English Devolution and Local Government

Adam Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We understand the impact of debt on Surrey, which is why it is in the priority programme. I am happy for the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet the hon. Member and others on this issue. We recognise the difficulty in Surrey, and want to make sure that people across the whole of England can benefit from reorganisation, including her constituents.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Special educational needs and disabilities families in Erewash and across Derbyshire have been broadly let down by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council, as was profoundly shown in the recent Ofsted report. While I firmly believe that reorganisation of our local services will improve SEND services, news of the devolution plans has caused families in my area to worry that reorganisation might mean further disruption to services. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and the many SEND families in Erewash that measures will be taken to ensure a smooth handover between the old authorities and the new?

[Angela Rayner]

I totally understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents in Erewash, and the situation that Derbyshire county council faces. We put £1 billion into SEND, and we have increased funding for local authorities. We recognise the pressure; I think it is fair to say that SEND comes up significantly in this Chamber. We are working, hopefully on a cross-party basis, to deliver for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We heard only this afternoon during Prime Minister’s questions about families who are really concerned about the lack of services and support, and we will continue to deliver for them.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Adam Thompson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his good fortune in securing a place in the ballot in order to introduce what is, without doubt, a very important Bill. I am, however, concerned about the scope of the Bill, and I will come to that in a moment, if I may—I do not propose to take very long. For many years, I have consistently opposed the installation of solar farms—of course, they are not farms at all—on agricultural land.

In east Kent, we are losing grade 1 agricultural land far too frequently, both to development and to be used for solar power generation. It is completely unnecessary. As I have said many times, both in this House and outside it, we have acres and acres of rooftops in public ownership, on public buildings—schools, hospitals and prisons—in addition to acres of car park space, which the French would be covering in solar panels. If we use all of that, I can see no need whatsoever to use for these purposes fine agricultural land that should be used for growing crops for feeding people. That is why I think that the scope of the Bill, good though it may be, does not go far enough. We must look, not just at new build, but at what exists and what can and should be done.

By the bye, I would go a stage further and say that we should not only be looking at solar panels, but at grey water systems. We waste gallons and gallons of water off the rooftops of this country, which of course cannot then soak into the land because we have covered it in tarmac, so it is not replenishing the aquifers. That water ought to be used for flushing lavatories and matters that do not require potable water. Again, I think there is a trick that may have been missed.

Quite clearly, what is going to happen is that the developers and the builders will scream like stuck pigs. For why? Let us take a development in Herne Bay in my constituency. I will not name the developer, because I would hate to upset Taylor Wimpey, but it has avoided installing electric vehicle charging points because there is a bit of wriggle room—the amount that it would add to the cost of the property—that allows it to get off the hook. I do not doubt that installing solar panels initially would add to the first purchase price of the property, which of course might eat into profit, and we would hate to see that. But this is essential. We have to do this, and it is long past time. I notice that the Bill gives 2026 as the start date; I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not start immediately and say that, from now on, every new build should be fitted with photovoltaic panels.

There is another issue, which is the design of the technology. We all know that retrofitted solar panels are pretty unattractive—hideous, to be blunt about it. It surprises me that, in this day and age, those developing this technology have not gone far enough and fast enough to develop attractive panels that are simply roofs like any other roof. It has got to be possible to develop a photovoltaic tile that could be used on listed buildings, but that has not happened.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I just want to advise the right hon. Member that several products of the type he is referencing are available on the market at the moment.

[Sir Roger Gale]

If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of a photovoltaic tile that is acceptable to the people who are enforcing regulations relating to listed buildings, I would be delighted to hear it. That is what I was trying to come on to before I was interrupted.

Kent, a wonderful county, has very many grade II listed buildings, and at present, it is not permitted to use solar panels—or solar tiles, as I would like to see them—on those listed buildings. It is not even permitted on other buildings, outbuildings, cottages or whatever within the curtilage of a listed building. That rules out a considerable quantity of property that can and should accommodate solar panels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I think it is laudable, and its heart is very much in the right place. We should think of the climate crisis in all matters of policy and in how we might contribute to the Government’s goal of making Britain a clean energy superpower.

The Government, guided by the excellent work of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, are already making great strides in combating the climate crisis, putting green energy at the heart of the country’s future and supporting green industrial growth wherever we can. The Government have established Great British Energy, which means that we will need new green infrastructure sooner rather than later. When it comes specifically to solar energy, I was very pleased that, within just days of taking office, the Government approved three major, long-stalled, large solar farms in Lincolnshire and East Anglia, capable of generating 1.5 GW, or enough to power 500,000 homes. That was a clear statement of intent, and one that we can all be very proud of.

At the same time, the Secretary of State pledged a rooftop revolution, making it easier for newly built homes to come with solar panels from the off and to install solar panels on existing homes. A third of our solar generation capacity already comes from rooftop solar, it is an important part of the energy generation mix and I know that the Government fully believe in rooftop solar, as I do.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

The hon. Member talks a lot about the measures that are being put forward in the move towards net zero, but we need to go further. CPRE Hertfordshire says that 60% of our targets could be achieved through rooftop solar panels alone, and supporting the Bill will help to make sure that that revolution helps towards net zero for our planet and our people.

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will cover some of those points shortly. I broadly agree with the sentiment of what she said.

The Bill’s aims, in promoting the installation of solar panels on all new homes, feed into the Government’s overall intent, and I am pleased about that. I note, however, that it is undeniable that solar farms, especially the larger ones, are much more efficient than rooftop solar for a whole spectrum of reasons. Rooftop solar panels are constrained by the size, orientation and structural limitations of individual buildings, while solar farms are optimised for maximum energy generation. The difference in output can be as high as 30%. Economies of scale mean that the cost to install, maintain and centralise the supportive infrastructure notably reduces the ratio of cost per unit of energy generated by solar farms. That is not to say that I do not support rooftop solar, because I very much do, but solar farms are a highly scalable, cost-effective means through which to achieve the green energy transition.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Is that not exactly the point—we need to do both, because that creates a subsidy for more opportunities to have rooftop solar panels?

[Adam Thompson]

I completely agree. It is not about one solution versus another, but a diverse, broad array of solutions, all feeding into a grand, greener future.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a balance. My view is that solar is better on rooftops, but if he is so pro-solar installations, how many thousand acres in his constituency is he actively campaigning to see turned into ground-mounted solar?

[Adam Thompson]

I must say that I declare my support for those projects wherever they come up. Indeed, I will touch on some of them in a moment. I was recently asked by the media whether I would be happy to have pylons outside my house, to which I responded with a photograph of a pylon taken from a window in my house.

I have long felt that despite the great benefits solar farms bring, they have often been too difficult to bring forward. The UK has around 15 GW of solar energy generation capacity. In Germany, meanwhile, solar capacity grew by 14 GW in 2023 alone. It is clear that the UK’s current planning regime and approach to building infrastructure constrains growth and sees us lag behind similar nations. If we want Britain to be a clean energy superpower, as I do, and leading the green energy revolution rather than just following it, we must tear down the barriers to growth and unlock our potential.

In my constituency, my Labour colleagues on Erewash borough council have, in their own small, local way, helped to be part of the change that we need. Since taking control of the council in 2023, they have approved several solar farms, while the previous Conservative administration always blocked them, and I am very proud of my colleagues for doing so. I was also very proud to tell the now Energy Secretary that information when he visited Erewash this time last year. The progression of these vital infrastructure projects, which are pivotal to the future of our country, must be driven by a national strategy and not held up by bureaucracy.

As I have said, the Bill’s proposals are laudable. The drive to green energy generation along with this Government’s ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower could be, to this decade and to those to come, what the race for space was in the 1950s and 1960s—countries engaged in a great contest of scientific innovation and progress. There is nothing that I, as a former research scientist, could welcome more than the Government pursuing science, innovation and technology as a matter of not only core policy, but national pride.

This Government are committed to greatly expanding our provision of solar energy generation and have acknowledged many times the significant part that rooftop solar has to play in that expansion. I hope that supporters of this Bill are assured by the Government’s genuine commitment on this front. The climate crisis and the housing crisis are both profound issues, worthy of the descriptor “crisis” and in need of immediate action. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members share the Government’s commitment to act here, as I most certainly do.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Adam Thompson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward this wonderful Bill. It is important to say that this Bill is fundamentally about making it easier to vote in Scotland and Wales. It would improve the situation for residents in those areas by allowing them to vote by post and proxy in a way that they would not necessarily be able to at the moment.

I grew up in south Wales, so this issue is close to my heart. I was consistently impressed when I was growing up by the work of the Electoral Commission, or as it would rightly be known in Wales, Y Comisiwn Etholiadol. I must declare that I had a special closeness to the Electoral Commission, because during the noughties my mother was the leader of the Wales office, so the fact that I had great respect for its work is maybe a little close to home.

In the 2000s, the commission had a great advert on television, and it stuck with me. Maybe I was paying a little more attention to adverts put out by the Electoral Commission than many of my teenage colleagues at the time, but this wonderful advert had a series of vignettes of cartoon characters, with two guys going about their daily life and talking about various issues they were coming up against. One of the guys was saying, “You should make sure you vote, man,” and the other one kept saying, “I don’t do politics, me.” They would go into, say, a supermarket, and the guy who says he doesn’t do politics says, “The price of milk’s too high.” The next scene is in a pub, and he says, “The price of beer is too high.” The whole message of this advert was that politics is in everything. It is really important that we, as politicians, drive that message home always. We should be doing everything in our power to expand and improve access to politics. That is why the Bill is really important.

Those adverts—and there were many put out by the Electoral Commission at the time—were focused on making sure that people had access to voting and were going out and voting. I was not so lucky as to get the vote at 16 in Wales—I was too old for that—but when I got the opportunity to vote for the first time aged 19, I remember getting multiple phone calls from my mum shortly before saying, “You make darn sure you sign up for a postal vote in advance,” because I was at university and had to make sure I was signed up.

I am a big proponent of making sure that young people have access to voting and that we do everything we can to encourage them to vote. We should support all young people to vote more easily, and the measures in the Bill are really important in that work. We need to be removing the barriers.

[Graeme Downie]

Although my mum did not work for the Electoral Commission, she was a polling counter both at polling stations during the day and at the count, including for the very first Scottish Parliament election; I remember vividly picking her up from the count at about 5 o’clock in the morning, having stayed up all night to watch it. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to improve the smooth running of elections in this country, we must support more people to participate in those vital roles, which involve very long shifts at polling stations followed by the counts, which can go on much longer? Anything we can do to support them would be much appreciated.

[Adam Thompson]

Of course, I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend just said. I am sure that many Members—probably all right hon. and hon. Members—agree that the polling clerks and all the attendants on election day are a vital part of our democracy, and they have our thanks for their work, year in, year out, in all elections.

As I was saying, I am a great fan of doing everything we can as a Government and as Parliament to improve access to elections and to remove barriers. Digital measures of the sort in the Bill are a really important part of that. We have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the importance of breaking down the barriers in the way of those who are digitally illiterate and giving everyone access to a way of signing up for postal and proxy votes online. I also advocate for more education in schools.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I am in the fortunate position of being the neighbouring MP, so you may well be familiar with the school I mention, which is just down the road from your constituency. Will you commend Langley Mill academy for its great work to raise awareness among young people of British values and our voting system, and sadly for putting a photo of me on the overhead projector when I visited? They asked me lots of insightful questions, which really showed that they are learning about our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson]

I thank my neighbour and dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). I certainly agree with her and commend the school in Langley Mill. I was her predecessor as the Labour candidate in Amber Valley in 2019, and I know the fantastic work the school is doing. I am a great proponent of visiting schools. I went to two last week: Ladywood primary school in Kirk Hallam, and Saint John Houghton Catholic voluntary academy, which I know my hon. Friend attended as a pupil many years ago. I am a fan of school visits, and as a trained former teacher, I find it one of the most enjoyable parts of my job. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are similarly strong advocates.

I was talking about the importance of better education in school, breaking down the barriers to opportunity and ensuring that all our pupils get access to the knowledge they require to engage fully in our political system. I remember the few short hours when I was a pupil at Llanishen high school in north Cardiff when the headteacher, Mr Robert Smyth, came in and taught my class about politics. He was given just four or six hours over the five years of my time in state education. It is disappointing that we have such a small amount of politics education available to pupils in state schools. I have long been a great advocate of expanding the time given to that. It is one of the things I greatly enjoy doing as a Member of Parliament—joining as many schools as possible to impart to pupils the knowledge that I have gained in this place and through my experiences.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that education in schools is absolutely central to making sure that Chambers across the country start to look like the communities they represent and to achieving 50:50?

[Adam Thompson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and, of course, I completely agree with everything she says. I firmly believe that education, skills development and all the aspects we have just been discussing should be core to all of our policies. Indeed, my previous role prior to coming to this place was as an educator at the University of Nottingham, where I taught degree-level apprenticeships in electromechanical engineering. I am a great advocate of the apprenticeship system, and I am very pleased by the Government’s commentary over the past few months about expanding skills provision across the board.

As I have said repeatedly throughout this speech, it is really important that we advocate for these points as much as possible. I am sure that colleagues across the House will be au fait with the comments we often receive on the doorstep. Like many colleagues, I will be out knocking doors tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon, and very often people say how difficult they find it to access our political system. Many areas such as mine have multiple tiers of government: councils, local government, mayors and MPs. We are talking about devolution at the moment and maybe reorganising some of those systems, and I think there is an opportunity to simplify them.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about simplifying systems. My father applied for a postal vote because he was taking advantage of the early Scottish holiday and was going to be away on 4 July. When he tried to access a postal vote to vote for me, he found that the council could not recognise him, yet as he pointed out, it had been able to collect his council tax for some years. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if we are going to increase the number of postal and proxy votes, we must also have better systems on the other side to short-circuit those problems?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Since the vote is private, who knows how the hon. Gentleman’s father actually voted?

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree. It is important that when these difficult scenarios arise, we are able to account for them and have systems in place to deal with them.

To conclude, we have had a really interesting discussion today. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith are very valuable and will allow a whole group of extra people to access our electoral system, which is complex. The Bill will allow us to simplify it, homogenise systems between England, Wales and Scotland, and generally improve things for voters across the country.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Adam Thompson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One problem is the same law of unintended consequences that we have seen with things like the national insurance increase—which, as we repeat over and over again, is impacting small businesses, hospices, doctors’ surgeries and things like that—when quite understandably, an attempt is made to raise funds from elsewhere.

I want to share the views of Anthony Woodhouse, the chair of Hall and Woodhouse brewery and pub chain, founded and based in Dorset but with a branch just across the way from this place—unfortunately, I am not able to be at its event in Portcullis House because of the timing of today’s debate. Anthony told me that the revaluing of property when a huge amount of money has just been invested to make it fit for a changing market, and before you have even had a chance to benefit from that market, is completely crazy and discourages business investment. As such, it is important that as we look to reform business rates, we examine that issue as well.

Despite our failure to do that, businesses such as Anthony’s are responding to the market. Pubs such as the Olive Branch in Wimborne and the Old Granary on Wareham quay are now places where muddy boots, children and dogs are welcome, and where they sell as many cups of coffee as pints of local beer. The high street needs to morph as businesses have—to be ready and willing to change—but while business rate reform rightly starts with the high street, it is important that it does not end there.

As such, I turn to our amendments 1 to 6, which would add manufacturing businesses to the lower multiplier. The UK has a rich history of manufacturing excellence, and Barclays’ “Made in Britain” report found that a product being made in Britain held an important influence over consumers’ decision to purchase it, with customers perceiving such products to be high quality, reliable and internationally respected. The “made in Britain” tag was found to be worth an addition £3.5 billion a year to our UK exporters, which is why we believe that the lower multiplier should also apply to manufacturing businesses. We need to give those businesses a shot in the arm to ensure they can compete on the world stage. The threats by incoming President Trump to put tariffs on UK products, our continued isolation from our neighbours through an inadequate Brexit deal, and the rapid growth of economies such as China and India represent a real threat to local manufacturing.

Poole Bay Holdings, based in my constituency, stands ready to produce its innovative Koolpak here in the UK. Anybody who has children will know the brand Koolpak—it is that ice pack that is not even ice—and that business has been modifying its equipment so that it can make the product here, in Dorset, to compete with China. It stands ready to drive up those sales. Recognition of such businesses through a lower multiplier, or at least the potential to include them in a lower multiplier if the market becomes more tricky, is the intent behind our amendments.

Turning to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the Liberal Democrats simply do not believe in the taxation of education. Alongside the changes to VAT, the removal of the special status for schools is really disappointing. Therefore, those amendments—which seek to recognise the value of schools for children whose needs are difficult to meet elsewhere, whether those are special educational needs and disabilities or whether people are choosing to educate in a faith school—seem reasonable.

In summary, this Bill is a fair start, and some businesses will feel it is better than the abyss that might otherwise have been. However, the Government could and should have taken different decisions to protect businesses that will face additional costs in just a few weeks’ time. We are often asked how we would pay for it; I welcome that discussion, as there were many proposals in our manifesto, from taxing big banks to asking gambling companies to pay their fair share. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I recognise that the Government have worked quickly to bring this Bill forward, but the risks of losing businesses en route to something better are just too great. We need proper reform, so that the businesses of the mid-21st century can weather the storms ahead.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this Bill, having been part of the scrutiny process in Committee.

The Committee heard representations from a wide variety of experts in related fields, and I was heartened by the news that many experts felt that this Bill would have a positive impact on 98% of the retail stores that make up our communities. In particular, small convenience stores such as the local Co-op or the great British corner shop will see great benefits to their capacity to support staffing, security and other operational functions. Our incredible independent shopkeepers, such as those who populate the high streets of Ilkeston and Long Eaton in my constituency, will have more funds to take on additional staff, improve their security set-ups and gain long-term confidence in their ability to serve our community. These measures represent a simple, common-sense approach to rebalancing the scales in favour of local retailers and away from the online giants, and increasing taxes on the biggest players while relieving the burden on local retailers.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Member may have heard my earlier intervention. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we have to shift the burden away from small businesses on to big online retailers. However, that could be undermined if all we do is shift the burden on to the big chains. House of Commons Library research says that small independent businesses are going to end up subsidising the big chains. Does he share my concern that this could be an unintended consequence and that the Government must look at it?

[Adam Thompson]

I refer to Hansard for the discussions we had in Committee, but that did not come through in the evidence we heard. However, I respect the fact that the hon. Member has made that point, and I thank her for doing so.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), another sector to benefit significantly from these measures is our local pubs. The fine folk frequenting the Sawley Junction in Long Eaton or the Bulls Head in Breaston in my constituency can rest easy that their locals are in safe hands. More generally, the measures we are bringing forward will reduce the tax burden on the hospitality sector, which is considered by many to be overtaxed. I am very glad that the Government have been able to offer something positive to the sector, which has been broadly forgotten for many years.

Some of the Bill’s opponents have suggested that the removal of charitable relief from non-domestic rates for private schools will have a negative impact on the parents of privately educated children, so I was strongly heartened to hear from one of our experts during the scrutiny process in Committee. Professor Francis Greene, professor of work and education economics at the University College London institute of education, noted that this Bill will have a “marginal” effect on the education sector, and that the policy was fair and would generally not have a great deal of impact on the proportion of children in private schools, which has remained broadly constant over the past 20 years, despite a cash-terms doubling in fees.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on what he has just said, which is that the proportion of children going to private schools has stayed constant? Even the Government’s own analysis does not say that. It says that the number has stayed broadly constant, and in fact the proportion has come down.

[Adam Thompson]

If I am incorrect, I stand corrected. My understanding from speaking to the experts is that the proportion has remained broadly consistent, but my apologies if that is incorrect. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.

The Committee stage reaffirmed what many of us on the Government Benches already knew, which is that this Bill represents a common-sense modification of our tax policy that will support local small businesses. The Bill represents a core pillar of this Government’s goal to rebalance the scales away from large online giants in favour of local independents and towards the 94% of children educated in the state sector. I know that traders and families in Ilkeston, Long Eaton and the surrounding villages in my constituency will broadly benefit from these measures, and I am proud to support this Bill through its remaining stages unamended.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I intend to confine my remarks to two specific amendments—amendments 3 and 10, on private schools and special educational needs and disabilities—that would delay the introduction of this tax hike so schools have more time to plan financially.

Schools in my constituency have been punished by a series of tax rises since this Labour Government took office in July. By adding VAT to private school fees, and now by ending their charitable business rate relief status, Labour is attacking aspiration. These tax hikes will not hurt the wealthiest. It is the people who have scrimped and saved to send their children to a school of their choice who will be hit the worst. Labour seems to believe people should not have a choice over where they send their child to school, as is evident in their similarly misguided Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through this place.

Schools will close because of this tax hike, and I know this because it is happening in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Carrdus school, founded in 1957, survived the cold war, the winter of discontent, the global financial crisis and three Labour Governments, yet it could not withstand the tax onslaught from this Chancellor and it will close its doors at the end of the summer term. That will mean 120 pupils flooding back into the state system, which is already struggling with capacity issues, at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Member reflect on my comments a few moments ago about how the expert suggested that the Bill would have a marginal, negligible impact on the education sector?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Adam Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Ministry of Defence’s service family accommodation estate is in disrepair because of a significant lack of investment by the last Government, which failed to maintain the standards that should be enjoyed by our hard-working and dedicated service personnel and their families. However, the fact that this Government have made the welcome step to purchase that estate means that it is now their obligation to uphold standards. As we are talking about legislation that is intended to set the standard that all renters should expect, including those who are paying rent now to the Ministry of Defence for their accommodation, why are the Government resisting the opportunity to set that high standard for service personnel?

Finally, in the notes to the Bill, the Government emphasise that the concerns that led to Awaab’s law will now be extended to the private rented sector. Given how serious those concerns were, and given that the death occurred as a result of a failure to maintain property in the social rented sector, will the Minister tell me how I can go back to my constituents, who are tenants of the Ministry of Defence, and tell them they will enjoy the same protection as other private renters under Awaab’s law?

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Stability for 11 million renters, and, indeed, for 2.3 million landlords, is necessary to build our better Britain. For the tenants enduring the least affordable, poorest quality housing, disregarded renters’ rights have had a profound impact on people’s lives. Britain deserves more than dodgy landlords, back-door evictions and dismal living standards. The British people deserve to feel secure in their own homes.

Some of my constituents are forced to live in terrible accommodation, facing damp and mould. This treatment is fundamentally unacceptable.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Defence Committee’s recent report described service accommodation as “shocking”, saying that two thirds required massive investment to bring it up to standard and that damp and mould were legion. The hon. Gentleman talks of dodgy landlords—would he characterise the Ministry of Defence as one? Should we be bringing those homes up to the decent homes standard that everyone else in the country will benefit from if the Bill is passed?

[Adam Thompson]

In his opening remarks, the Minister addressed the fact that there are issues in the space, but they go beyond the scope of the Bill. We need to continue having these conversations as we move forward. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point.

Conservative failure has led to more than 200,000 households with children being forced to live in privately rented damp and squalid homes. According to The Guardian, each year, 31,000 children aged four and under are admitted to hospital because of damp and mould-related issues. I strongly believe that this simply cannot be allowed to continue. Shelter has recently found that a quarter of renters are afraid to ask their landlords for basic repairs for fear of being evicted, and that 26,000 households are at risk of being made homeless from the no-fault evictions we have been discussing today. We need to change, and fast. The abolition of section 21 will end these no-fault evictions for good. This is a vital part of this legislation, which will ensure peace of mind for tenants in their own homes, to which they devote a sizeable portion of their income.

Pressure on local authorities to provide temporary accommodation has become totally unsustainable. Crisis estimates that £2.2 billion of council funds in England were spent on temporary accommodation for 120,000 households between 2023 and 2024—an increase from 85,000 in 2019. My good colleagues at Erewash borough council tell me that they spent three times more on alternative accommodation in 2024 than in 2019. These temporary measures are incredibly costly and ultimately untenable. With accommodation including bed and breakfasts and hotels, alternative housing is an inadequate long-term solution. The Bill will make an excellent start to save council taxpayers’ money and protect tenants’ welfare from unsuitable temporary accommodation.

The vital extension of Awaab’s law to include private rental properties will prevent unsafe living conditions, landlord discrimination and bidding on rental properties. Prospective tenants in the housing crisis simply cannot afford bidding wars aimed at pricing them out. Discrimination based on receipt of benefits and having children will be prevented, ensuring an inclusive and impartial rental market. Hazardous properties will require prompt and efficient landlord responses, and tenants will be protected from unjustifiable rent inflation. Today, while we have been debating the Bill, I have received a communication from a constituent whose rental price recently went up by 21%, which is disgusting. The measures are essential for the efficient operation of rental markets in the UK and for the protection of tenants’ rights.

The much-needed introduction of the decent homes standard will further empower tenants to leave poor-quality homes and provide better value housing for all. According to the English housing survey 2023, one in five privately rented homes is considered substandard. The enforcement of the decent homes standard will put an end to this appalling practice. With the introduction of a £7,000 penalty for non-compliance, landlords will finally be properly incentivised to maintain the necessary high standards that renters deserve. New legal protections will secure quick, impartial, binding resolutions to protect both renters and landlords. Given the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman and the strengthened council enforcement for which the Bill provides, tenants and adults will feel assured that their concerns are respected and will be handled with compassion and certainty.

The Bill will allow us to end backdoor evictions and extortionate rents designed to force renters out. Periodic tenancies ensuring that rent increases are made per the market rate, once a year, will protect renters from unreasonable increases and unexpected evictions. Access to a private rented sector database will help landlords to understand their legal obligations and demonstrate compliance with the new regulations. These measures will allow for certainty in the law for both landlords and tenants. I understand that landlords are concerned about investing and entering the market for fear of payment insecurity, but the current system is designed around uncertainty. The serious lack of clear legislation has caused decades of chaos for both landlords and tenants, with unsafe homes and unsuitable dispute resolution. A transparent and fair system is needed so that all parties can make informed decisions.

As for student accommodation, the changes proposed in the Bill are necessary for the protection of landlords and students alike. Students deserve security as much as everyone else in society. The assured continuance of annual short-term student tenancies will still provide certainty in respect of landlord income, with the ability to evict tenants at the end of the academic year and to increase rents for new tenants as required. According to the National Union of Students,

“the average student loan...leaves students with just 50p a week to live off after…rent”.

Despite those extortionate costs, cold, damp, unsuitable housing has become the norm in student accommodation. Students are at risk of being unable to pay for basic essentials, so it is vital that they are protected from living in poor conditions under unfair terms.

The Bill will extend vital safety and reassurance to thousands of people in Erewash. My constituents cannot continue to endure poor housing at the hands of inadequate renters’ legislation; they deserve security in their own homes. The Renters’ Rights Bill is our way forward, and I urge all Members to support it, as amended today by the Government.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in today’s debate on such an important topic. The Bill has many laudable aims, and represents a once-in-a generation opportunity to finally fix the private rented sector for the 11 million people in England—including me—who rent privately. I know that about 13,000 private renters in Tiverton and Minehead will be watching this debate with interest—particularly Owein and his family, whom it took me six months to rehome earlier this year—in the hope and expectation that the House can finally do what it promised to do under the last Government, and pass meaningful rental sector reform. That Conservative Government neglected renters, and I am pleased that this Government are introducing meaningful legislation now. Tiverton and Minehead sits at 88th out of 543 constituencies in England on the barriers to housing and services index of deprivation. I will think closely about anything that the Government can do to improve that, to ensure that it represents a fair deal for renters, particularly those in my constituency.

Let me start by stating the obvious. This is a good Bill, on the whole. It takes strong steps to protect tenants, especially when landlords are not maintaining their properties. Provisions such as Awaab’s law should and must be extended to the private rented sector, so that landlords have a duty to fix hazardous living conditions like those that cost that precious toddler his life, within a set timeframe. Shelter is a basic need, not just a want. I am very pleased that the Bill seeks to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time: such an extension is overdue, and very welcome.

As a pet owner, I am happy to see in the legislation the right for tenants to request a pet. Pets are often an integral part of the family, as they have been for me. My party’s former spokesperson on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), welcomed the inclusion of this measure in a previous iteration of the Bill, and I echo that welcome.

The Bill should be commended for its ambition in many sectors. For example, it creates a national private rented sector database, so that tenants know about their landlords. It also looks to stop bidding wars, and to ban in-tenancy rent increases being written into the contract. Those are all fantastic reasons to support the Bill today.

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

Adam Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning, Mr Watson. I represent two towns in the east midlands, Ilkeston and Long Eaton. Both the high streets in our towns have suffered for a long time. We have a large number of small retailers and many have closed over a long period. A lot of work has been done locally, in particular by one member of the community, on regeneration of one of the towns especially—basically, clubbing together a lot of small independent retailers who have worked together to bring the community back up. How will the Bill tangibly affect the community and those small retailers?

Gary Watson: We have the Bill, but all the time we have the small business rate relief, which sits there. Obviously, the issue with that is that it is again limited on rateable values. In one part of the country, rateable values will be higher or lower than for the same type of property in another part. The area that might want to be looked at when the next revaluation takes place is to look at the ceilings on those rateable values. At the moment, for the small business rate multiplier, we go up to £51,000. There is that small business multiplier, so if you are trying to target, once we know what the outcome of the rateable values will be at the next reval, it may well be that the support that you could give would be through uplifting the values, as I said.

On the Bill itself, we have the flexibility of the two lower multipliers. To go back to an earlier question, I think it is right to have that flexibility, so that we can vary it depending on the circumstances. It does give flexibility, but we also need to think about the small business rate relief, and that is there anyway. That might be something to look at, in terms of targeting, when it comes to the next reval. I think that would need more secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for your evidence. It has been very interesting. My constituency is made up of three towns, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Margate, all seaside towns and very dependent on all the sectors we have been talking about—tourism, hospitality, leisure and so forth. You have been talking about the centrally decided approach when it comes to those sectors. What value might there be in an approach that recognises the geographical challenges of particular areas, so that we do not just have a complete free-for-all with local government picking and choosing how to do it? We could say instead, “Yes, we need to have a particular approach when it comes to the geographical challenges of some commercial centres and the high streets.”

Gary Watson: Yes, I think you could look at the Bill giving a framework. At the moment, you have the standard rate and the small business multiplier, and the flexibility with the two lower ones—one or more, depending on how you want to move those forward. From a local authority point of view, there is that national situation, but you then have to look at each of the individual areas, and no one area is the same as another, as I said. They will not always be the same—things will change—and that is where the local authority comes into play, and where you need to have the relief systems in place.

The one thing you have in the legislation anyway—I am sorry to bore you with legislation—is section 47, which allows the local authority to give relief to any ratepayer that it wants to. The only thing it has to take into account is giving due regard to its taxpayers’ interest—and obviously it is, because the taxpayers are benefiting from having a thriving high street. In a way, that relief system is already there, so I think creating the framework is fine. As I said, yes, there is that concern about the complexities of the whole system itself, but you are trying to direct it to make it more agile—as that term has been used.

There is no reason why the framework can be put together through the Bill, but the relief system cannot then be used, say, in the three towns that you referred to—I am a little familiar with those three towns, because one of my council members is from Thanet, so I know it quite well. As I say, I think the relief system is there. The issue you will have then is whether, when it comes to funding those reliefs, local authorities will have all the funding. That is where I always say that you cannot look at the property tax and local government financing separately. When you talk of reforming council tax or business rate, you also have to consider local government finance—the two always have to be considered together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

Q Thank you very much, Mr Woodall. I was struck by what you said about rural convenience stores and the importance of supporting them, and I could not agree with you more. I represent a rural constituency and in the next-door village there is a shop that has been there for years. I am terrified every year that it will go under, yet it is very resilient. Do you think this Bill should make provision for convenience stores that stand alone within rural areas and villages, where they are the only shop left that sells milk, eggs and newspapers? Do you think it is not just about small and microbusinesses, but those that are the only ones left? Do you think there should be a provision in the Bill for them?

Edward Woodall: I certainly think there should be provision of support for rural businesses, particularly those that are the last ones serving a community. They deliver essential services to those communities, and there is a cost to that community if they have to travel elsewhere. Whether it is possible to do that through the legislation is an interesting question. This was picked up in some of the previous evidence that you heard this morning, but there are measures within local authorities’ existing powers to issue discretionary relief to support those locations. That was previously called rural rate relief but it has been taken over by small business rate relief.

The challenge is whether local authorities have the funding to administer that relief. I think it is quite challenging to do that in the Bill, because you get into a space where you start adding more complexity by identifying regions or locations in national legislation. Actually, what we often see is that there are more differences within a region than there are between regions. I agree with the principle of what you are saying, but perhaps the existing powers of local authorities to do that are better, but they probably need support and trust from the Government to allow them to administer it well.

[Adam Thompson]

Q Thank you again for coming in this morning, Mr Woodall—we really appreciate your time. I am very pleased to hear your overall assessment that, for the convenience stores that you represent, the Bill will be positive and benefit the vast majority of them. On the savings made and the tangible effect of this Bill, what will they mean for a shopkeeper in my constituency of Erewash for security implementation, staffing and operations?

Edward Woodall: I tried to give some examples earlier of how businesses might invest. I suppose the first question is: where are the multipliers set? I would encourage the Government to use the flexibility to enable the best possible investment. As the example identified, if you have the multiplier set at a lower rate, the business is starting to save thousands of pounds. That is an opportunity for them to think, “Right, I can update the CCTV system. I might be able to add some new security measures in store.” The Bill can facilitate that investment. I should also say that, with the overall pressures on retailers at the moment, the cumulative burden is very big. They also might have to use that money just to keep operating and managing the costs that go up as well. This Bill can facilitate investment, but the Government have to think about the overall investment environment for retailers, not just through the rates bill by itself.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I understand that James Lowman, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, has written to the Chancellor following the Budget, and he described how 2025 will be a bleak year for small convenience stores, as they face over £666 million of additional cost. Will the Bill’s changes to the multipliers of domestic rates make a dent in that? Overall, will your convenience stores benefit from the Budget or be disadvantaged by it? How do those two things fit together?

Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

Q Sorry to interrupt, but online competition is genuinely a problem with business rates. Having previously been a councillor in Hackney, I know that we got more business rates from Amazon having its headquarters there than the Treasury did from Amazon’s existence in the first place. So there is a difference.

Stuart Adam: What I am saying is that there is a big difference in business rates, but if the business rates are not changing the overall cost of the premises—rent plus business rates—they are not making much difference to the competition. The fact that people can easily shop online is fundamentally what is driving it, rather than business rates. The fact that high street retailers have to pay rent and rates in a way online retailers do not, at least not to anything like the same extent, is absolutely a driver of the difference, but I am just saying that the business rate component of the cost of the premises does not have that much impact on the overall cost of premises, because of the adjustment to rents.

There is a broader question as to what can and should be done to protect the high street. That is largely outside my area of expertise, but I know other reviews and studies have been done on that. I am largely going to duck it because it is outside my expertise, but there are things that can be done outside tax.

[Adam Thompson]

Q Thank you for coming in, Mr Adam. The argument that you have put forward is predicated on the link that you have established between business rates and rent. A quick Google Scholar search implies that a lot of papers out there suggest that that link is broken somewhat by sluggishness in the rental market. Does that not undermine your argument?

Stuart Adam: I would be interested to see which papers on Google Scholar you have seen—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions, and for this sitting. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

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

Adam Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade]

Q We heard earlier that 130,000 children with special educational needs are in independent schools, of whom 100,000 do not have an EHCP. If you assume that the majority of those are not in specialist EHCP/SEND schools, the potential is for 100,000 children possibly to make that switch. Do you have any thoughts on how many of those schools might be pushed towards specialising in special educational needs? Do you have any idea of whether we might see a shift in what private schools choose to specialise in going forward?

Professor Green: That is an interesting thought. I do not have a specialist estimate to give you on that. It is a conceivable response. I am not sure that it is a necessarily a bad response if it does happen that way. But, again, I repeat: I do not think there will be a large number in those circumstances.

Inevitably, whenever you make a change like this, there is always someone at the margin who is just kind of tipped over the edge, saying, “I really can’t afford this any more.” I happen to know somebody in that particular position in my area. I am fairly sure that a large number of those people will have to deal with the situation; there may be a 1% or 2% rise in the prices, which might not otherwise have happened, but, of course, prices rise all the time. Prices have gone up many times since the turn of the century, and they continue to go up, so it would be very hard to distinguish the rises associated with this measure from the regular fee rises that go on anyway.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Professor Green, for joining us this afternoon. You have noted a couple of times already that your assessment is that the impact of this measure will probably be negligible. I was wondering how you might compare that with the cash-terms doubling of private school fees over the last 20 years, from the perspective of families.

Professor Green: Well, I think that is part of the indirect evidence of the fact that there will not be a great deal of impact, because, broadly speaking, the same proportion of the population is attending private schools as 10, 20 or 30 years ago, so it is one of those constants. That is slightly down, but, to be honest, it depends on the fortunes of the top echelons of our income and wealth spectrum—how much they can afford and choose to send their children to private schools. That is the nature of the market.

[Patrick Spencer]

Q Sorry, Professor Green, can we just go back? You said that you would expect 10,000 to 20,000 students to transition out of independent schools and into the state system—

Professor Green: Somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000, and that would be over a five-year period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

Q Can I ask about occupation? I am thinking about the hon. Member for East Thanet, and I also represent a coastal community. We had a slightly surprised response when we heard that everything will right itself, when we have whole high streets sitting empty. My understanding is that if you have a higher rate for empty properties, it is likely to force people to take a tenant. Do you think the Bill goes far enough on that, or are there more levers you need to pull to make those empty properties work? I know we already have the rental auction and that that is not in scope, but does the Bill go far enough or can the multipliers be levered even more?

Jim McMahon: It will. We need to stay in scope of the Bill, but the Bill does not sit in isolation. This is a wider package of reform and intervention, reflecting the fact that businesses do not operate in isolation; they are part of an ecosystem in many places. Think about the impact of, say, an anchor department store closing, or a bank branch, a post office or an office block. What that does to the footfall in a place has a huge impact, so we need to take a range of measures. We absolutely understand the importance of town centres and high streets not just to the economy but for identity, pride and confidence in the future. I will be careful not to stray too far out of scope here, but communities often feel they lack the power to take control of their high streets. There are cases where a unit has been left vacant and there is a local business that would take it on, but the landlord is not interested, either because they are absent and missing in action, or because they are an investor where the bulk value is more important than the actual rent that can be collected.

That is why things such as the community right to buy, which gives the community the right to have assets, and a community asset register, which gives protection to assets of community value, are important. It is also important to provide more time for communities to self-organise and maybe take over some of these assets. This is an important step that will go some way to achieving that, but in isolation, it would not be enough, which is why the other steps we are taking will make a difference. Where this will make an absolute difference is that once we have dealt with the empty property, the businesses that occupy it onwards can be that bit more viable, because the business rates will be lessened on their operating costs.

[Adam Thompson]

Q Thank you, Minister, for your time. We have had really interesting sessions today. I represent two towns, as I said earlier, and I am really pleased to represent one where a lot of work has been put in by the community to rejuvenate the town centre. By working together, the occupancy rate has increased, and we have a huge focus on independent businesses, which is really positive.

I want to focus on pubs, because we had a little less focus on that than other areas earlier. I know that like many other colleagues, I would not be here, sitting in this room, if it were not for the emotional and social support of pubs during the election campaign—in my case, the White Lion and the Dew Drop Inn. What opportunities do you feel will be opened up for the pub sector by the Bill?

Jim McMahon: We heard earlier about community pubs. A lot is said about the last pub in a village, and they are lifelines. If everything else is gone—the shop is closed and maybe the post office too—then having a convenient space where the community can come together is important for a number of reasons, not just for social isolation, but for living a decent, fulfilled life where those relationships and experiences matter.

Quite a lot less is said about the last pub on the estate. In the same way that many rural villages feel isolated and disconnected, lots of estates feel completely disconnected from a lot else, such as the convenience stores and things that used to be there, including the local church, the church hall or the scout hall. We need to do far more to make sure that the convenience store and the local pub can survive and thrive. We heard earlier that, given where the thresholds are being set, those are exactly the types of places that will be the biggest beneficiaries of some of the measures in the Bill.

The high street, which is obviously a bit more expensive to operate on because of the nature of rateable values, will also be a beneficiary of the Bill. It is so targeted on retail, hospitality and leisure that those types of uses, which are the backbone of high streets and town centres, will benefit. The same is true for pubs: community pubs and village pubs, but also pubs on the high streets and in town centres, will be in scope to benefit from the Bill.

We heard earlier about the mounting pressure of food costs and energy costs. The cost of carbon dioxide supply for carbonated drinks is extremely high, as is the cost of staffing. The scope of this Bill is narrow and targeted, so there are limitations to what it can do. It cannot fix absolutely everything in the system, but it can play its part. I think we heard today in the evidence sessions that it is absolutely welcomed as part of the answer.