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

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, calls on the Government to review both the £500,000 threshold and a specific use class for fulfilment warehouses. It is important that the Government follow through on their manifesto commitments, so I see no reason why they should not accept any amendment that calls on them to do so. If the noble Lord chooses to divide the House, we will support him, too.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion N1. We have already had reference to this, but I have noted the Commons’ objections to my amendment on Report, and I have revised it and wish simply to sketch the alterations. This revised amendment, therefore, is about reviews exclusively—first, a review of the £500,000 threshold of rateable value, which is the cliff edge that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to, and the impact it will have on businesses. This is a vital review because at present, it will be untenable for organisations that just exceed the £500,000 rateable value and will be compelled to pay a higher band of rates. The second review concerns how to address the appropriate tax rateable value on the big warehouse retailers—the internet retailers such as, but not exclusively, Amazon. Fairness between the high street and these big-box retailers is what we seek. We want to establish a new use class, purely for the benefit of business rates and no other reason, but without insisting upon implementation, which was in the previous amendment and rejected in the other place. The Government will then be able to apply the new rateable value to these big gorilla retailers at the flick of a switch at any time in the future, but they are not compelled to do so.

All sides of the House want fairness for the high street against these big retailers. Let us not duck it or leave it in the long grass. I am afraid I am not convinced by the comments of the Minister so I, in turn, wish to press my Motion at the appropriate time.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I rise to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and his Motion N1. The noble Lord has been persistent in his efforts to get the Government to listen and bring forward a serious review of the case for a separate use class for retail fulfilment centres that are not on the high street. He is an excellent example of a Peer who brings his experience and expertise to your Lordships’ House. As a professional chartered surveyor, he has brought that expertise to bear during the debates on the Bill, and I am very grateful to him for that.

The Bill fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to replace the business rates system and level up the playing field between the high street and the internet giants—a so-called Amazon tax. It fails on both counts. The reviews proposed in this amendment would provide the basis to achieve this. The new £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier is a blunt tool that will impact many organisations that were never intended to be hit with higher business taxes. It does not deliver on the Government’s objective of targeting online giants. I have consistently made the point that a £500,000 threshold is a cliff edge that will create perverse incentives at the margins, disincentivising investment, particularly on the high street.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has gone further arguing forcefully that the Government must review the case for a separate use class for retail fulfilment centres that are not on the high street. I am grateful to him for including my concerns about the impact of the £500,000 threshold in his Motion N1, and I am pleased that my party will vote for it should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that I omitted to refer to Motion P1, which is in the same group. It is consequential on Motion N1 and will depend on the outcome of that Division.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. We heard concerns that the measures in the Bill for new multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced at the Budget. I do not agree with that. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in particular, to end the uncertainty of annual RHL relief. RHL is a temporary stopgap measure that has been extended year on year since the pandemic, and it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. The Government, through this Bill, are taking steps to address that. It was also announced at the Budget that the permanent tax cut for RHL businesses needs to be sustainably funded. This is an appropriate and prudent approach. The challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires this, but it goes without saying that any tax cut must be funded as part of sound financial management. To do this, the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties, those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will affect less than 1% of properties in England. This delivers on the policy set out at the Budget by the Chancellor. Furthermore, it represents the Government’s first step to delivering on their manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is fairer, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.

I have explained to noble Lords here today while the amendments tabled in lieu are not necessary. For these reasons and the other reasons I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B, 13B and 14B.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu—

13B: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: threshold effect
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.
(2) The review must consider the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.
(3) Experts in the sector must be consulted to inform the review, including but not limited to—
(a) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors;
(b) the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation;
(c) the Rating Surveyors’ Association.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.””

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I want simply to add to these very moving and persuasive comments. It seems to me the most terrible act of self-harm to tax the schools again and again. It is not just VAT and the non-domestic rates but national insurance increases on staff and employees, and, in recent years, a compulsory increase to pension provision outside any private arrangements the schools may make. Those are four separate recent taxes. When is this bleeding going to stop?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that there is a principle at stake of not regarding independent schools as charities. Education is not a profit-making business, although independent schools have to cover their costs—which, as I have sadly heard, Fulneck School has failed to do. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, if she wishes to test the opinion of the House.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Noble Lords]

It is in this group.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I apologise. In that case, let me just consult my notes.

My proposal is not dramatic and does not involve tax; it tries to define a very difficult aspect of non-domestic rates: the effect on retailers. I thank the Minister for his time last night, when we discussed my proposal at length. However, subject to his comments in a few minutes, I will decide whether to press my amendment later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has just made a powerful case for the disaggregation of manufacturing from the standard multiplier and for those businesses to benefit from the lower multiplier. The economic case is a strong one, as my noble friend has just said, and the Government’s go-for-growth strategy, especially in the context of world events, will fundamentally depend on British manufacturing. More encouragement needs to be provided to the sector to invest and to innovate, and a government decision to reduce the rate burden will be one such indicator that the Government are showing they are determined to support those businesses that produce the wealth on which our public services rely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has led this group with the case for the Government to take especial notice of so-called anchor stores, on which the viability, as she rightly argues, of our high street absolutely depends. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 4, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, to show that the importance of manufacturing will be recognised. If the Minister seeks to ignore that argument, then we on this side will test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to the important comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The importance of anchors cannot be overemphasised, particularly in smaller towns. We all know a shopping centre near where we live, and not a brick of development for that shopping centre would have been laid if it was not for a pre-let to an anchor.

It is important to explain that. They do not just create the footfall for the retailers generally—which of course they do—but they also catalyse the funding for the developer to build it. They are the anchor. They are the golden goose for the high street. Taxing them more simply risks losing them. The damage to society locally in losing them will be difficult to restore, and social cohesion will suffer. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and will support it if it goes to the vote.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to remove anchor stores from the higher multiplier. They also seek to expand the cohort of hereditaments that qualify for the lower multipliers by bringing manufacturing properties into scope alongside qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure.

As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation. In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why we intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this topic. As she did in Committee, the noble Baroness has set out the important role that anchor stores play on our nation’s high streets. We have heard that they are a linchpin, that they drive footfall and that they help support the broader high street ecosystem by attracting other businesses. The Government recognise this and the information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that a relatively small number of shops fall above the £500,000 threshold. In my response to the debate on the previous group, I set out that the impact on shops is not widespread. I will not repeat those numbers here.

Furthermore, anchor stores are often part of large retail chains that will also have a number of properties with a rateable value below £500,000 and, in the case of those properties, will benefit from the lower RHL multipliers. Moreover, whereas RHL relief is currently limited to a cash cap of £110,000 per business, the Government intend to have no such limit on the new RHL multipliers to better ensure more widespread support for the high street.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the impact of this Bill on the manufacturing sector has been a recurrent theme throughout its passage. In the other place, the Government heard calls for manufacturing to be included in the cohort qualifying for the lower multipliers, citing the threat of tariffs, our isolation from our neighbours and growing competition from other countries. These amendments would bring manufacturing properties with a rateable value below £500,000 into scope of the lower RHL multipliers.

Noble Lords are aware of the difficult task that this Government face. The current fiscal backdrop is challenging and, in this context, I hope they understand that widening the scope of the properties qualifying for the lower multipliers, as well as taking properties out of scope of the higher multipliers, as these amendments seek to do, is likely to dilute the support that the Government are able to provide to RHL properties with a rateable value below £500,000.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have emphasised our desire to ensure that we move to a fairer, rebalanced and sustainable business rates system. We have been clear that any tax cut must be sustainably funded. To expand the cohort and number of properties qualifying for the lower multipliers while reducing those to which the higher multiplier will apply risks this policy no longer being sustainable—a key principle that the Government have stated throughout the Bill’s passage.

As I said, against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach, which ensures a sustainable solution so that the permanent tax cut for RHL can be funded from within the business rates system. Of course, noble Lords have made sensible points. Anchor stores are part of high streets, as is light manufacturing in some areas, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Committee.

The Government are committed to ensuring the longevity and survival of our vibrant and diverse town centres, and there are many ways in which we are pursuing that endeavour. In December, we introduced high street rental auctions, a new power which allows local authorities to auction off the lease of persistently vacant commercial units. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for businesses and community groups, while helping to tackle vacancy on our high streets.

Through the English devolution Bill, we will also introduce a strong new right to buy for valued community assets, which will help this Government safeguard our high streets. This measure will empower local communities to reclaim and revitalise empty shops, pubs, and community spaces, helping to revamp our high streets, increase footfall and eliminate the blight of vacant premises.

Furthermore, at the Autumn Budget, the small business multiplier for properties with a rateable value of under £51,000 was frozen at 49.9p, meaning that, together with small business rate relief, over 1 million properties will be protected from a 1.6% inflationary increase. Alongside this, the Government continue to support our valuable manufacturing sector through other means.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked what in particular we are doing. At the Autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and up to £520 million for a new life sciences and innovative manufacturing fund. The Budget also saw two key programmes extended, promoting innovation across UK regions and manufacturing. The innovation accelerator programme will continue for another year, focusing on high-potential clusters across the UK. Meanwhile, the Made Smarter innovation programme will continue to be funded, empowering manufacturers to adopt digital technologies and enhancing productivity and sustainability by connecting digital solutions providers with industry.

I hope that it is clear to noble Lords why the Government cannot accept these amendments. The permanent tax cut for RHL properties must be funded sustainably. Furthermore, the Government fully recognise the importance of the British manufacturing industry, but we are supporting that sector through other avenues. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I respectfully ask them not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

32: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Use Class for retail services from fulfilment warehouses(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must instigate a review of the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.(2) Experts in the sector must be consulted to inform the review, including but not limited to—(a) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors;(b) the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation;(c) the Rating Surveyors’ Association. (3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of their conclusions and recommendations within three months of the review being instigated, and lay that report before Parliament.(4) The Secretary of State must implement any recommended changes indicated by the findings of their review within six months of the date on which the report is published.(5) The Secretary of State may make provision to carry out subsection (4) by regulations made by statutory instrument.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to recalibrate the share of non-domestic rates paid by retailers not on the high street through a review informed by expert advice, to be implemented within one year of the passing of this Act.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, we debated this amendment two or three hours ago. It would level the playing field between internet warehousing and high street shops. I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in that debate and to the Minister for his helpful and constructive suggestions, but I am afraid that they were too vague. The wait will be too long and the crisis for high street shops is pressing, so I would like to divide the House.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, this group is about understanding the impact of the Bill. To help us focus on why this is important, my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I have produced our own notional one-dimensional impact assessment.

If a property had a rateable value of £100,000, before Covid it was paying close to £50,000 in rates. Then, when the pandemic came, if—and only if—it qualified for relief, that £50,000 would benefit from a 75% reduction. In this case, the business owner would have been paying only £12,500. Rolling forward, what do we find when the Covid relief is completely lifted? The rateable value has not changed; it is still £100,000. So, by our calculation, if—and only if—the full multiplier reduction is applied, that business will be paying £30,000 in non-domestic rates.

I am sure the Minister can spot where we are heading on this. Yes, the business will nominally have a reduction in its rates, but those are the rates it was paying before the Covid relief. In reality, it will have gone from paying £12,500 to £30,000; that is what will be hitting the business. I have two questions for the Minister. First, allowing for our slight approximations to make the maths easy, is this broadly correct and, if not, what is the actual analysis? Secondly, how on earth will this bring benefits and investment to the high street?

As the noble Baroness points out, it is right to talk about the impact assessment, both before the implementation of the Bill and once it has been implemented. The accelerated timeline for the Bill’s implementation has left insufficient time for stakeholder consultation, particularly regarding measures affecting distribution warehouses and out-of-town retail premises, as the noble Baroness just mentioned. Therefore, my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I have tabled a number of amendments to help probe different aspects of the impact the Bill will have. When we get to Report, we will hope to refine this—that is, if the Government have not put forward their own amendments, which I expect they will because this makes so much sense and is so important to the Bill.

Amendment 48 would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on Clauses 1 to 4 before they come into force—very similar to what we have just heard. Amendment 49 proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of the new multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site, compared with those occupying multiple sites. This is because the relief system had a cap on it. That cap goes. The question is: does the multiplier applied across multiple sites mean that some large multisite organisations will bust the cap and benefit substantially at the expense of single-site retailers or not? Because there is no impact assessment, we have no idea. This will, essentially, help us to differentiate the effect between the size and scale of businesses.

Amendment 50 is intended to assess the cumulative impact on businesses of the changes in the Bill with the expected removal of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief—coming to the point I was just talking about. Amendment 52 proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of the leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses in different council areas. In other words, how will this affect the regional distribution? The Minister, as someone who comes from the north, will understand that there are significant differences between what happens in the north and the south-east of England. Coming from Herefordshire, I would say that there is exactly the same sort of difference there, if not even greater. Amendment 73 is consequential.

These, taken with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, are all about how we know what the Bill will actually do. The Government have made bold claims about the effect they assert it will cause on Britain’s high streets. On these Benches, it seems there is absolutely no way of supporting those claims because there is absolutely no data.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will add a few words on this important group of amendments. It is not possible to do an impact assessment at the moment. This has been rushed, and the new valuation list will not be completed for another three or four months. Non-domestic rates are the third-highest cost to most RHL businesses, after rent and employment costs. The third-highest outgoing for these businesses is being discussed here and going into law as we speak before one of the critical ingredients of the P&L of those businesses is known. It will not make good law.

The amendments we have heard about in this group, and some of those to come in later groups, refer to a request for delay to the impact assessment so that these variables are known and businesses are not groping about in the dark trying to understand their profitability and do their business plans. It is not the right moment to be having this conversation, but all will be fine if we allow an extra year to do the impact assessments and the required consultations with the professional bodies that have the expertise, which can then be assessed by secondary legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to introduce a number of provisions into the Bill requiring reports and assessments of various types. They are concerned with the impact on the RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—sector, including on local government revenues, businesses more generally and economic growth. Some reports and assessments would be required before Clauses 1 to 4 come into force, and others after.

First, I want to stress to the Committee the importance we attach to being clear and transparent about this policy—who will be affected and the impact it will have on revenue. The principles behind these amendments are sound. It is right that the impact of tax changes should be carefully considered in detail. However, there is a balance to be struck and some of these amendments would place an undue constraint on the Government that would likely delay the new multipliers coming into effect from April 2026. Others would duplicate existing reports or would require reports to be produced before we will have been able to collect any data from local authorities. Through a combination of existing reports and commitments already made, I am confident that we can give noble Lords the assurances they seek.

Amendments 48 and 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seek to require the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the new multiplier arrangements on businesses, high streets and broader economic growth. Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce a very similar requirement.

Noble Lords will be aware that policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions as defined in the Better Regulation Framework. Obviously, tax measures are introduced for very different reasons from other types of legislation and are therefore not under the same requirements to be accompanied by an impact assessment. This has been the settled position for many years. In fact, the exemption for tax from the meaning of a regulatory provision was captured in primary legislation passed by this House in 2015. Section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 excluded a statutory provision which makes or amends provisions imposing, abolishing or varying any tax, duty, levy or other charge. That exemption now exists in paragraph 2.3 of the Better Regulation Framework.

Nevertheless, the Government understand that there is great interest in the effects of the new multipliers, and the Treasury is committed to publishing analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements when the rates are set in the Budget later this year. The reviews that Amendments 50 and 52 seek to introduce are focused on the changes in business rates paid by qualifying RHL properties and other types of businesses. I believe that what these reviews seek to understand is how the business rates liabilities of affected RHL or other properties have and will change, reflecting on the provision of retail, hospitality and leisure relief since 1 April 2020 and the introduction of the permanent lower multipliers for qualifying RHL businesses and the higher multipliers from April 2026.

Noble Lords will know that retail, hospitality and leisure relief has varied year on year since it was introduced, reflecting the particular economic circumstances, including the terrible economic shock that was created by the Covid-19 pandemic. What is more important to point out, however, is that this relief’s expansion in response to Covid was a temporary, stop-gap measure that has been rolled over repeatedly, leaving businesses in a perpetual state of uncertainty until clarity for at least one more year was provided at Budgets. The new RHL multipliers are ending that uncertainty, introducing permanent lower tax rates that will help qualifying RHL businesses to plan ahead and get on with running their businesses rather than constantly worrying about what the next Budget may bring them.

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that there is great interest here and I trust that my reassurance that His Majesty’s Treasury will be publishing analysis of the new multiplier arrangements at the 2025 Budget allays noble Lords’ concerns. The Government, as a matter of course and good practice, keep all tax policy under review. As such, to seek to impose such a requirement in legislation is not necessary. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, could I point out that these forecasts are all going to be hypothetical? In five months’ time, the VOA will produce, or have access to, the updated new rateable values nationwide. Current rateable values will be history. Therefore, we have to anticipate what those might be. The balancing act between the larger properties subsidising the smaller RHL properties will then be reworked, but we cannot do it at the moment, which is one of the reasons why we feel that time is required for delays to the impact assessment process to take us one further year ahead.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I take everything that the noble Lord says in a good spirit; I will come back to him on that point. Let me be clear on the remit of the Bill. On when the Treasury will set its multipliers, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I will go away and see. As I said on day one in Committee, I look forward to meeting all noble Lords who have an interest and amendments. I am happy to sit down and discuss this; if I can get one of my colleagues from the Treasury, subject to availability and diary commitments, I will of course pursue that.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I too do not wish to labour the point but, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that the ministry already has access to the new valuation list. Yet Colliers, a leading firm of rating surveyors with which I have had extensive discussions on this Bill, assures me that 1 June is when the work from the VOA will be completed. It may have been completed early but, if that is the case, can we please have that detail so that businesses can do their budgets and business plans?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I say directly again that the 2026 revaluation has not yet been completed but, obviously, the Treasury is working on it. It is having conversations with all stakeholders, of course. In fact, it is probably also looking at forward planning on the whole future of business rates. As I said on our first day in Committee, this is the start of a huge strategic focus looking at business rates; this is the first part of it. I assure colleagues that, as soon as the multipliers are announced at the Budget, noble Lords will have an analysis—not an assessment, but an analysis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66, 64 and 69B. Children in Armed Forces families have a very difficult time. My noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal’s husband was in the Royal Air Force for 30 years, I believe, and in that time they moved 24 times. By the time their children were nine, they were in their seventh school. That is why so many military families choose to find a boarding school as an option for their children, so that they can have continuity and consistency of education.

I cannot remember how many times I had to move during my school life; it was not seven by the time I was nine, but about five times. Each time you move, it is difficult to get into the system of a new school, make new friends and all the rest of it. There is a very strong argument for children of families in the military to have the exclusion argued for in Amendment 66. At a time when as a country we are thinking more about defence and security and, I guess, trying to encourage more young people to become part of the military in many different ways, they will think about what will happen to their families as they move so constantly. I urge the Minister to give special consideration to Amendment 66.

On Amendment 64, the noble Lord said that musical education has been neglected and allowed to decline. That is absolutely true, and we ought to give a bit of thought to how it has been allowed to decline and when. It is a cause of huge concern to me. I have a daughter who went from a state school to the Royal Academy, so I understand a bit about the importance of musical education. I urge the Government to give more attention to musical education in our state schools. What is particularly discouraging is the decline in opportunities for young people in state schools to learn a musical instrument. In the town where I live, they have declined considerably. In my view that is a tragedy, for the reasons that have been given.

Finally, on Amendment 69B, looked-after children ought to have a special place in our concerns. If there is a charity that I have not heard of that offers some young children who are looked after the opportunity for getting away from the place that has caused a lot of difficulty and trauma in their lives, I hope the Government will look at it sympathetically. I do not know enough about that—although I know quite a bit about children looked after within a local authority setting. But if there is a special opportunity for children who need to escape their surroundings to do so in this way, it ought to be given sympathetic consideration by the Government. I look forward to the Minister giving a good response to these pleas.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I have not added my name to these amendments, but I feel strongly about them. This vital group, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, is directly focused on those in need. I want to consider for a minute this group from a different point of view—the point of view, if you like, of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave the example of five schools by the age of seven—or seven by the age of five, I do not remember. I was one of those children. My parents were civil servants serving abroad, and they chose to keep me at home well into my teens, whereas most in similar positions were sent back to the UK to attend an independent school and be given the continuity of education that is required at home, wherever home may be.

The price I paid was 13 schools through the course of my education. Most of those were attempts to cram or correct for the next stage, because I was always turning up half way through a term, starting on a Wednesday in a class of 25 people—having never seen any of them before—after coming 3,000 miles. Then I was off again two years later, and there was a different syllabus—and a different language in one case. I ended up here in the UK knowing a great deal about Captain Cook, the South Pacific and the Māori but absolutely nothing about English history or any of the other normal curriculum subjects.

I spent my last few years at school on the back foot in a special independent school, trying to catch up. Had I not had that opportunity, I certainly would not be proud or competent enough to stand here today and address your Lordships. It taught me some self-confidence in the absence of any sort of academic success. University was out of the question. I give this example simply because it is terribly important that those serving abroad, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, are given the opportunity to give their children an equal start.

I am very pleased that I had the alternative, because my parents wanted to keep us at home, wherever home was. It did not really do me any harm at the end of the day, but I got no GCSEs, O-levels or A-levels, other than the odd one—usually called something like technical drawing or one of these back-door opportunities. I mention this simply to drive home, perhaps, the importance of what is being discussed, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Let us not destroy the opportunity for those young people.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that very eloquent contribution about the noble Lord’s personal journey. I will talk first to Amendments 63, 64 and 66, which seek to provide carve-outs from the Bill measure: in the case of Amendment 63, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 7% of gross income is spent on means-tested fee assistance; in the case of Amendment 64, for all private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education for gifted arts students, such as those attending specialist music and dance schools or performing arts colleges; and, in the case of Amendment 66, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 10% of students have at least one parent or guardian serving in the military.

The contributions that we have heard today reflect concerns about how the Bill may affect pupils from lower-income backgrounds, including those from military families, or those who are gifted arts pupils. Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. What is more, we do not think that Parliament should be putting in place incentives for charities to act in the public’s benefit in the way that Amendment 63 might encourage. Acting in the public benefit is something that a charity should inherently wish to do. Charitable private schools will continue to operate as charities and this Bill does not make any tax changes affecting their charitable status. For example, they will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus, as for-profit schools are taxed on their profits.

In designing the policy, the Government listened very carefully to representations and reached the view that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools wholly or mainly concerned with full-time education for pupils with EHCPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. This approach was adopted because to carve out some private schools and not others would be unfair. However, the Government listened carefully to concerns raised and, in relation to pupils from military families or those attending specialist arts schools, the Government have taken appropriate steps in relation to two government schemes.

I will elaborate further. The Government offer a means-tested bursary scheme for pupils who attend any one of eight specialist performing arts private schools. The music and dance scheme provides means-tested bursaries and grants totalling around £32 million per year to enable children and young people with exceptional potential to benefit from specialist music or dance training. It is available to qualifying families if their child has a place at any one of the aforementioned eight private schools.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

74: Clause 6, page 6, line 22, leave out “2026” and insert “2027”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to delay the introduction of amendments 1 to 4 from 2026 to 2027 to allow more time for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, most of the amendments this afternoon have concerned schools. I want to return to commercial premises in my contribution on this group. Amendments 75 and 76 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, are included; theirs deal with schools but the core principles of our three amendments are similar.

As we have heard from noble Lords, there is widespread concern at the haste with which the outstanding consultations and studies are to be carried out—presumably to coincide with the rating revaluation, which cuts in in a few months’ time. I am afraid that that is not a good enough reason to curtail the chance to do these studies properly; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has just made a powerful intervention on precisely that. We can rush it and create bad law or do it properly and get it right.

As I explained in our debate on the first group this afternoon, there is currently under way an update of rateable values, which, until I heard the Minister’s comments at that time, I understood was not to be completed until June. I am delighted to hear that it is possibly available immediately, as we would all love to see the figures.

It is unfortunate timing, as those businesses and schools will not know their new rateable values until then, yet here we are legislating in ignorance of this new and significant fixed cost. As explained, it is the third-highest cost to an RHL business after staff and rent. I stress that this amendment would change nothing concerning the material content of the Bill. It is merely timing. I simply want a further 12 months to assess the impact on these hundreds, possibly thousands, of businesses, particularly those small businesses that are trying to make decisions regarding future investment, which the country needs to invigorate growth, but cannot until they know their cost base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendment 74, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and Amendments 75 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook. These amendments seek to delay the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Amendment 74 seeks to delay from 2026 to 2027 the commencement of Clauses 1 to 4, covering the new multipliers. The reasoning behind this proposal, as provided by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to provide more time to allow for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.

As I have set out elsewhere during the course of the Committee proceedings, the Treasury has committed to publishing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget. To clarify, the 2026 re-evaluation of the multipliers is ongoing and is not yet completed. We expect it to be published around the Budget.

As noble Lords will remember, the Bill is the Government’s first step in transforming the business rates system, and to delay it would delay the Government’s progress in undertaking this broader ambition over the course of this Parliament. Furthermore, it would delay the introduction of the new permanent tax cuts for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that those businesses would have to wait a further year for the lower multipliers.

Amendment 75 seeks to delay the implementation of the removal of charitable rate relief from private schools, pending an impact assessment focused on access to university for pupils in private schools in receipt of means-tested fee assistance. Amendment 76 would more generally delay by one year to April 2026 the same measure in Clause 5.

I understand the concerns that the swift implementation of Clause 5 from 1 April this year does not give private schools or local authorities time to prepare for the change—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just touched on. However, the Government announced this change in July 2024, stating then that it would be implemented from April 2025, subject to the passage of legislation. As such, private schools have been aware of this change for some time. Private schools that are impacted by the change already pay business rates. They already have a rateable value, they do not have to register with their local authority, and it is very simple for them to calculate their additional business rates bill. As these schools are already known to local authorities, the removal of the charitable relief should also be straightforward from their perspective. The Government are engaging with local authorities to support them through this change.

Delaying implementation of the Bill would forego approximately £140 million per year in funding, delaying the Government’s intended investment to deliver their commitments to education and young people and to support investment in our state sector, where more than 90% of children in England are educated.

The amendments call for an impact assessment. As Members of the Committee know full well, tax measures are not subject to full impact assessments. I continue to say this to the Committee because it continues to be correct, as it was under previous Governments. Despite this, my department has produced detailed analysis of the impacts of Clause 5, which was published alongside the Bill, as I stated earlier.

Amendment 75 also raises the question of access to higher education. Access to higher education should be based on ability and attainment, not background. Opportunity should be available to all, and it is the Government’s aspiration that no groups are left behind. That is why we are seeking, through this Bill, funding for new investment in the state sector.

I am also aware that there is concern across the Committee that the Bill’s measures may result in private schools that are charities reducing their charitable activity, of which the provision of means-tested bursaries is one such activity. It will be for individual private schools to determine how they will meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill’s measures, but they could, for example, reduce surpluses or reserves, cut back on non-essential expenditure, increase fees or use a combination of different approaches.

It is important to note that the measure does not remove the charitable status of these schools and charitable schools will continue to operate as charities. They must continue to demonstrate that they meet public-benefit tests, and the Government expect all charitable schools to continue to demonstrate this to retain their still very favourable status as charities. No other tax changes specific to their charitable status will affect private schools. They will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus.

As I have said, we cannot agree to delay the implementation of these measures. I hope that noble Lords can see this and will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this final group, and I thank the Minister for offering an opportunity to meet to discuss this in more detail, which I will take up. I remain concerned about the unintended consequences of the rush to get this through, for both schools and businesses but, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

We are still on group 1. We will come to group 2 in the fullness of time.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My apologies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and to my notice opposing the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I was pleased and interested to see that the Liberal Democrats had tabled a purpose clause, given that they have criticised purpose clauses tabled by my Conservative colleagues on other Bills. On the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

2: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of Lord Thurlow, seeks to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for more valuable properties.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, after my practice run, for which I apologise, I rise to address this second group. Conveniently, it consists of three amendments, all in my name. Before doing so, I should mention that I was formerly a chartered surveyor and spent several decades working in the realms of commercial property. This included a certain amount of rating, so I have considerable experience. I also beg the Committee’s leave inasmuch as I was unable to take part at Second Reading, but I have read Hansard and spoken to colleagues.

The purpose of Amendments 2 and 4—the latter is consequential on the former—is to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for the more valuable RHL properties on the valuation list. There is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s proposal to pay for the reduced multiplier, hereditament or—I cannot remember what it used to be called—poundage by taxing the larger organisations. To understand this, we must look for a moment at what characterises a successful high street and distinguishes it from one that withers and fades. Although a high street that has withered will continue trading, it will have lost its heart as a retail centre and lost the social cohesion that it provides to the community. There is a gradual decline in the presence of national multiples, which are the key to high streets’ economic health.

A key presence in a successful high street are the anchor retailers, as we have heard. These may be department stores—though, sadly, few remain—other large retailers, such as Marks & Spencer, or possibly a leisure centre. Importantly, nowadays, it may also be a large supermarket. Most larger towns now have a town centre shopping scheme, of course. These are developments that have been carried out behind the retail frontage, usually, but with one or two shopping units providing access to the prime section of that high street. They are anchored by a large retailing presence: the department store or the supermarket in the shopping centre. They also frequently have the advantage of providing car parking and bus station services to the high street, which are particularly important these days with traffic restrictions and general congestion.

It is important to understand that anchor retailers are the lifeblood of our high streets, many of which are pedestrianised to improve the experience and safety of pedestrian traffic. The proposal to charge the larger retailers or RHL traders premium rates will cause yet more of these anchors to close down. This will structurally destabilise the complementary nature of a balanced retail offer. These anchors, including supermarkets, are already under extreme financial pressure.

It is no accident that the large department stores are fast disappearing from our high streets. To ask the higher NDR companies to pay this extra tax is punishment in the extreme. British Home Stores has gone, as has Binns in the north-east. C&A, which many of us will remember, is a good example of another that was forced to close by its parent because it could not afford all the costs, yet it trades healthily and thrives across continental Europe and in other countries around the world. It closed in this country because it could not afford to trade any longer; there was nothing wrong with its product.

Ironically, the only retailers that can afford the high street costs are the mail order giants, and the Government know who they are. Yet we must tread carefully in taxing the fulfilment centres, which are linked to the remaining high street operators and which, by managing to operate away from the high street, can control their costs and keep operating. They are a very different category from the Amazon generic, if I may use that phrase, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, already mentioned.

Amendment 45 probes the wisdom of asking the large ratepayers—£500,000-plus is proposed—to subsidise the RHL discount for smaller traders. As already mentioned, the sweeping and inclusive size-related premium will impact many high street retailers attempting to stay afloat by resourcing their mail order businesses elsewhere. They are not the Amazon generic. Asking the larger retailers to subsidise the smaller ones is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The unintended consequence is that the larger retailers will find it harder to continue. It will be another financial burden for them to bear, and it is too much. High street shops will then close to save costs, impacting in turn the economic health of the town.

The key to all this is to separate the fulfilment centres operating behind the scenes of the high street retailers—the big organisations—from the Amazon generic. Dealing with this is complicated and difficult, and it is a matter of definitions. The solution is to ask the experts. There has been consultation on the Bill, but there has been no impact study of this aspect. There needs to be a simple invitation to the experts in the field—the Rating Surveyors’ Association, the RICS and one or two others—whose profession is focused on these subjects, to come up with proposals, ideas and suggestions that can then be refined and considered as a satisfactory solution to funding the discount that the small RHL players will enjoy. Amendment 45 addresses that funding problem. It should not be the highest ratepayers; they suffer enough. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Thurlow for introducing this point. I support the general thrust of what he said, although I do not see any great likelihood that this will move the government position at all.

--- Later in debate ---

I am particularly conscious of the support that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has previously expressed for reform of the business rates system, so I hope he welcomed the discussion paper on transforming business rates that the Government published at the 2024 Autumn Budget. I trust that he will bring the full weight of his professional experience and knowledge to support the Government in their endeavour to reform the business rates system and, in the meantime, will withdraw his Amendment 2.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this group. The most important takeaway is that it would be too little, too late to postpone until 2027. The acute pain felt in the high street is great enough for there to be substantial loss of retail presence if we do not move more swiftly. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that the lack of impact assessments on the specific, granular issue of definitions is of very serious concern. It needs only another 12-month delay for consultations with experts to take place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, revealed with clarity—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to it as well—that there is a harsh difference between an Amazon warehouse with a rental value, on which rateable values are based, of £4.50 per square foot, versus £45 on the high street. That is a massive difference. Amazon are paying 10%. We are tinkering with the deckchairs if the rate poundage is increased for these larger retailers because it cannot be increased—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out—to anything near what will be required to provide balance.

The difficulty is one of definitions. I would be grateful if we could speak to the Bill team before the next stage of the Bill. There is scope to introduce a new use class order specifically for the purposes of rating—not for planning, but rating. This would identify the difference between a fulfilment centre for a high street business and an Amazon generic. If that was offered, I would withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have been able to provide further information and clarification for noble Lords and that, with that, they will be able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Does the Minister have any comments to make on the possibility of redefining the use classes for the purposes of rating, which would focus on the Amazon generic problem?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I forgot to mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; it would be helpful for him to sit down with me to discuss that, as well as his previous request, as soon as he has time in his diary. This is a discussion that we should have to engage on that particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is another example of the blunt instrument in operation. We have talked about increasing tax on public services, some of which have the ability to recover the money via new burdens, while some do not. But these services are offered by private sector organisations, and we know for a fact that they will not get recompense from the Government for this, which will increase their costs, reduce their profit and may eliminate their viability altogether. When post offices and Crown offices are retreating from the high street, this is not a good time for those businesses.

In a moment we will talk about flagship operations. I put it to noble Lords that banks and post offices are flagship operations. People travel to towns to visit a post office and banks, and then they spend their money on other things, so by denuding or putting in peril those sorts of operations, we are removing the attraction of town centres. We are making sure that they do worse rather than better. That is the first point.

Secondly, I have a relative who owns a shop in a country town—I do not have an interest in that shop—and one of their biggest difficulties is banking their money. They have to drive 20 miles twice a week to take bags of money to bank it because there is no longer a bank. The removal of a banking hub would make that even harder. It also drives shops to go fully digital, which means that people who do not want to use digital and want to keep using cash are no longer facilitated by those businesses. I have seen businesses that can no longer handle cash simply because they no longer have the necessary banking facilities.

Once again, we are looking at the RHL sector, but these businesses serve the RHL sector and make their lives operational. I am happy to support the various amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how taxing post offices and banking hubs will help the RHL sector in our town centres and high streets.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she hoped the Minister listens very carefully. Just to reassure her, I always listen very carefully and with great interest to everything that the noble Baroness says, as is the case for all noble Lords in this debate.

Six of these eight amendments seek to change the Bill to remove certain high street services from the higher multiplier. In the previous debates on the amendments in groups 4 and 5, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and have not excluded any sector or type of property. The same considerations apply here and I will not repeat them.

As regard detail, it is worth being clear what type of retail properties on the current rating list would be caught in the higher multiplier. The Valuation Office Agency’s published data shows that, of the subsector of shops that are at or above the £500,000 threshold, 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves only 900 other shops at or above £500,000 across England, and of these 630 are in London and the south-east. For most regions, the number of shops affected, excluding supermarkets, large food stores and retail warehouses is fewer than 50. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned petrol stations, and amendments would support petrol stations but, in reality, from the Valuation Office Agency’s data, the number of petrol stations above the higher multiplier threshold of £500,000 is fewer than five.

The danger with these carve-outs from the higher multiplier is that the benefit could, in part, flow to large businesses in thriving and valuable locations, reducing the ability for us to support smaller businesses and less valuable locations through the lower multiplier. We understand the importance of facilities such as post offices or banking hubs for local communities. The average post office has a rateable value of only £16,000, so we do not anticipate that the higher multiplier will apply to very many premises used by post offices, and post offices are eligible for the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

We understand that Amendments 17 and 35 seek to add to the lower multiplier hereditaments that host banking hubs. In the debate we have just had on group 4, I explained why we feel it necessary to target the lower multiplier on RHL. These amendments could easily widen the lower multiplier to other settings and introduce a loophole to the Bill. I assure the Committee that the Government will continue to work closely with high street banks to ensure that communities and local businesses have access to the banking services they need. I hope the Committee is assured that the Government remain committed to banking hubs. With these facts and assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this group of amendments which seeks to exempt so-called anchor stores from high streets.

We could do with a definition of an anchor store and, indeed, of a high street, but we will come to that in a later group. High streets vary enormously from small town high streets and market town high streets to larger town centres and city centres. When there is a new retail development in a town or city centre, the phrase “anchor store” often comes into play. It is very clear in the business sector that retail works better if there is one major store, which is a sun around which the satellites of smaller shops and businesses operate. This is the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, provided. However, that is just for a group of retail businesses, often in a new situation—such as an out-of-town retail park, a new retail development within a larger town centre or an existing large business in a town centre, for example a Marks & Spencer or a John Lewis store that has a multitude of operations within it. That enables other businesses to exist and thrive from the footfall that the big name store attracts.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the importance of these so-called anchor stores, although I would like to see whether the Government have a definition that can be applied. I agree with her argument that smaller businesses develop and thrive as a result of the draw of a so-called anchor store and, equally, the argument that she makes that, because anchor stores are critical to the business environment for the totality of large, medium and small businesses—retail, leisure, hospitality or otherwise, within the sector—it is important to think about whether those often large retail businesses are exempt from the higher multiplier.

I am thinking of a local town high street where the Marks & Spencer closed and moved out some years ago. It was absolutely clear that that was the focus of shoppers going to that town. Once it went, it caused the closure of a whole section of shops in that town and very difficult situation for the businesses that were left. The town will require government money for regeneration to get back on its feet. That is what happens.

So it is important that the Government, in thinking about the Bill and the impact it will have on businesses, think about the consequences of what they are doing. In a previous group, I raised the consequences for public sector-funded businesses, but this is as important for the future health of our town centres. If you take out the key store around which others, like satellites, are drawn because its business sums no longer add up, the whole area will be on a downward spiral.

I will give the Committee an example from some figures that I remember, so they may be wrong. Take John Lewis, which is a big store. It knows that much of its business will move online. I think its business plan expects 60% of its business to move online. If we put an additional cost, as would happen under the large multiplier, on the remaining 40% of its business, I expect that one of the consequences would be that a greater proportion would move out of the high street to online to reduce those costs. That is not what this Government want to happen. They have argued for the importance of the health of our town centres for all sorts of reasons, not just to support small businesses but to support the community which goes there to meet and so on.

It is important that the Government think about the unintended consequences of this rough and ready Bill because it will potentially have very rough consequences on our high streets, particularly those which depend on a big store as the holder of the rest of the businesses around it. I look forward to what the Minister says, but I hope that he does not use “tough choices” and “fair and sustainable”.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I will briefly add a few comments. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has clearly illustrated what happens to a town centre when the anchor departs and the economic health of the shopping environment dies.

The problem we have is that of definitions. When a comprehensive town centre development is designed by developers, it contains, without fail, something called an MSU—a major space unit. That is the anchor, the John Lewis or the Marks & Spencer. When that goes, the only possible replacement, generally speaking, is a supermarket.

If the supermarket becomes the anchor of the economic health of the high street, at the back of a shopping centre, filling the space of the department store that was there before, the supermarket really has to be described as an anchor. I do not disagree with the concept, but it makes the problem one of definitions and gets back to the question of use classes, which we will perhaps be able to speak about with the Bill team at another time.

I agree with the principle of this amendment, but I think it is more complicated. We need to get to the bottom of it, but it is one of definitions.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the two maiden speakers on their inspiring, eloquent and very interesting speeches. I want to inform the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, that he and I share something in common—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. My grandfather was the vicar of Sedgefield more than 100 years ago. Furthermore, he also sat in this Chamber, so we have two special causes to celebrate together.

The Bill is big and ambitious, with far-reaching implications not only for occupiers and landlords but for the surveying profession—I should declare that I am, and was for decades, a chartered surveyor, working in this space to some extent. I also have two buy-to-let flats and advise a property development company that develops entry-level housing in England. The surveying profession will be involved; the Courts & Tribunals Service, as we have heard, and the ombudsman services will be dramatically affected. Social services will also be involved, as will, most of all in my opinion, local authorities. That said, I support most of the clauses in the Bill; it is a very welcome addition to the statute book.

Turning to those concerns, this Bill is going to frighten landlords. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, informed us of what has happened in Scotland. That is an excellent market test of what is going to happen here in England and Wales. I too live in Scotland. A nationwide firm of estate agents which specialises in letting property closed its office nearest to where I live after Section 21 was abolished in Scotland. I spoke to them about this, and they said that they did it simply because the market dried up for landlords or they withdrew. They closed their department. All those landlords either sold their properties—most of which would have become second homes—or turned them into holiday accommodation and Airbnb-type alternatives. The only losers were the tenant community, and they have nowhere else to turn—there is a terrible shortage of housing. Do not let us fall into that trap and let that happen here.

Ending fixed-term leases is a mistake. They do not have to be long leases, but there are a lot of enterprising individuals who want to criss-cross the country: they are on secondment; they are on a consultancy project; they might be digital nomads, moving between centres of excellence in their field. They know they are going to be somewhere for three or four years. There is no reason why they should not have a fixed-term contract. The landlord would appreciate it and benefit, and, of course, they would, too—they could call it “home”.

I am concerned about, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the courts and tribunal services and the delays likely to result from the logjam of huge increases in the numbers of referrals and complaints. We underestimate the pressure on the ombudsman’s services as these new rules come into play; there will be an awful lot of call on their services.

The impact on local authorities is principally one of resourcing. They have a big role to play in this Bill; there are going to be legions of surveyors having to be trained up in the decent homes standard and the implications of the ability to operate Awaab’s law. There is going to be a significant increase in the need for computers, IT and digital recording, which will include ongoing maintenance. We are a country of some 50 million people—we are not a country like the Nordics, New Zealand or others, where they are dealing with 10% of the size of our population—and these recording systems are immensely expensive to maintain. We are asking local authorities to become policemen, and that is not their role. They will have to enforce the new rules and regulations, which is going to be culturally difficult and will require a lot more employment, training and resourcing. Who is going to pay for it? We know that the local authority system is basically bust financially.

Finally, I do not think that it will work to prohibit rental bidding. Unless I have misread the Bill—I apologise if that is the case—I think that all a landlord has to do to prevent being caught out on rental bidding is to quote an unreasonably high rent, way above estimated rental value, and let the market do its work through a Dutch auction and gazumping, or whatever else it might be. But perhaps I have missed something in the Bill.

In conclusion, I support most of the clauses of the Bill. I am concerned that some will not work, and I am certain that others need review, but I look forward to Committee very much indeed and to discussing all these matters.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my conflicts: I am a former chartered surveyor and I have buy-to-let properties, as declared and set out in the register. I began research on the Bill by trying to establish its primary purpose—what is its core objective? I know it sounds obvious, but I was not convinced; it is not clear. It was revealed as a 2019 manifesto pledge and relates to key proposals from the 2022 private sector rental report, but there is no real indication of the underlying purpose.

However, there is much good in it: the key measures to abolish Section 21, new grounds for repossession, amending rent increase provisions, the ombudsman, blanket bans, pets and other key measures. All these are interesting, helpful and, for the most part, constructive, but there is no real underlying core purpose, and none of these things needs a new Bill, particularly bearing in mind the shortage of parliamentary time. They could have been accommodated in the concurrent debates we are having on the leasehold and freehold Bill or even in the levelling-up Bill last year. I believe the real root of this should be, and indeed lies in, the shortage of housing and, in this case, of properties to rent, as we have heard particularly eloquently from the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Adonis, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

There have been numerous attempts by successive Governments to deal with housing supply—we all know that. Some imaginative ideas have been proposed to attract private finance into it, and the measure whereby Section 106 agreements were attached to planning conditions for the larger developments was quite successful. But the sale of council housing goes on, and we seem no nearer to reaching anything like the levels of new housing required to provide a sustainable balance between supply and demand. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, in his comments could not have made this clearer.

There is no point in expecting the Treasury, or the taxpayer by any other means, to finance the level of development required to meet the necessary demand. We have heard some impressive statistics. If we look back and reflect on the housing market after the Second World War, we see that tens of thousands of residential units were owned freehold by City institutions. This was an ideal scenario; they were socially responsible landlords, who invested in residential properties to meet their obligations to customers, and they were largely made up of life insurance companies and others. It is the perfect formula for housing supply: it does not involve the Treasury but comes from the private sector and is socially responsible. However, this pattern of responsible ownership was shattered by the Rent Acts in the post-war era. Rent controls arrived, and probably necessarily so, but with a sledgehammer rather than with negotiation by the City institutions.

The result was disaster for the sector. Tens of thousands of units were sold, or dumped, by the City institutions. I spoke to some of them in the early days of my career, and they explained the reasons for it. It was an avoidable tragedy for society as a whole. City investment was lost, and low-income tenants found themselves at the mercy of private landlords, many of whom were ruthless or simply uninterested in looking after their properties. The era of tenant exploitation, exemplified as some of us will remember by tales of Rachman, had begun in earnest. We must recreate an institutional market in social housing—and we can.

The long-term problem is not about rental levels; the market does that. The long-term problem is shortage of housing for rent. It is about supply and demand. Capping rentals is a catastrophic solution. The SNP-led Government in Scotland have done this; they have done the market testing for us. So many landlords have abandoned the market that one nationwide letting agency has closed its renting department permanently—and it represents an entire region of Scotland.

We can fix this problem by attracting private investment, particularly institutional investment. I am convinced that it can be done. There are examples, such as the Legal & General insurance company, which tried with great purpose and financial commitment recently not only to invest in rented housing but to build modular homes, keeping down the costs, removing layers of the development process and enabling an economic return from affordable rents. It built a factory to construct prefabrication and showed the commitment that the challenge requires. It invested millions of pounds—but I believe that it has given up on the project, sadly. I shall inquire as to why, but I suspect that the challenges were simply too great. The political commitment has been lacking.

We have heard that, when the ASTs was introduced, it was hugely successful in bringing private capital into the rental market. Initially, the private sector responded cautiously; the doubt was about whether it could trust in long-term stability and long-term freedom from political interference. The bruises of the Rent Acts have a long tail. However, ASTs have worked, as we have heard, and now the private sector is responsible for thousands of units. Sadly, the number is declining. Successive Governments have interfered, with the removal of mortgage interest as a legitimate cost, for example. Any AST landlord with a reliable tenant would not dream of serving a Section 21 notice; it is the unscrupulous few who neglect their properties and squeeze the last penny of rent from their tenants against the threat of eviction who spoil the system for everyone else. They should be the focus of this Bill and of government attention—and indeed they have their place in this Bill.

The free market must be allowed to operate with private capital. Now, the rout of private investor-owners continues, as we have heard, and more and more are selling up. The ASTs probably never replaced the provision of those early City institutions, but it was a good attempt, until political interference spotted a tempting opportunity to use it as a source of revenue. What a political mistake. The taxpayer now houses thousands of council house waiting list families and others in hotels, at public expense.

It is not all bad, however. A key positive is the reference to penalties and forfeiture to penalise bad landlords, but this is subject to a process managed by local authorities. That is a logical choice, I agree, but we all know that local authorities are strapped for cash. They are pruning their meagre resources and will have little chance of effective intervention. Without significant further central government funding, it will fail; proposals that it should be self-financing ring hollow, certainly in the early years.

Perhaps the most loudly trumpeted feature of this Bill is the abolition of Section 21. However, the government amendments have effectively delayed this by years; it may never happen under this Government.

As I explained at the beginning, the Bill at its heart should be encouraging the provision of more rental housing. We are tinkering with the details surrounding the challenge, but even the effectiveness of the tinkering has been diluted in the other place through its tsunami of amendments. We need to accelerate the supply pipeline as a priority. Wholesale investment by City institutions is required. The residential rental market needs to become an accepted, accredited investment sector in the eyes of these investors. It can be done. It has been done before. It was done 30 years ago—long after the Second World War—with shared ownership. The Government must work with these organisations and the advisory fraternity which understands it to create an investment product that will be sustainable to all parties and provide the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It can be done.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which was so well outlined by him with his usual clarity and reason. It is an amendment that I was determined to put my name to, but its popularity was such that I was too late. However, I listened intently to the informed contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. This will therefore be possibly my shortest and easiest contribution to the Bill, simply saying that, between them, the proposers have nailed this issue with an amendment that should be workable and which we hope that they will take forward on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, listed the broad coalition of support for a regulator and indeed it appears that it is ready to go. This is something which the noble Lord has campaigned on for years. His report was widely accepted and praised for its thoroughness and its remarkably workable plan for the way forward, which he has stated in detail. Interestingly, the recommendations of his working group went much further than this amendment, so the movers of the amendment are being pragmatic and measured because they want to see change now—we support that.

I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on redress, particularly interesting. It reminded us that, currently, regulation in the property sector is voluntary and sanctions are limited. This Bill will not change that enough. Do your Lordships not think it is shocking that anyone can set up a firm from their bedroom and very soon be handling hundreds of thousands of pounds of leaseholders’ and taxpayers’ money while being largely unaccountable to the leaseholders who, on the whole, do not choose them to manage their block or control their service charges? This cannot be right. An individual can set up in business as a property manager without any formal qualifications, experience or even insurance.

It seems shocking that there has been so much good legislation to protect much smaller sums, such as deposits for renters, but nothing to protect leaseholders’ funds. We have regulations and regulators for individuals and companies handling much smaller amounts of people’s money. Leaseholders are usually required by the terms of their lease to make advance payments towards the service charge and to contribute to a sinking fund or reserve fund. These sums can be substantial, especially if major works are planned, which is why we supported the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, earlier in the Bill on consultation on major works. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has asserted that there is no other area in the UK in which money is held by a third party that is not regulated—unless somebody can tell me otherwise. The federation suggests that moneys held by unregulated and unprotected third parties may well exceed £1 billion.

If we want to change the behaviour of such property agents, there needs to be a much more professional approach to training and development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, exemplified well. Mandatory professional standards should be set, along with the oven-ready code of practice.

Even within the sector, the good guys—and there are good ones—do not want the rogues giving them a bad name and tarring everyone with the same brush. It is clear that the Government are procrastinating on this issue, so much so that several years after the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, very little has happened. The fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity with this Bill to introduce relevant property agent regulations proves that they have probably yielded to the anti-regulation voices among their ranks, despite their acceptance in principle of the case for regulating property agents, which has also been accepted by the majority of interested and affected parties. We are all seeking a solution, and Amendment 94 is certainly worthy of consideration, and we urge the Government to give it that consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to Report, definitely.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I have not heard a voice in the Chamber this afternoon against the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is such a refreshing amendment, it is long awaited, and we have heard, and we all knew, that his report was kicked into the long grass many years ago by the Government, and that is something of a disgrace. Even in the Levelling- up and Regeneration Bill debates last year, this subject was much discussed. We must not overlook that large cohort of hugely responsible and professional property managers—and there are many—but our focus must be on those who fail to adopt high standards, those who knowingly overcharge, those who take discreet commissions, and those in the pockets of clients with dubious standards.

This subject of rogue managing agents has come up again and again in this Bill; the time has come to act. The amendment clearly has strong cross-party support, and we have heard that the Government want to do it in principle. If the Government really want to do something for leasehold occupiers, this is it: simple regulation of property managing agents and other related property advisers; no one to practise without registration; a no-nonsense, strictly monitored and enforced system of effective supervision; and a simple, advertised complaints procedure for the lessees and rigorous monitoring of those complaints. This amendment has my wholehearted support. I hope the Government will adopt it; if not, I hope it is pressed on Report.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to jump in front of my Front Bench, but this is not a Bill that I have followed in detail. I did not take part in the Second Reading, and I have not taken part so far in Committee, but I was in the House this afternoon, and that is why I am standing up to very briefly address your Lordships on Amendment 94, which should be fully supported. I declare a personal interest, and your Lordships will see how I can link that to supporting this amendment. My wife and I are both freeholders and leaseholders of five flats, which are in an adjacent house to our own house. We personally manage them and know all the tenants well, and we try to deal with all their needs and circumstances, but the time will come when we have to sell. It is that stage that I am worried about, to ensure that these leaseholds are properly managed under the auspices of the regulator.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

All this amendment tries to do is restore the intention of the Section 20 major works regime in the 2002 Act to what it was before the Supreme Court’s unhelpful intervention. I hope the Minister will help ensure that occurs.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his high-speed gallop through a large number of his Friday afternoon amendments. They were quite technical, and anyone who managed to keep up with them all deserves a prize. It was very good indeed. I will address one of them, Amendment 78F. It is very short but very important.

Much of this Bill is designed to protect leaseholders from freeholders and their managing agents acting in concert in any attempt to inflate service charges. These in-house relationships are ripe breeding territory for dishonest behaviour and abuse, of which the noble Earl gave an example, in the opaque realm of service charges—something we look forward to being reversed or changed by this Bill. It is a money-making business model, albeit morally and actually dishonest. We should ban any close links of this kind between managing agents and their freehold clients, and inflict suitable penalties that are strong enough, or high enough in financial terms, to be a deterrent. If the Government really want to protect leaseholders, connected relationships giving rise to such potential abuse must be banned.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 77 and make a few brief comments on other amendments. Amendment 77 would allow leaseholders to apply to the appropriate tribunal to ensure that freeholders who do not provide the agreed estate management services and allow a block to become run-down can be subject to a penalty at the sale of the freehold. There is clearly an issue of absent freeholders and little penalty when a managing agent is not appointed or adequate estate management services are not provided. The amendment would create a mechanism by which a penalty could be placed on the enfranchisement value and mean that leaseholders who have suffered from freeholder failures and consequently had to take the step towards acquiring the freehold should pay a lower cost for the collective enfranchisement of that freehold. This would reflect the freeholder’s dereliction of duty if a tribunal deemed it was warranted.

The Bill aims to remove barriers and rebalance legal costs for leaseholders to challenge freeholders at tribunal. Clause 56 addresses the enforcement of freeholders’ duties relating to service charges, and it includes provisions for tenants to make an application to the appropriate tribunal and the measures tribunals may put in place. As such, the amendment would just add to that. As well as having a power to make a landlord pay damages to a tenant for failure to carry out duties related to service charges, a tribunal would also have the power to apply a penalty to the enfranchisement value at the sale of the freehold to leaseholders. It does not seem fair, after having taken action to gain control of the freehold due to an absent freeholder, that leaseholders then have to compensate the freeholder with no penalty for that dereliction of duty. This is a modest amendment that would leave the judgment in the hands of the appropriate tribunal as to whether a penalty was warranted.

On Amendments 67 and 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, it is only right that leaseholders with old leases that have fixed service charges can challenge the reasonableness of those fees at tribunal. Evidence of costs being passed on in service charges is evident. This also ties in with Amendment 98D from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

We on these Benches support Amendment 69. We do not agree with the Government having a power to remove certain landlords from being subject to basic service charge transparency rules; all leaseholders are owed clarity on what they are paying for. We do not understand why that should not be the case.

I turn to Amendment 78 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We agree that leaseholders should be fully consulted on major works that they pay for; the noble Baroness showed that some of these costs are eye-watering. We agree with her proposal to restore the major works scheme in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which was eviscerated by the Daejan ruling by the Supreme Court in 2013, which the noble Baroness mentioned. We agree with the dissenting Lord Wilson in that decision, who said that the majority had subverted the intention of Parliament. It is not right that landlords no longer have to involve leaseholders in the decision-making process. We should use this Bill to at least restore the position to pre-Daejan so that transparency and accountability on major works are increased for leaseholders.

Amendment 78A, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, would require a landlord who had lost a service charge determination, and who was meant to return the money to the leaseholders, to pay up in two months or else face compound interest. While Section 19(2) of the 1985 Act requires that overcharges be returned to leaseholders, landlords can and do ignore this. The same applies to similar provisions in leases. Where a tribunal has determined that a service charge or portion of it has been excessive, it should be relatively straightforward for leaseholders to get that money back. We on these Benches support that part of the thrust of the amendment—to ensure that landlords are under pressure to account to leaseholders in a timely manner, or otherwise experience financial penalties, as debtors in other parts of our economy do.

I turn to the mighty avalanche of amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. For us, Amendments 78D and 78E stand out. Amendment 78D provides for a new, tighter and more objective test of value for money to replace the current test of “reasonably incurred”, which could be open to a wide range of interpretation—obviously, this is in relation to service group charge costs. Amendment 78E pushes the Government to go further in the entitlement of leaseholders to have more and better information. Given the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, we believe it is worth the Government giving them serious consideration.

Finally, although we have not yet heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we are minded to agree with his amendments, as right-to-manage and residential management companies are thinly capitalised. Unlike big freeholders, they will not have lending facilities, so would be unable to pay legal costs up front to take non-paying leaseholders to tribunal or county court. Right-to-manage and residential management companies are non-trading companies and have nothing except the service charges in their coffers. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, in light of what she has just said, that it was in this place in 1215 that the barons said to the King, “This is the Magna Carta”. This principle was established and made very clear that a person’s property could not be seized by the King, except by the lawful judgment of his Peers over the law of the land. The assumption is that if you take the property, compensation must follow, even if you are taking such property because you want to convert some or all of it into leaseholds, so that they too can become owners. The Magna Carta will tell you, “Have you forgotten your history? Have you forgotten your law?” The rule of law in this country is what gives us liberty. It is not just a question of the European Court of Human Rights; it is also Magna Carta, which is really the foundation of all these things. To seize somebody’s property, even by an Act of Parliament, would go against the whole reason why Magna Carta came out and gave us the rule of law, in the end.

Let us be very careful in this Bill. If you take away somebody’s property without compensating them, those barons from 1215 will be rising up and saying, “Remember your history, remember your law, remember the tradition that it has created, and safeguard it”.

I do not think that freeholders are simply wanting to hold on to things, in the way that the noble Baroness described some of them, or are not doing any good charitable thing. I live in Berwick in Northumberland, and the duke there has plenty of other things. I have also seen some of the charity work that is being done.

Let us not use language and words because we are enthusiastic in one direction or another and ignore the Magna Carta. It is what has given freedom and liberty even to newcomers such as me. My friends, the rule of law cannot ever simply be brushed aside because of a desire to correct a particular question. The rule of law matters. The Magna Carta matters.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I support each of the three amendments in this group. I was going to say that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerning compensation, was so articulate that it really needed no reinforcement, but I was not expecting the fine history lesson just now, which has reinforced it with great skill and humour. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained that she taught property law for many years. I studied property law for many years, and I am sure that, if I had studied under her—which would of course not have been appropriate at all in age terms—it would not have taken me so many years.

The expropriation is bad enough, but to add the retrospective characteristic in this legislation is shameful. My principal interest in contributing is the 80-year rule referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because that is a very sensible, intelligent compromise to the sledgehammer of absolute abolition of marriage value and hope value in the calculation being entirely reserved to the lessees. Many of the highest-value elements of this paragraph are, indeed, in central London and the south-east, and many are non-resident.

This clause would save the Treasury billions, in addition to earning it some billions, which we heard referred to by the noble Lord. There is logic to the 80 years proposed in his clause. That is the threshold below which mortgagees such as banks and building societies are very reluctant to lend on property. Lessees therefore have no choice but to negotiate an extension if they want to use borrowed money—and, of course, nearly all do. The 80-year rule is a compromise between the very long leases and those moving into the unmortgageable zone. It makes a great deal of sense to cut the pack in this way because it excludes those freeholders of over 80 years but encapsulates the value of the expiring leases. It should be supported.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I come to this from a professional viewpoint. I am a chartered surveyor and, until recently, I was a registered valuer with my professional body. Coming from my background, I see the balance to be struck. When I was in the public sector, I was dealing with matters of compulsory purchase and compensation. Later on, after the passing of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, I became the first chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service. Although I was not a practitioner in the matter of leasehold enfranchisement, I had a very close up and personal involvement with what was happening there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I want to pay tribute to Campden Charities, as I am a beneficiary of the activities of Campden Charities. I came from a community where the likelihood of one of us appearing in the Lords was next to zero, and Campden Charities is an important part of my arrival in your Lordships’ House. I point out that removing the ability of charities countrywide to provide such services would be devastating to some of the poorest communities in this country. Again, I stand here as a witness to the effectiveness of some of the work that they do.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, it is not on the list but I did put my name to this amendment and I am very keen to support the right reverend Prelate. Much of the debate we have had so far this afternoon seems to be focused on the rich, greedy landlords versus the impoverished tenants. If we strip this away from the debate and focus on these landlords, those addressed in this amendment are charities; they do good. They are not bad actors. Their managing agents, in the case of their property investments, are not bad actors. They are responsible to the Church and they thoroughly deserve this exemption, as we were reminded very eloquently in the excellent few words of the previous speech. I proudly add my name to the amendment.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, who is unable to be in his place today and who has asked me to speak to his opposition that Clause 28 stand part of the Bill. This is linked to a similar stand-part debate, in the name of my right reverend friend, relating to Clause 47, to be debated later in Committee.

I declare my interest as a beneficiary, as is my diocese, of the Church Commissioners. I thank the Minister for her engagement with the charities affected by the legislation so far: the Church Commissioners, John Lyon’s Charity, Portal Trust, Campden Charities, Merchant Taylors’ Boone’s Charity, Dulwich Estate and the London Diocesan Fund. I hope she will continue to engage with my right reverend friend to find an amicable solution.

The Church Commissioners for England are the freeholders of the Hyde Park Estate. If we are looking back a long way, the Church can look back longer than most. The Church has had a long relationship with that part of London, starting in 1550 when the Bishop of London was granted the manor. The first leases were granted in 1795, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners became responsible for the estate in 1868. Like the other charities mentioned, the Church Commissioners have long relationships with their estate. The money generated from the estate beyond the local is used for the betterment of the whole of our society, by the levelling up of communities and the lowest income parishes across the country, including in the diocese of Derby.

Like the other charity freeholders of large estates, the Church Commissioners manage the whole area, focusing not only on the residential properties themselves but on the whole environment, for those who live in, work on and visit the area. Their freehold ownership includes approximately 100 commercial units on the estate, where independent cafés, specialist boutiques and restaurants are mixed alongside amenities for local residents. This by no means affects the Church Commissioners alone; other large freeholders across London and beyond use their mixed freeholdings to ensure that areas have what local residents need, such as a dry cleaners, a pub, a hardware store—I could go on.

I thank the Minister for her letter to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, received today. However, concerns remain that Clause 28 threatens the ability of freeholders in large estate areas to ensure mixed areas that have all the amenities that people need. If the threshold for collective enfranchisement and the right to manage claims is lowered so that more mixed blocks can initiate a claim, there is a risk of the degeneration of these areas. There is no guarantee that newly enfranchised blocks will have the wherewithal or even the desire to maintain the make-up of the estate area. Leaseholders may not even live permanently in the area, may be foreign-owned companies or may have no active stake in the community. What need would these companies or corporations have to ensure the maintenance of a community? My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester said at Second Reading of this Bill that:

“We would lose all the shops that really matter to those who live perhaps not just in that block, but”—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. 737.]


in the locality.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which would mean that right to manage and collective enfranchisement rule changes would apply only where 50% of the leaseholders are permanent residents in a block, would certainly be a step in the right direction. At least there would be a guarantee that those managing mixed blocks would have an active stake in maintaining community resources, including shops. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government could make proposals to ensure that great estate areas, such as the Hyde Park Estate and others, are not adversely affected? Nobody wants to see local shops, amenities and community hubs closing as an unintended consequence of the Bill.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I turn to my Amendment 18 in this group. I begin by declaring my interests as both the owner of two buy-to-let investment flats and the occupier of a flat, all on leases. I stand to benefit under the Bill in both situations, which is quite patently wrong.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for articulating my amendment with greater ability than I can. I want to turn specifically to mixed-use buildings and the proposal to move from a 25% threshold for enfranchisement to 50%, and build on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Mine is a straightforward proposal: simply that lessees who are not occupiers living there as their primary residence should not benefit from the great wealth transfer that is going to take place through the enfranchisement process. It cannot be an intended consequence of the Bill.

My amendment requires that at least 50% of leaseholders should satisfy the residence occupancy condition for any collective enfranchisement to apply. I remind the Committee that I am thinking of mixed-use buildings. A very complex management expertise is required in looking after mixed-use buildings; the skills are not the same for commercial property as for residential property, and the scope for mistakes and delay is huge. The potential to improve and curate an environment through single ownership of an expansive area has been very clearly described. To expect such behaviour to continue responsibly is almost impossible under the Bill as it stands.

We have also heard that, in London and the south-east, some 50% of tenants are not residents but foreign nationals living elsewhere, with ownership registered abroad. Are they taxpayers? This group often do not want to be identified. They shroud their property in ownership interests in offshore companies, as we have heard. They are very slow to respond, doing so from time to time, let alone to offer up money when required. If the Government do not agree that 50% of leaseholders in a block should be permanent residents, can I have an informed estimate on how many billions of pounds is expected to be paid in compensation to this cohort of wealthy foreign nationals, should they pursue this new enfranchisement entitlement?

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-standing leaseholder of some 30 years. I have been a leaseholder in apartment blocks in London, Kent and Somerset, and a right-to-manage director in two apartment blocks.

I support His Majesty’s Government’s Clause 28, which seeks to raise the non- residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims from 25% to 50%, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I consequentially oppose the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to vote against Clause 28.

Your Lordships have heard how giving more say to leaseholders in mixed blocks of residential and commercial units would be a bad idea and negatively impact on investment and the effective running of these blocks. It has been said that reform would only help some foreign leaseholders and investors and would result in fewer homes being built. That is far from the case. I have lived in two blocks of mixed developments: one was controlled by a residents’ right-to-manage company, with a NatWest bank in the basement, and another contained a number of commercial units and was 100% controlled by the freeholder. I can say categorically that the right-to-manage block was run better and with cheaper service charges. The freeholder-run block exploited the residents, cross-subsidising the commercial units at their expense and giving them no effective say over how the block was run. I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the difference was that the RTM block was actually run by the residents, who were managing their own money, whereas the freeholder block was run by a managing company and the freeholders were profligate with the use of residents’ cash.

Let us be frank: maintaining the 25% cap is about the freeholders retaining control and not about fairness or efficiency. If anyone lives or invests in a flat in a block, they should have a say over how it is run. For that reason, I oppose the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Sandhurst, which would restrict enfranchisement and further strengthen the position of freeholders by limiting the number of leaseholders who can vote on and manage their own blocks of residents. RTM directors are perfectly capable of managing mixed blocks of developments.