with this new service. We hope that this will be able to unlock some of the stalled Section 106 affordable homes which we know are there, waiting for those families who are desperate for housing. I hope that this service will take things forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement is about building the homes we need, but it talks about housing targets, not targets for homes, particularly homes for families to live in. What is the Government’s view on office conversions, potentially of poor quality, masquerading as homes when they are not and are simply contributing to a 370,000 a year housing target? What steps will the Government take to ensure that homes are of sufficient quality to merit the term “homes”, as opposed simply to being part of the achievement of a housing target?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have an Oral Question on exactly the same topic tomorrow, when I am sure I will be able to give a fuller answer.

The noble Lord is quite right. As I come from a new town, I recognise the benefit of not just designing the homes but planning the areas where they are to be situated. They should, of course, be sustainable, healthy and have all the infrastructure that everybody needs. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we not only build more homes but that they are high quality, well designed and sustainable. That is why we have made changes to the NPPF to make clear the importance of achieving well-designed places, and how this can be achieved holistically through local design policies, design codes and guidance. We will be pushing this forward further in the new year.

Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (England) Order 2024

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument will reduce the number of qualifying secure tenants who have the opportunity to buy their rented home at a discount. This will reverse our record in the period 2012 to 2024, which enabled almost 160,000 sales under the right-to-buy scheme. On our watch, the right-to-buy discount was incrementally increased. In 2012, the maximum cash discount went up significantly from regional levels of between £16,000 and £38,000 to a new national level of £75,000. In 2013, the maximum was propelled further in London to £100,000, and from 2014 the maximum discounts rose annually, in line with the percentage change in the consumer prices index. The current maximum discounts available are £136,400 in London and £102,400 outside London.

Our aim is to move towards a scenario where people own their own home and are less reliant on local authorities. Being able to buy your own home is a critical feature of social mobility. It allows people to acquire an asset which translates into wealth, which can then be passed on to the next generation, which in turn gives more opportunities in life. The Government have cut the maximum discount to between £16,000 and £38,000, which means that secure tenants of local authorities who want to buy their home will have to pay materially more for their property.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has released a policy paper on the review of the right-to-buy discounts which showed that sales will be reduced by 25,000 over five years. By the department’s modelling, under the previous Government’s rules 35,000 people would be able to buy their social housing by 2029, but under this Government’s new rules that figure would only be 8,500. That means that 26,500 people will potentially miss out. The Government’s own modelling has shown that there would be 7,000 sales annually to 2031 if our rules were kept. However, that number will shrink to 1,700 per year under this Administration’s new rules. That means an average of 5,300 people per year will not be able to buy their home under the new restrictions.

The Government are clearly looking to create an environment where the local authorities are able to channel a larger proportion of receipts from social housing sales into building new social housing. In July 2024, the Government increased the flexibility on how councils can use their right-to-buy receipts to accelerate the delivery of replacement homes. The caps on the percentage of replacements delivered as acquisitions, and the percentage cost of a replacement home that can be funded using right-to-buy receipts, have been removed. Local authorities can now combine right-to-buy receipts with Section 106 contributions. We understand that these flexibilities will be in place until the end of 2026, subject to a review. Furthermore, the Government in the Autumn Budget stated that councils will no longer be required to return a proportion of the capital receipts generated by the sale of the home to His Majesty’s Treasury.

We appreciate that the Government are looking for ways to build more affordable housing. However, we do not think that this should be achieved at the expense of aspiring home owners who are saving to purchase the home they have lived in for, in many cases, a considerable amount of time.

The Government believe that fewer social houses in local authorities is indicative of a problem. We would argue that creating a system that results in an ever-increasing number of social homes on the local authorities’ books is unsustainable. To clarify, we absolutely must make provision for the most economically vulnerable and in need, so that come rain or shine they have a roof over their heads. But the endgame should be to help people stand on their own two feet, independent in their own home, which they themselves have purchased. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Back in 1980, when the right to buy was brought in, I was in favour of it in principle, because it devolved power and responsibility from the state to the individual. It seemed to me that it would lead to greater investment in homes if more private cash was spent on upgrading the country’s housing stock. I did not support selling off social housing without any replacement, always urging for one-for-one one replacement. But that never happened, and worse, around 40% of those homes sold ended up in the private rented sector, with higher rents pushing up the housing benefit bill.

Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum is very clear in its explanation of this statutory instrument. It says:

“The Government’s objective is a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme that protects existing social housing stock whilst ensuring that secure tenants who have lived in, and paid rent on their homes for many years, retain the opportunity to own their home. This statutory instrument will directly support that objective”.


The two key words seem to me to be “fair” and “sustainable”. It is fair that those who have paid rent for many years should be able to benefit from their rent being seen as a form of deposit, and this statutory instrument will still enable them to do so.

Back in 1980, it was only fair that council tenants of long standing should not be excluded from the benefits of inflation on the capital asset they were renting. But the situation is very different today. Discounts have got bigger. Housing for social rent has been neglected. There is a massive affordability crisis in buying a home for those on lower incomes as prices have continued to rise steeply. Yet rented housing—private or public—is nowhere near enough to meet demand from those unable to buy, and more people than ever are homeless.

It is inappropriate to allow the current right-to-buy system to continue without amendment. Indeed, in Scotland and Wales, right to buy has been scrapped altogether. That is not what the Government are doing in England. They are cancelling the possibility of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, but the right to acquire, which has a lower level of benefit, will continue to be available.

Housebuilding: Regional Mayors

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to apologise for the housing ambitions of this Government. We were left with a housing crisis, which we have set about tackling. The previous Government failed to do so for 14 years. We want to see young people able to achieve home ownership, to make sure all homes are safe and well maintained, and to create a new generation of social housing and new towns. We believe that everyone deserves a safe, secure, affordable home—do they not?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked of mayors’ strategic planning role, but who actually makes decisions on targets—the local planning authority, the mayor, the department or the Treasury?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have done an extensive consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework. We reintroduced government housing targets, because we want to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. We are going to do that with the aggregate of targets from local plans, so we will consult local mayors as they develop their role in strategic plan making.

Housing Supply and Homelessness

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I first remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for this debate. I agree with her that we need a long-term strategy and that the scale of the problem is daunting. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his important suggestions around the private rented sector, in particular the potential impact of the increase in stamp duty on rent levels in the private sector.

There have been many reports on the housing crisis and how to address it from Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation and the Affordable Housing Commission, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and was established by the Smith Institute with the support of the Nationwide Foundation. Of course, Homes for All, the Church of England report published earlier this year, rightly talked of our moral duty to ensure that all households have access to affordable, safe and quality homes—and I agree. It is appropriate that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has chosen this debate to make his valedictory speech.

All those reports have urged that a national housing strategy and affordable housing—that is, genuinely affordable housing—should be a national priority. Today’s homelessness figures give us a stark warning, with 123,000 households, including 159,000 children, in temporary accommodation. Council spending on temporary accommodation reached £2.29 billion last year, which the National Audit Office said is unsustainable. It is unsustainable, but we cannot solve homelessness without building many more social homes for rent.

We should always remember that secure, affordable homes are fundamental in addressing child poverty. We must build capacity in social housing for rent. I acknowledge the immediate help recently offered by the Government for up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. I also acknowledge the need to protect new-build social homes. The fact is that around 11,000 council or housing association homes are being built every year but, last year, 23,000 such homes were sold off on knock-down. We must stem the loss of homes for social rent. Indeed, some 2 million homes have been sold under right to buy, of which some 40% are now in the private rented sector, with higher rents in that sector pushing up the housing benefit bill.

I applaud the scale of the Government’s ambition. They have promised the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation. I welcome this and hope that it proves true. The Government promise 1.5 million more homes by 2029, but we should bear in mind that the chief executive of Homes England said in a recent message to staff that this would need “two parliamentary terms”, while the Centre for Cities has said that the Government will undershoot by 388,000. In any case, a target is not an outcome. Outcomes need plans, and plans need to be published and debated outside of the spending review.

There is a big problem: since 2015, 1 million homes in England and Wales—that is one in three—have had planning permission but not been built. Also, 70,000 housing association and council dwellings currently stand empty—a figure that has been rising. So, as an urgent priority, might the Government address solutions to these two immediate problems?

We should also remember that government spending on housing is at its highest ever level, in real terms. Fifty years ago, 95% went into building and improving homes; today, it seems that almost 90% is going into housing benefit, on which the Government are now projected to spend £35 billion a year by 2028. This is clearly unsustainable.

On the numbers, lots of ambitious targets have been set by a wide variety of bodies. It appears as though the Secretary of State may be thinking of a number lower than some of those reported by, for example, the National Housing Federation. That, I suggest, is a consequence of their understanding of the significant structural problems with delivering large numbers in the short term. We need to build capacity in councils and housing associations. We need a bigger construction workforce and more planning officers. It is not just the planning system but its resourcing. We should bear in mind that more planners can be self-financing.

I welcome the Government’s sense of direction but, with 1.2 million households on local authority waiting lists, solutions have become urgent. Let the Government concentrate on putting in place the foundations we need to address this housing crisis of high demand and inadequate supply. One of those foundations could be that local authorities should be able to buy land at current use value rather than hope value. But the test of success will be that homes become genuinely affordable to those on medium and low incomes.

Social Housebuilding

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Question relates primarily to new social homes, but it was reported at the end of September that around 70,000 council and housing association homes are now lying empty. Can the Government say something about what is planned for those 70,000 dwellings?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there are multiple reasons why properties may be empty, but it is important that we bring as many homes as possible into use. Councils are being given greater powers to charge additional council tax for empty properties, and I know that they will be looking very carefully at the stock of housing to make sure that it is brought into use as quickly as possible. We are also looking at things such as compulsory purchase order powers and so on. Councils already have those but it is very important that we give councils as many tools in their armoury as possible to prevent houses falling into dereliction or simply being left empty because they have been bought as investments and are not let out or used.