Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have another go at business rate legislation. As I always do, I inform the House that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and a member of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. I am also a co-owner of a non-domestic hereditament that benefits from small business exemption, and I used to work in the Inland Revenue valuation office.

With those declarations, I thank the Minister for reaching out and arranging a meeting with her and her officials, and for the follow-up information provided. I am extremely grateful for that. I agree with many of her overarching statements on what is happening here.

When I asked what impact assessments had been carried out—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred—I was told that it is not customary to undertake them for tax-related purposes and I was offered a rather less detailed impact note. I feel that business rate payers must not be used as a beta test bed for emerging ideas and that the repeated suggestions that the Valuation Office Agency will see how things progress are, arguably, destabilising in their own right.

I have said before in this House that, to some extent, this is another attempt to make an old steam loco do what it was never designed to do in terms of the burdens imposed and the reliability of the system. At a levied rate of more than 50% of the assessed annual value of every business property, this remains a tax that is objectively excessive to the point that it imperils its own stability. It is also out of kilter with international comparators. It burdens businesses disproportionately by reference to property value and, most particularly, as to the use and benefit of local services in which they have no formal voice and certainly no vote. Worse, it discourages a certain amount of investment and entrepreneurial activity. Complexity and new burdens continue to be added because HMRC can do so without responsibility for outcomes or risk of push-back. Council tax payers, by contrast, have for many years been protected from any comparable increase in their level of local financial contribution.

Short-termism and modal shift are the outcomes of changes in economics and are, to some extent, propelled further by the business rates environment. Firms that would once have been high street operators now function from cheaper industrial sites, where the shop window is on the internet or social media, the stockroom is the white van on the highway network, and the cash desk is a web-based payment system. Former shopping streets are populated with eateries and charity shops—I should add that many charity shops do not pay business rates. Shorter leases and break clauses are part and parcel of the landscape. Many and varied reliefs have had to be given to address the problems, and the rules relating to them have become ever-more complex. That apart, the Minister is right that a property-based business tax is an effective system provided it is used correctly, and that is a very important proviso.

On the detail, I start with Clause 1, which inserts new Schedule 4ZA into the 1988 Act, and Part 3 of that new schedule relating to the proposed improvement relief. I have already expressed to the Minister in a private meeting my surprise that improvements which may have a lifespan of 20 years or more will benefit from only a single year’s disapplication of any rental value uplift they create. While I understand that it is specifically intended that the relief should not benefit investors or developers, I cannot disentangle this from standard commercial lease terms in which the landlord’s consent and co-operation may be required. The architecture here is, to some extent, misconceived. Although I am informed that substantial funds are earmarked for this, I fail to see any incentive likely to overcome the narrow qualification criteria for this relief. Meanwhile, we still have the situation where heavy industry is obliged, in many cases, to put in at additional expense complex emission controls and other measures, adding nothing to the productive capacity of the property but where the plant and machinery element represented by those improvements is increased thereby and the rateable value with it. This is nonsense and should not continue.

In Clause 5, I welcome the general direction of travel towards shorter revaluation cycles, but they need to be more frequent still. If Scotland can do it, so can we in England. As the rate of mercantile change accelerates, it is clear the non-domestic rating system has not kept up, has been slow to adapt, and has created a large measure of injustice and inequality, damaging confidence in the tax and, to some extent, the credibility of those responsible for its management. This is regrettable.

Clause 6, on transitional relief, is a welcome shift. I simply ask whether it is the Government’s intention to abolish downward phasing altogether—an arrangement in which those who should be paying lower business rates gain only on some never-never principle because this funds transitional relief for those who should be paying more. In terms of natural justice, I would be glad to see it gone and the principles of fiscal neutrality become more elastic. The Minister’s assurances given a few moments ago are welcome.

Clause 10 is welcome because it has long been a complaint that, while the Valuation Office Agency demands information from ratepayers’ representatives to justify valuations, VOA officers can effectively ignore similar requests from ratepayers. On transparency grounds, this has long needed rectification. We will have to see how this turns out or whether the confidentiality arguments that have been put forward in the past will continue to be fielded as a reason for the VOA not honouring the spirit of this provision. However, I welcome it for what it is thus far.

Clause 13 is a new reporting obligation. I thought the rationale behind the frequency of making declarations of changes—an event date plus 60 days, in addition to a financial year end plus 60 days’ reporting—was that if ratepayers had to make a disclosure with that frequency then reviews of the valuation list should match that. That seems logical. That was my reading of the message from the consultation process. Requiring virtual real-time data, which is in effect what this Bill asks for, was the corollary of having annual—or at any rate, much more frequent—valuation list updates. Given this asymmetry, I welcome the Minister’s comments about the potential for further shortening the revaluation frequency and the antecedent date gap between the date of valuation and the date of coming into force of the list.

On the detail of the declarations required, there are in fact two separate circumstances. The first is the information to be provided to HMRC, as set out in Clause 13(2) which inserts new paragraphs into Schedule 9 of the 1988 Act. New paragraph 4F spells out that it is a change in any of three instances of taxpayer reference, VAT registration and national insurance number. However, I remain unclear how the tax bit in particular works for a sole trader operating as an incorporated business. The proposition seems needlessly fussy.

The reporting arrangement for this is set out in the previous paragraph 4E and is to HMRC’s portal. All the information required by paragraph 4F will already be known to central government departments—hey ho. But secondly, at paragraph 4J, there is a separate requirement to report any notifiable information within the ratepayer’s possession or control, including, at paragraph 4J(2)(a) and (b), any changes in the ratepayer identity or, as we have heard, anything,

“that would or might affect the existence, extent or rateable value of the hereditament”.

This is not just physical change. Many ratepayers do not understand what constitutes a “hereditament”, let alone what may be deemed in the view of the VOA to affect it. Although I take the point made by the Minister that this extends at paragraph 4J(3) to what the ratepayer

“knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that it would assist a valuation officer in carrying out functions”,

I hope we are going to get a clearer definition at some stage and an explanation of the apparent lack of impact analysis, especially as regards small businesses at one end of the spectrum and a retailer with hundreds of hereditaments at the other.

Furthermore, the reporting arrangement under paragraph 4J is not, as one might expect, to HMRC as before but potentially via a different system to be set up by the VOA, using an online facility referred to at paragraph 4L. There will potentially be two different portal routes. I understand that there is to be a pilot, and that the reporting arrangements are to be consolidated via one portal, and that this will not be implemented unless the VOA is satisfied it is fully functional. That is very welcome in what otherwise could be unnecessary duplication.

I remind your Lordships that the barriers to accessing the check, challenge and appeal system under the business rates process were put in place deliberately to deter the so-called rating agent cowboys. I hope there will be some guarantee that, under this new data-harvesting exercise, small unrepresented businesses will not fall into the hands of precisely the same charlatans, or indeed the complex access arrangements intended to defeat them that plagued the appeal system.

None of this negates the ongoing obligation to respond to a more specific demand for information which VOA can make of a ratepayer at any time during the year. Nor is the beneficiary of small business exemption exempt from all the same requirements, even though they pay no rates. Processing tens of thousands of additional annual returns, as I am told is the likely outcome, has not obviously been factored into all this, and the impact note’s suggestion of a £15 a pop cost to businesses seems to me a significant underassessment.

Picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there is also no guarantee that the VOA will act promptly either to advise of the likely implications of any change or, indeed, to implement them by changing the rateable value. To my mind, this is still an unnecessarily one-sided and open-ended arrangement, prone to arbitrary redefinition and, potentially, to equally arbitrary determination of claimed infractions. I do not see it as a necessary light touch; rather, as an additional and potentially burdensome obligation, possibly—although I hope not—involving two different gateways for reporting. That is what is actually set out in the Bill.

Clause 14 deals with the redefinition of material change of circumstances. Here, I am bound to say that I do not follow the logic: namely, that changes in statutory or regulatory measures should be taken as part of general market changes and reflected only at revaluations, although I note that the clause does not preclude taking account of changes of a physical nature or the state or locality of the hereditament meantime.

First, just about anything done by dint of administrative powers is by definition a child of statute. If, for instance, a vaping ban—which the Minister referred to and which I raised with her—renders a specific category of business unviable overnight, or, more typically, a low-emission zone, diesel vehicle ban or traffic management scheme is introduced that reduces retail footfall and mercantile activity at a stroke, is it right that this should be excluded from a definition of material change of circumstances?

For such matters to be disregarded, they should, first, apply to all businesses and, secondly, be disregarded only where a significant adjustment period has been allowed for business rate payers to take this into account. In all other cases save national emergency, the consequences for business rate yields should immediately be felt by the public sector that imposes them and not via this free-bet measure that transfers the entire risk on to businesses. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on that point.

The Explanatory Notes’ suggestion at paragraph 37, that this will

“restore the law to its originally intended extent”,

is, I am afraid, simply not something I recognise. Plus, in my professional lifetime we have managed for over 50 years without there ever being an issue requiring such negation of materiality.

I will end my detailed points at this juncture, but I may well return at later stages of this Bill with amendments. I am bound to say that, whatever imagination may have been applied by the architects of this Bill, it has not been viewed from the standpoint of business, particularly as I perceive it from the briefing of the Shopkeepers’ Campaign and from professionals to whom I have talked.

If businesses need to count their fingers every time they figuratively shake hands with the Government on some taxation matter, we are in very negative territory. When the Government continue to claim that the postponement of the 2015 revaluation was “to give business certainty”, as repeated at paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes, it makes me cringe. Patently, it was all to do with maintaining tax yield. Businesses did get certainty—that is to say, the guarantee of continuing to pay business rates based on the peak value levels of 2008—but on sharply fallen values, reduced business activity and with substantially increased costs of trading. This was a misrepresentation, and everybody knows it. It is time for an attitude change.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 1, 3 and 4. I apologise to noble Lords for not being present for the opening speeches of Second Reading and therefore being unable to make my points then. However, I was present for the rest of the debate and wrote to the Minister with the points I would have made, so I hope that I may be forgiven. I declare my interests as a project director for Atkins and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I certainly support the aims of the Bill and the measures contained within it, which will support businesses and high streets across our country and the economy.

My amendments in this group are very straightforward. They relate to the application of improvement relief. I listened with great interest at Second Reading to the remarks on this topic from noble Lords and the Minister, who said:

“The Government consider that a 12-month relief will allow time for the benefits of the property investments to flow through into businesses. We will keep this under review”.—[Official Report, 19/6/23; cols. 83-84.]


Although the 12-month relief is very welcome, there is a strong case for the Government to remove such constraints from a specific class of improvement—energy-efficiency improvements. I will explain why.

The Government have already made the great move of exempting renewable energy generation and storage from rateable value through regulations introduced in 2022. However, energy efficiency does not receive a matching exemption, despite the efficacy of energy- efficiency measures in increasing the energy security of the UK and reducing carbon emissions, not to mention in reducing costs for businesses and supporting economic growth. Energy efficiency has been raised many times recently in your Lordships’ House, so I will not bore the Minister and other noble Lords with an extended analysis of why we need to do more in this area.

As to the effect of the Bill as written, we know that all but the simplest energy-efficiency measures have longer payback periods, so it is likely that a 12-month exemption will continue to disincentivise improvements. To be adopted by business, energy-efficiency measures must make clear financial sense and have a low net cost. As a simple illustration, it is unlikely that a household would contemplate insulating their home if there was a risk that the savings would be outweighed by the introduction of a higher council tax band after only a year of relief.

My amendments seek simply to align energy-efficiency measures more closely with the existing reliefs for renewable energy generation and storage so that we have a coherent approach in this area. They represent a great opportunity for the Government to help increase investment in energy-efficiency improvements across business and to contribute to critical national goals in energy security and net zero, as well as lowering bills for businesses at a time when this is needed more than ever. Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency warned recently that we may see another surge in gas prices this winter. The amendments would extend improvement rate relief for energy efficiency to 1 April 2029; the Government could then decide whether to extend any reliefs beyond then. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot be with us because he is arguing his case across the way in the Chamber, has added his name. I declare that I am a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, which, together with Luke Wilcox, barrister of Landmark Chambers, has been helping me formulate my views on these amendments.

The purpose of the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 2 and 6, is to extend the application of improvement relief, so, to some extent, they follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Without discussing it with him, I opted for extending the application to works carried out within a five-year period. The amendments follow up on the comments made at Second Reading.

The expected lifespan of the many types of improvement may extend to decades. If, as one supposes, the relief is intended to incentivise improvements—not just mandatory compliance works but those which add materially to utility, convenience and annual value—it needs to be an altogether bigger quantum; otherwise, as matters stand at the moment, we will be in a situation where, maybe 13 months after the work is carried out, the rateable value will increase by some 50% of the additional annual value of the works. This may not be so much for the purposes of adding value as of preserving value in the face of decline, so this dynamic needs to be whittled down.

We have issues with the definition of “relief” and whether it will count for anything at all in practice, and of “improvement”, of which other noble Lords may seek to define certain aspects more clearly—I agree with that. Unfortunately, the Government’s protestations about the sums they claim to have earmarked for this relief do not disguise the fact that the design of these things is often such that none of it is ever called on in practice. I will leave that bit of cynicism to one side, but if this relief is to mean anything beyond a fig leaf, it has to be large enough in quantum and long enough in duration to be commercially noticeable and relevant. Some types of improvement may take a considerable time to translate into a business benefit.

Although I understand, for instance, not including developers in the benefits of this measure, I maintain that the net effect of excluding any otherwise qualifying works carried out by landlords for the tenant, for which there may be a higher rent payable, is based mainly on groupthink rather than objective balance. That is the reason behind Amendments 2 and 6.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. Its purpose is to probe the expiration date for heat network relief. For example, why have the Government come up with 2030 in this respect? As I said at Second Reading, we very much welcome the introduction of heat network relief but, as I asked then, as the exemption of renewable energy plant machinery is permanent, why has a similar approach not been taken to heat networks?

Also, the heat network relief applies only to what are described as “occupied” heat networks, so it would be helpful to have some clarification of the definition of “occupied”. For example, if the networks apply as a mix of properties, some of which are traditionally occupied and others are unoccupied, is that still considered to be an occupied property, or does the whole property have to be occupied?

More broadly, the aims of this amendment are also to do with the fact that we believe that the reform of business rates as a whole should have the underlying principle and aim to encourage green improvements to business properties, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about, the targets are around net zero and emissions. We feel that all the proposals should have as their aim—at their centre—ways of meeting those targets.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his introduction of this group of amendments. His amendments are very sensible, and I hope that the Minister will look at them carefully. I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers following Second Reading, in which she gave quite detailed clarification of a number of issues, which I am sure we will discuss further today. I put on record that that was extremely helpful.

As for the other amendments in the group, clearly, improvement relief has been designed so that no business will face higher business rate bills for 12 months following qualifying improvements. We also heard from the Minister in her letter and at Second Reading that the Government consider 12 months sufficient for the benefits to flow through but, clearly, noble Lords who have spoken previously have reservations about this—in particular the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will continue. The 12-month relief will provide a breathing space for the investment to start to generate returns before business rates have to be paid. I know that some feel that 12 months is not long enough to incentivise the types of major refurbishment and improvement often made to properties by landlords and developers. However, as I explained to the House at Second Reading, this relief is designed to help occupiers make improvements to their existing premises rather than subsidising general commercial property development.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what “occupied” meant. We already have a current discretionary heat network scheme that we have worked up with full guidance in partnership with the heat network sector and local government. That guidance is already published. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to translate that guidance into regulations and to make those in good time to ensure a seamless transition between the current discretionary scheme and the new mandatory scheme. I suggest that noble Lords look now at the guidance as it will make it clear what will go forward. In the meantime, we will work with the heat network sector on the regulations in case they need any tweaking.

Nevertheless, as this is a new relief, it is right that the Government evaluate whether it is working and delivers value for money. Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted includes powers to extend the duration of the improvement relief and in 2028 the Government will review the scheme. That will be the appropriate time to consider whether to continue with the scheme and how effectively the relief is operating. As part of that review, we will consider whether 12 months remains the correct duration for the relief. We have, however, allowed for a longer period of relief for low-carbon heat networks, given the particular role that they play in reducing our dependence on natural gas. That relief runs until 2035. Amendment 5, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, would extend that to 2050. As with improvement relief, we have to balance the need for support with maintaining the services funded from the tax, as I have said. The end date in the Bill aligns with our ambition to phase out new natural gas boilers by 2035. By that date, new low-carbon heat networks will no longer have to compete with natural gas alternatives. Under those circumstances, we hope that the relief will no longer be necessary and, therefore, 2035 will be the right time to end the relief. However, as with the improvement relief, we will keep this under review and the Bill includes powers for us to extend the 2035 date, if it is necessary at the time.

I hope I have given noble Lords the explanations and assurances that they were seeking and that the noble Lord is able to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

The Minister mentioned regulations following Royal Assent and I am happy with that, but could she confirm that this will have a consultation process attached to it? She also referred to something that I interpreted as a post-legislative review. What is the framework for that in this instance?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

On the regulations, we are consulting at the moment and that will be discussed afterwards. If noble Lords want to put anything in, I suggest they look on GOV.UK. I shall sit down so that the noble Earl can ask his second question because I did not quite pick it up.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

It was about the post-legislative review and its framework, in so far as it would apply to the workings of the Bill once it gets Royal Assent.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As far as I know, we do not have a framework yet, but as soon as we have—I assume it will go out to some sort of consultation—I shall make sure that noble Lords are aware of when it is issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, of which Amendments 8, 10 and 13 relate to the matter explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Amendment 14 is a little different and to do with downward-only transition.

Before I go any further, I should have thanked the Minister earlier for her drop-in sessions and her willingness to engage on the Bill. To some extent, it is a joint venture between business, professions and the Government in trying to wrestle with the issues of local government revenues. I understand that.

The purpose of Amendments 8, 10 and 13 is to create an ability for the Secretary of State to adopt a shorter cycle, be it of one year or two years, but they are not prescriptive as to what that might be. That is simply because, having considered the situation and how things have bedded in, the Government should at least have the ability to do so without then seeking a legislative slot later. Although it is counterintuitive to suggest anything that might smack of a Henry VIII clause, this is a sort of Henry VIII clause that I think might be useful in this particular instance.

I pick up something that the Minister said at Second Reading, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned, namely the potential instability of more frequent revaluations. However, this does not seem to be a problem in Hong Kong or Scotland; why should it be here? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, alluded to my next point, which is that the stability of the system is within the gift of the Government in terms of their wider policies. I would argue that it is the level of business rates—levied at around 50p in the pound at the assessed rateable value—that is itself the harbinger and cause of a degree of instability. Professionals and businesses just need to feel that there is a better commitment—a more bankable expression of intent—about this. That is why these amendments would serve to allow the shortening of the revaluation gap and, of course, its attendant antecedent date.

I now turn to Amendment 14, which, had I spotted it before, I might have disaggregated from this group because it relates to downward-only transition. Although the Minister made some hopeful noises at Second Reading, I have not yet persuaded her to signpost the permanence of what is otherwise a very welcome item in this Bill; namely, the removal for the next revaluation of downward transition. It always seemed to me invidious that those whose rateable values were reduced should see the benefit only by such minimal and curmudgeonly means as to deprive them of the effect of a significant reduction, not just for many years but, sometimes, for many revaluations. Now that the principle is established that the transition no longer has to equal and offset the transitional phasing of increases by those who should be paying, it is time to confine this rather dishonourable measure to oblivion, if I may so suggest.

Let us not forget that, for every measure of palpable unfairness, perceived or actual, in the business rates, there will be an unknown number of potential entrepreneurs who simply will not lay themselves open to such practices because they see the system as unfair and operating unfairly against them. To that extent, the system is not as elastic an economic function as may be supposed. That is the background to my amendments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I take a slightly different position. I support these amendments, but I want to introduce a brief note of caution. The case for a reduction in the frequency of updating rateable values has been extremely well made, but I think experts should have a voice in the proposal. I think we should wait until the three-year review process has bedded in and all interested parties should then be free to comment, before reducing that interval further from three to two years, or even one year. Clearly, the VOA has a central role—the most important role—but ordinary ratepayers have a role too. It is possible that an annual or biannual revaluation will become unworkable. That is unlikely with digitisation and the wider use of technology, but any period longer than one year between revaluations is, by definition, quickly out of date. We saw that in high relief with volatile rental markets during and following Covid.

My amendment suggests that the Government listen to the view of the VOA, of course, but also to the RICS, the Rating Surveyors’ Association and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, together with other accredited advisory groups, before making a decision on these further reductions. I ask the Government to write into the Bill that they will listen to the voices of these experts before further reductions are agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill does just that: we are removing the constraint that has required us to impose downward transition, and we are putting in place an Exchequer-funded scheme for the current revaluation. We will use that freedom to permanently deliver all future transitional relief schemes without using downward caps. The detail for the transitional arrangements is set out in regulations rather than in the Act, but those regulations are themselves subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. I hope I have given noble Lords some reassurance both that we can return to the question of more frequent revaluations and that we are now abolishing downward transition.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I am delighted about what the Minister has just said. I thank her for that and apologise for making her say it twice, if I did. It is my understanding that this is now a permanent abolition of downward relief, which is extremely welcome.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As she rightly said, this is at the heart of the changes being introduced in the Bill. I thank her for recognising that there could indeed be a further review to reduce the gap between revaluations. However, although I may have misheard her, I thought that the Minister said that the review conducted by the Treasury was—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor. I should have done so earlier, and I apologise. I, too, join in the chorus of thanks to the Minister and her Bill team for the help and meetings a week ago. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who is absent, for adding his name to my amendments in this group. I am sorry that he is not here to add his voice. This group of amendments is focused on the operation of the VOA and rooted in the desire for transparency for the ratepayer. It is a matter of simple public interest.

The current arrangements require registration for the check, challenge, appeal process before the VOA reveals the evidence it relied upon in assessing rental value. Amendment 15 questions why the VOA should be so secretive. There is no need for it. On appeal, the evidence is revealed, so why not admit it on first inquiry without the need for the CCA registration process? We all hope that the VOA’s figures are correct when assessing new rateable values and that its assumptions in arriving at them are well founded. It is hoped that, by the evidence being shown at the outset of any inquiry, most ratepayers would agree with the VOA’s evidence and accept its valuation. This would avoid the cost, resourcing and administration of the CCA process for the VOA and ratepayers.

With the help of the RICS, I have looked at some of the statistics for recent check, challenge, appeal numbers. In the quarter to March this year, more than 10,000 CCA notices were received. This is the first stage in the appeal process. Fortunately, 90% of them came from interested persons, and I believe that means ordinary people, not agents acting on behalf of ratepayers, so the leaseholder or the freeholder. It is a good thing in the absence of a requirement to use accredited agents, which we will come on to. But 10,000 registrations is an unusually high number. It is to some extent the result of the publication of the latest business rates revaluation. It must put great pressure on VOA resources.

If I am reading the VOA’s published data correctly, in the rating list period 2017-23, 30% of challenges resulted in a reduction. That is far too high. It suggests that the VOA may be taking a bullish view of estimated rental value, rather than an objective one. The VOA translates from estimated rental value to rateable value. This is very likely to lead to a growing trend towards challenges of the fairness of assessments, which is a concern. I do not want to overlook the fact that 70% of CCAs were found in the VOA’s favour, but 30% is still too high for successful appeals. My amendment seeks to reduce the volume of CCAs by thousands of appeals through applicants withdrawing at an early stage in the process.

My other amendment in his group is Amendment 17. It is a simple matter concerning confidentiality of information. Occasionally there is a confidentiality clause in a rent review or a new letting. There may be a means by which the VOA can obtain that detail but the ratepayer cannot. There may be other reasons for confidentiality. Why should the VOA be allowed to factor this evidence into its assessment if the ratepayer may not? It is akin to the VOA informing the ratepayer that it has information it cannot reveal which supports its figures. My amendment does not dispute the reasons for confidentiality being protected—not a bit—but requires simply that any information which cannot be shared with the ratepayer must be disregarded. The ratepayer must be empowered to challenge all the evidence used against them. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have five amendments in this group. I support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in what he has just said in relation to Amendments 15 and 17. My Amendment 16 follows on from that, and for that reason I will be quite brief about it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my Amendment 16 seek to provide a duty on the Valuation Office Agency to provide such information, subject only to data protection legislation.

This addresses something that has been a bone of contention for many years, namely that a target and tax revenue focus in HMRC seems to have affected areas of Valuation Office Agency practice to the point where—or where the appearance has been that—evidence has been withheld, right up to tribunal-stage appeals. Over the years, as I have monitored the updates from the Rating Surveyors’ Association and others, I have noted with alarm some examples—I hope these instances are few and far between—of appalling and unprofessional practice, not, as one might suppose, from rating agents of an indifferent moral persuasion and possibly no professional training at all, but from the VOA itself. I worked for the VOA’s predecessor body, the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, for nearly seven years. Then, it was held in universally high esteem for its ethical and professional principles. It would be highly regrettable if, as time has gone on, that were no longer a given—I want to stress that.

This amendment does no more than insist on the same standards for disclosure and candour from the VOA that it requires of private sector agents acting for ratepayers. If this or something similar is not agreed to, there will be not only a rising tide of criticism within the profession but some sort of backlash from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, which will ultimately force the issue. We need to deal with that at this stage.

I move on to Amendments 18 to 20 in my name. Again, I can deal with these quite briefly. All three interlinked amendments try to remove the requirement for an annual return. The principle is that the requirement for notification arises only when there is a change in that status requiring the notification. At Second Reading, there was some consensus that the proposed volume and frequency of making returns to the Valuation Office Agency in relation to changes was misconceived. We heard that it would bring into scope some 700,000 hereditaments on which an additional return-making duty will fall—we are talking about a return per hereditament, not a blanket return per operator. If you are, for instance, an outdoor advertising company—that trade body has been in touch with me, as it has with many other noble Lords—with thousands of billboards, or an operator of cashpoints, this starts to matter. I do not know whether the latter is a good or bad example.

I accept that, if we move to two-yearly or yearly valuation, the real-time provision of data capture becomes that much more important. But why, in all logic and seriousness, if a return is required for a change within 60 days after the event, is it also necessary to make an end-of-year return in addition for the same hereditament, especially as a form of return can be requested at any time by the VOA? To put it another way: the desire for real-time notification and coherence of VOA record-keeping cannot be a justification for unnecessary duplication of duties on the ratepayer. I really do not think that this should be a matter for negotiation; it is a matter of straightforward common sense.

I move on to Amendment 21 in my name. It seeks to ensure that ratepayers do not receive retrospective increases in their rating liabilities where the Valuation Office Agency has not acted promptly on the receipt of ratepayer-provided information. It is to prevent retrospectivity where there is delay in acting on the ratepayer’s provision of information on a notifiable event. Its intention is to cover all situations where the rateable value is likely to be affected, including entering a new hereditament into the rating list. I think it is basically self-explanatory, but it is the counterpart to the duties on the ratepayer to furnish information in a timely manner and, of course, the penalties for failing to do so—about which more in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am told that there will be a non-digital availability. I will get all the details for the noble Baroness and I will write a letter, which will also go to the Library.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I would like to tease out a little more information following the Minister’s response on Amendment 17. What happens, in effect, is that the evidence is part of an adjudication process. In my professional line of business, there are various stipulations about surveyors acting as expert witnesses and the way in which these things are to be handled. Amendment 17 is particularly important because, when one gets into a situation where there is an appeal pending, there is this little thing about equality of arms. If one party is able to use information that is held confidentially, to the exclusion of the other party, I do not think that equality—that transparency standard—is met. We are talking about what is ultimately something that leads to an appeal before the valuation tribunal.

Can the Minister say whether I have got it right that the VOA can have a protected category of evidence, as it were, that it is not prepared to share? This is something that has come up on my radar when looking at some of the blogs that have come out of the rating surveying world. It is a matter of fundamental importance in terms of the administration of any sort of justice system and adjudication, which is what this is. I would therefore like to pin down the Minister a little more on that point.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think we made it very clear that the information that can be shared is the information that does not affect the data protection. Therefore, there will be information that cannot be shared because it will affect data protection. Because this is quite a legal issue, I will offer noble Lords a further, in-depth meeting, with lawyers there. If we are to get to the bottom of this, it is better to do that with a lawyer with us talking about the data protection law. Would the noble Earl be happy with that?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I thank the Minister; that would be very helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We will be in touch.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

22: Clause 13, page 25, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) No penalty notice may be imposed pursuant to paragraph 5ZC(1) or (3), and no offence is committed pursuant to paragraph 5ZC(2) (as the case may be), where P’s failure to comply, or P’s provision of false information, was made in reasonable reliance on any relevant guidance published by or on behalf of the valuation officer, or any advice provided to P by or on behalf of the valuation officer.”Member's explanatory statement
This would prevent the imposition of penalties where ratepayers’ errors or omissions are the result of reasonable reliance on VOA guidance or advice.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, this is the first of a series of amendments relating to penalties. Amendment 22 tries to create a defence to a penalty. I say straightaway that I do not have any principled objection to penalties as such, but the amendment tries to make sure that, when a penalty demand is made, if the ratepayer had reasonably relied on published Valuation Office Agency guidance or specific advice given about what was not relevant, that should be a relevant defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I was making the point that it should be a defence for a business rate payer to say that they had reasonably relied on published VOA or other guidance in respect of anything to do with being made liable for a penalty. Failure by a ratepayer to notify carries with it a number of penalties, at least one of which is entirely open-ended—more of that in a minute. The implementation of this will depend very much on the extent and quality of the guidance issued, especially as it is supposed that this will be comprehensible to unrepresented ratepayers. I particularly make that point because we are trying to make sure that this does not trigger a requirement across the board for more ratepayers to seek professional advice.

I appreciate that the VOA will not bring in notification and penalty measures until it is satisfied that they work smoothly and seamlessly. That is my understanding—my words, I stress, not necessarily the ones that the Minister would use. My submission is that no government body should be at liberty to state one thing in guidance and then do something quite different or to reinterpret established understandings at its own whim and caprice to the detriment, in this instance, of a ratepayer.

I shall deal with Amendments 23 to 26 as a job lot because their purpose is to fix a number of issues that appear to me to be typos or errors of construction or perception to do with the way in which the penalty regime will work. First, the fixed penalty minimums for incorrect information provided to the VOA appear to be the wrong way round and Amendments 23 and 24 serve to remedy that. I think the figures have just been transposed.

Secondly, unlike the penalties in relation to the provision of information to HMRC as opposed to the VOA, there is no cap whatever for non-compliance on the VOA notification. This seems contrary to legal principle in general and at odds with non-compliance with, for instance, the form of return under Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act, which is subject to a cap, so Amendment 25 seeks to address that.

Finally, there is the question of the Valuation Tribunal for England’s—VTE’s—determination of penalties, which the VOA has imposed in lieu of prosecution for false information. As drafted in the Bill, the burden of criminal proof is inverted, with the ratepayer having to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that they did not commit the offence. That cannot be right or reasonable. I suspect that it is not intended, either—I hope I am correct. Amendment 26 seeks to deal with that.

That summarises my amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has raised an important group of issues regarding the penalties that could be imposed on ratepayers who do not provide accurate, timely information. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that and explain how ratepayers seem to have more and more imposed on them. They must provide the information annually to the VOA—in the last group we debated the VOA’s transparency in relation to that—and the noble Earl has just raised the quite significant penalties imposed if the information is not accurate, even if, as he pointed out, there is a genuine error. It seems that, in the previous group and this one, we do not have the right balance of responsibilities between the VOA requiring information, what business rate payers are required to provide and where the final duty lies.

The VOA is serving two masters: the Treasury on one hand and business rate payers on the other. It seems that the VOA is responding to its Treasury master and is not giving sufficient cognisance to the customers—the business rate payers. The noble Earl raised some important points regarding that. We must get this balance right. The VOA needs to be more transparent and responsive to business rate payers. It also needs to be accountable to them—and the reverse is also true, as the noble Earl said. The VOA demands penalties if the ratepayer gets the information wrong but—hang on—the VOA makes errors all the time. Where is the accountability and compensation to business rate payers for those errors? The noble Earl raised that issue and I hope that the Minister will be able to get the balance right when she responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Group 4 consists of Amendments 22 to 26, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. They are concerned with the application of penalties for non-compliance with the VOA duty. As we have said, we will not initiate the VOA duty until we are satisfied that all ratepayers can reasonably and efficiently comply. There will be a soft launch of the duty, during which time no penalties for non-compliance will be issued and the VOA will raise awareness and expand its engagement with sector bodies and businesses of all sizes. As was said, issuing penalties will be the last resort. The VOA and HMRC will ensure that the new online service is simple to use and will take multiple steps to encourage ratepayers to comply, through reminders and warnings, before issuing a penalty.

Amendment 22 seeks to prevent the imposition of penalties where ratepayers’ errors or omissions are the result of reasonable reliance on VOA guidance. However, it is already the case that the VOA is able to apply penalties only where the ratepayer could reasonably be expected to know that the information would assist the VOA. All ratepayers will need to do to ensure that they are complying is follow guided steps on GOV.UK. If the ratepayer follows this guidance, the VOA will not, under the existing provisions of the Bill, be able to apply penalties. Thus, we do not think that this amendment adds anything of substance to the position as it already stands. If a penalty is issued in error where a ratepayer has relied on VOA guidance, the Bill gives the VOA the power to remit it. Ratepayers will also be able to appeal any penalty applied, and this will be independently reviewed by the valuation tribunal.

Amendments 23 to 25 are designed to address the penalty tariffs applicable to instances where a ratepayer has either failed to notify the VOA or provided false information. I will briefly explain the Government’s approach here. The Bill sets out the maximum level of penalty which the VOA may apply depending on the nature of the failure to comply. Our intention, as set out in our response to the technical consultation, is for the VOA sometimes to levy lower penalties than are set out by the framework of the Bill. Penalties will be levied as a percentage of the change in the rateable value rather than the entire rateable value and, where penalties are issued for a failure to provide information, the minimum penalty will be reduced for those on lower rateable values.

The Bill also introduces an offence where a ratepayer has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. In these cases, a ratepayer could be subject to criminal sanction. Alternatively, making a false statement will lead to a civil penalty, the amount of which is provided by new paragraph 5ZD. Where the civil penalty is applied, in practice the maximum penalty will be 3% of the change in the property’s rateable value plus a fixed penalty of £500. To address the amendment, the Bill rightly provides a more severe penalty for knowingly or recklessly providing false information.

The point has been made that there should be a cap on daily penalties following an initial instance of failure to provide information. This information can have a direct impact on tax liability, so it is crucial that the duty is underpinned by a fair and proportionate but robust compliance regime. However, I can provide the reassurance that, even after the initial 60-day deadline, ratepayers will receive a reminder, warning and final warning before a penalty is applied. Only after an additional 30 days would the first daily penalty of £60 be issued. Ratepayers will be able to request a review and appeal of any penalties imposed. The daily penalties will be stopped when the ratepayer provides the required information, so as soon as the ratepayer complies, the penalties are effectively capped.

Applying daily penalties in this way is not an uncommon feature of taxation penalty regimes. For example, Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 deals with powers for HMRC to request information from taxpayers and imposes penalties for a failure to provide such information. It includes penalties of up to £60 per day for as long as the non-compliance continues, without an overall cap on liability.

Amendment 26 seeks to alter the burden of proof which the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. Of course, when considering a higher penalty for a ratepayer who has provided false information, the VOA must in the first place be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the information was provided knowingly or recklessly. There is considerable protection for ratepayers already.

Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising questions about the appeals process. We will of course review the relevant text. I hope that, given that I have explained why the system of penalties is designed as it is, noble Lords will agree the amendments are not necessary.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for their contributions on this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the necessary balance here, and I agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, queried whether the application of criminal charges is properly introduced here, whether the Valuation Office Agency is the right outfit to make that call and whether it will be given the necessary guidance and assistance to make consistent rulings in that respect.

It seems to me that the question is about the discretion of the VOA to do things—its ability to do or not do—as opposed to a legal duty. It seems to me that some sort of duty on the VOA is part and parcel of its overarching statutory duty to, for instance, maintain a correct valuation list. It also seems to me that those duties should mirror the obligations and penalties imposed on the ratepayer, otherwise it is a very asymmetric situation. That is, to some extent, what I was trying to deal with in Amendment 16.

The Minister has given various explanations of the Government’s position here. On Amendment 22 and the question of “reasonably be expected to know”, she said that this covers the guidance given and therefore the amendment does not add anything of substance and that there is a right of appeal. I think I will have to consider carefully what she said. With regard to Amendments 23 and 25, I felt that I had detected a series of typographical errors, but I understand the Minister to have said that they are not errors and that the Bill is deliberately worded that way. I am not sure that on a fair reading that is likely to be the case, so I hope they may be looked into at some stage or other.

On the cap or no cap, I have already pointed out that there is a degree of asymmetry between the approach that has been adopted in the Bill in this respect and what happens with failure to deal with the form of return. I appreciate that there is the “knowingly or recklessly” test, but we have a rather circular argument here because, if the VOA is again the sole arbiter of “knowingly or recklessly” and the thing then proceeds to a tribunal that says something different, I would hope that we could have got to a situation well before then where the ground rules were understood. Is the Minister saying that the wording of the Bill is in all respects what was intended and that there are no typographical errors in it as I had supposed? Will she please clarify that point?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, there are no typographical errors in the Bill. I think the noble Earl asked that question earlier, and there were none.

Just to be clear on criminal offences and why they are necessary, there is already a criminal offence for providing false information in response to a request for information by the VOA. So we are not putting in a criminal offence—there is already one there as it stands now. It is interesting that criminal charges will be only for “knowingly or recklessly” giving false information. If it is just a false statement, for whatever reason, that would still be a civil penalty.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I see a point here, and I shall have to reflect further on what the Minister has said in this respect and may well need to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

27: Clause 14, page 32, line 21, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”
Member's explanatory statement
This would delay the commencement of the alteration to the reality principle until the 2026 List enters force.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I must admit that this amendment is something of a stalking horse—a bit like asking a Prime Minister on a Wednesday morning what is in the diary for the coming week. What I am really saying is that Clause 14 should be deleted and I thought that, rather than moving that the clause do not stand part, it was better to seek an explanation. That is why it has been done this way.

The amendment relates to material changes in circumstances of hereditament. This is not the same as physical alteration to the hereditament itself. A standard alteration to its extent, and an extension to or improvement of the physical fabric, will continue to be taken into account, as I understand it, as and when it occurs. There is no attempt in the Bill, as I read it, to fetter that—rather, this is to do with matters that do not change the measurable physical attributes of the hereditament itself but none the less patently affect its physical enjoyment.

I am particularly indebted to Luke Wilcox of Landmark Chambers for some very pertinent guidance on this issue. I have a note from him that he has given me permission to share with other noble Lords, and I may well do that, as it goes into more detail about what I am trying to explain.

In non-domestic rating, there is a hypothetical landlord and tenant and a hypothetical lease between the two as well as an assumed obligation for certain states of repair, none of which necessarily mirrors the actual state of affairs relating to the property. However, the hereditament itself is real, measurable and a physically determinable entity, and how it is to be regarded has always been subject to what in legal jargon used to be referred to as the rebus sic stantibus principle. In simple terms, that means that one had to value the hereditament and its environment as it physically is. That is in essence what is now known as the reality principle.

There are two legs to the reality principle. The first is the physical extent—the construction, age, layout and other physical characteristics, fixtures and fittings and general suitability and fitness of purpose of the hereditament for its intended or actual use. The second relates to the local circumstances affecting the area where the physical hereditament is situated. Put another way, it is the local business environment that underpins its physical enjoyment, as distinct from its physical extent. This could be location in relation to other complementary trades, whether there is or is not good customer accessibility, the relevance of parking restrictions, proximity to public transport, levels of shopper footfall and all those sorts of things, which are not related to the physical nature of the hereditament itself but are part of its market environment and, therefore, its rental value.

The current position is that, where there is a change in a matter affecting the physical enjoyment of the property, such as a regulatory change to its planning status or a change in a matter which is physically manifest in the locality—in the past, Government Ministers referred to changed bus routes; I would add a change in road layout to that category—those matters, to the extent that they are evident and quantifiable, are material changes in circumstances, or MCCs, and can trigger a mid-list change in rateable value. Such factors are a part of the reality principle, which is one of the most fundamental concepts in rating law and, to my certain knowledge, has been so for over five decades.

What is proposed here is that Clause 14 would amend the rules that govern when a mid-list alteration to a property’s rating assessment is permitted by changing the definition of what may constitute “material changes of circumstances”. Under the Government’s proposals, those matters, even though manifestly affecting physical enjoyment, would no longer be MCCs, wherever and whenever they are directly or indirectly attributable to legislation or official guidance. Under the relevant portion of the Bill, new paragraph 2ZA(2)(a) of Schedule 6, inserted by Clause 14, an MCC is something that is

“directly or indirectly attributable to a relevant factor”.

New paragraph 2ZA(3) goes on to say what the relevant factors are:

“legislation of any country or territory … provision that … is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory … advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory … anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything within paragraph (a), (b) or (c)”.

New paragraph 2ZA(5) states that

“‘legislation’ includes any provision of a legislative character … ‘public authority’ includes any person exercising functions of a public nature”.

This, to my mind, is a substantial change to what has long been understood. What is proposed here is that this category of what has always been understood to be a material change in circumstances should be removed.

It appears that this is a response to matters that arose during Covid. The various Covid lockdown regulations significantly altered the way in which occupiers could occupy their premises. This in turn gave rise to a number of requests for mid-list alterations, since the regulations affected the ability of occupiers physically to enjoy their properties. The Government considered that general legislation should be part of the general market conditions considered at revaluations—this is the case being made—and so should not count as MCCs. However, the Government’s view in this regard differs not only from their own internal guidance, which I checked only yesterday on their website, but from that of the Valuation Office Agency, which regarded, and still regards, legislative changes as MCCs where they are physically manifest. That much is evident from the paperwork.

The Government passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, which prevented matters directly or indirectly attributable to the coronavirus regulations from being MCCs. This was a very specific and nationwide response to an emergency situation and was promoted as such. Clause 14, however, seeks to extend that principle to all events arising from legislation or regulation of all kinds and in all normal times, which is a very different construct.

The Government claim that Clause 14 is intended to restore the law to its originally intended state and condition and that its purpose is to require general legislation and guidance to be treated as part of the general market conditions which are thought to be considered only when a new list is compiled—which, under the Bill, would be every three years. However, under Clause 14 we are considering not necessarily nationwide or even emergency situations but much more mundane changes, often of a local or per-property specific nature. Some are harmless and insignificant but others would have significant effects on individual businesses and the physical enjoyment of the premises. These measures could deny a beneficial use which underpins the operation being run from a hereditament. Clause 14 is not the same thing at all as restoring the situation to what was always understood in rating practice but, in fact, a material departure from it.

The audit trail of legislation that brought in what is now Section 2(7) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 does not support the Government’s claim either. In fact, it reveals quite a different narrative, and an examination of Addis Ltd v Clement (VO), which has long been and remains the benchmark legal decision that the 1988 Act sought to enshrine, demonstrates this. Not only that but its antecedents go back to the 1920s and have been reaffirmed at senior judicial level as recently as 2020. I repeat: the Government’s guidance on their website and the guidance issued by the VOA make it clear that changes which affect the physical enjoyment of the hereditament, as distinct from changes to the physical hereditament itself, are indeed in scope of material change of circumstances.

This means that Clause 14 will have a far wider effect than the Government’s stated intention. That is because, if something can be so loosely defined as being “indirectly attributable” to a change in legislation, and thereby no longer treated as a material change of circumstances of the relevant type, this opens up a vast array of circumstances in which the causative measure and the non-MCC status may apply. Many things would come into play which affect perhaps only one property or a discrete group, such as a change in planning permission, a premises licence or a road layout change. These are changes which in many cases—in fact, almost invariably—can be made only by dint of legislative authority but none the less would henceforward be “indirectly attributable” to legislation, and thus no longer material changes of circumstances.

There is no sense in which a change in, say, the planning status of an individual property or the exercise of administrative authority resulting in something which patently affects the physical enjoyment of a single property or a locally identifiable property type, can be regarded as part of general market conditions, falling to be dealt with only at revaluation, yet those changes will be excluded under Clause 14 as currently drafted. I do not think that such an approach could ever be justified even on an annual revaluation basis. They are not general market shifts but the result of specific, conscious measures by an authority exercising powers.

Why is this a problem? If the planning or licensing position of a property, or its accessibility or commercial standing in its locality, have changed early in the life of a list, under Clause 14 the ratepayer will continue to pay rates on what would be an incorrect valuation, possibly for almost three years. This gives rise to clear unfairness and inequity. On my reading of the Bill, a billing authority would presumably be in no position to require the rateable value to be reviewed if it implements a scheme under a statutory power which could increase the rateable value of a hereditament in like circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their amendment. I understand the concerns around this clause; I will take the opportunity to explain why we consider this measure to be necessary and to set out the limits of its application.

As we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, more frequent revaluations and the measures we are introducing to support them are central to the reform of the business rates system. It is through those revaluations that the rating system is able to track and reflect changing economic circumstances. In property valuation terms, rateable values are updated at revaluations to reflect changes in economic factors, market conditions and changes in the general level of rents.

Of course, that does not mean that rateable values never change between revaluations. It would hardly be fair if, for example, a ratepayer demolished part of their property but this was not reflected until the next revaluation, or if a new property were built but escaped rates until the next revaluation. Therefore, some changes are reflected in rateable values as and when they happen. Examples include changes to the physical state of the property, the mode or category of occupation of the property or matters affecting the physical state of the locality. These matters, reflected as and when they occur, are called material changes of circumstances—MCCs.

The MCC system has been operating in this way for many years, but, during the coronavirus pandemic, we found that it was not working as intended. Large numbers of challenges were made, seeking reductions between revaluations for the effects of the pandemic, which by their nature were part of the general market conditions. Such general market matters should be considered at general revaluations.

Therefore, the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 clarified the law to ensure that coronavirus and the Government’s response to it were not an appropriate use of MCC provisions. Specifically, that Act ensured that anything done to comply with legislation, advice or guidance given by a public authority and attributable to coronavirus should not be an MCC, subject to some exclusions. The principle in that Act was approved by both Houses, and it received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021.

Clause 14 of the Bill merely takes that principle, clarified and accepted by this House in the 2021 Act in relation to coronavirus, and applies it more generally to all legislation, guidance and advice from public bodies. Changes in such matters are part of the economic factors and market conditions for a property and should be reflected at a general revaluation. This clause will protect the integrity of the rating system and ensure that more frequent revaluations can proceed smoothly. It will protect the system not just for central government but for local government, which relies on the revenue from business rates. The Local Government Association supports this clause and agrees that these matters should be reflected at general revaluations. But this does not mean that these matters are not reflected in rateable values; it just means that they are reflected only at the set date of each revaluation, along with all other economic and general market factors present at that date.

Furthermore, we have limited the scope of Clause 14 to three aspects of the MCC system to ensure that it operates fairly. This is to ensure that physical changes to the property or the state of the locality are still reflected. Therefore, Clause 14 will bite on only three types of MCCs. First, it will catch matters affecting the physical enjoyment of the property but not the physical state. This might include changes in how the property can be used following new legislation or guidance. Secondly, it will catch matters that are physically manifest in the locality but not matters affecting the physical state of the locality. This might include changes to traffic flows and bus or transport services. Thirdly, it will catch the use or occupation of other premises in the locality, which might include the change in use of a nearby property where, for example, the original use has been prohibited by new legislation.

Clause 14 will ensure that matters such as physical changes to a property or to the state of the locality continue to be immediately reflected in valuations, even if they are a result of new legislation or guidance. Clause 14 will also not bite on whether the property is non-domestic or domestic or whether it is exempt. Overall, Clause 14 will preserve a long-established principle by ensuring that matters that go more to the market conditions and general level of rents of a property belong in the general revaluation process. Of course, with more frequent revaluations, these factors will still be updated more often than ever before.

The clause will provide important stability and certainty to the rating list and, therefore, to the vital revenue for local government that flows from the list. Therefore, it would not be prudent to delay the introduction of the clause, as this amendment seeks. I know that the noble Earl will be disappointed that we are unable to agree to this, but I hope that I have set out the basis for taking this measure and also given him some assurances regarding its scope. I will look at Hansard tomorrow and will write to noble Lords with further explanations if I feel that they are required.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their support in connection with this. Although I understand what the Minister says is the intention of Clause 14, having been taken through it in some detail by more than one expert, I am bound to say that I do not agree with her about the effect of the clause. There is a difference in understanding, and I wonder whether it could be dealt with by a further discussion—the Minister is nodding, which I am grateful for. It is very difficult if somebody reads this in one way and says, “This could cover a multitude of things that could be excluded”, and the Minister says, “Actually, it is not intended to do that and these are the safeguards that we have built in”.

All I can say at this juncture is that I will certainly return to this on Report. I hope that there can be a meaningful dialogue on this in the meantime. It would be wrong for me to go into a detailed unpicking of what the Minister said at this hour and given the other pressures on us. To that end, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

That was an impressive introduction. I apologise for bringing this up so late. I was not going to table it, as it was too difficult, but I just could not not do so. I give great thanks to the Table Office for drafting and help.

This group is listed as reliefs and reviews, and I feel strongly that we should dwell more on reviews than reliefs. While injustices should be addressed in the short term with financial relief, the non-domestic rating system is broken, and it seems that the attempts to fix it have become too difficult and it has become easier to throw taxpayers’ money at reliefs than to review it. I believe that the attempts to resolve the injustices in the system have simply been considered too difficult—as I did until last night, or Friday—and have been kicked into the long grass. I would like nothing more at all than to hear from the Minister that action is expected very soon.

One particular injustice, perhaps the most trumpeted, is that of the small high street retailers we have heard about, struggling to survive against the onslaught of internet shopping. In ordinary business terms, the free-market economy dictates the survival rate of businesses, but in this case there is an important further dimension—so much more important—which is the public interest case for healthy high streets. They provide a social necessity to our communities, a valuable asset in the social fabric. We know the subject is complex. A number of high street retailers and major supermarkets have websites; some SMEs may rely on them. These and other good reasons simply complicate the matter; they do not make it impossible.

There is a fiscal irony here. The growing turnover and profitability of internet retail is directly felt in the high street by falling demand. Falling demand translates as falling rental value. It follows that the rateable value will fall. Without this amendment or something similar to it, net tax receipts will also fall. Introducing fairness to the rates paid by internet retailers will go some way—possibly a very long way—to making up for the loss of high street rate contributions.

The solution lies in a new property use class for the purposes of assessing NDR—not to overlap with use classes in the planning Acts; I would run a mile from that. This would be purely for rating. It would correct the current major imbalance between retailers paying warehouse rates and high street retailers paying high street rates. Warehouse rates are a fraction of high street equivalents. Internet retailers know this, and their profits swell by the artificial discount the system supports.

The amendment proposes that the Government conduct a review to make recommendations for a new rating use class. It would harness expertise from the commercial property sector. The amendment gives the Government 12 months to bring a new Bill before Parliament with recommendations to correct this widely recognised injustice.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. At one of my meetings with the Minister and her Bill team I was told that it was not HMRC—or they may have said Treasury—practice to produce an impact assessment as such, and I was directed to a series of notes in lieu. But business rates have an impact on business, employment, entrepreneurial activity and the health of our high streets, and have long seemed a substantial tipping point in decisions about taking on premises, where the tax levied is 50% of the determined market rental value. That puts into shade the collective cost of things such as insurance service charges and other occupational outgoings.

There is a basic imbalance here; I have said so on many occasions in the House and elsewhere. Upfront impact assessments and post-legislative review are exactly what is missing here. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that small business relief and small business exemptions are almost an admission of the failure of the system we have.

Turning to Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I totally agree with its underlying principle that the tax base for local government finance needs to be broadened, with proportionately less of a burden falling on what we might call the traditional business rate payer. This is becoming an impediment. What are termed fundamental reviews have been a great deal less fundamental than they ought to have been. The system has been creaking for some time and one should take notice when things start to creak; it usually means that something is wrong. I very much relate to these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in this group. Underlying the whole group is a major issue: the Treasury now sees business rates as a source of general income to government, but many small businesses see them as a contribution to local services. That has got out of balance.

I strongly support Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who has just spoken. He talked about the impact of online shopping on small high street outlets and said that there was a public interest case to be made. Indeed, Amendment 29, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, probes the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief on high streets. A number of us raised that issue at Second Reading.

A number of issues are raised in this group. I have an amendment on the hospitality sector. It is not clear to me what reason there would be for not having a hospitality sector review, as I propose. It is about assessing the consistency of approach; we have spoken a lot about high streets, but this applies to the hospitality sector as well. There needs to be an assessment of whether there is a consistent approach for setting non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style. I cite public houses, restaurants, live performance theatres and exhibition spaces as examples. This is the kind of thing that government should be doing anyway, but there is a huge policy issue now around what business rates are for and how we make sure that they are being fairly charged.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Looking at those amendments and their context, I think they present a viable option for the Minister to examine and respond to. It is important to consider where the benefit is likely to fall should these amendments be accepted. As I see it, it will primarily benefit SMEs above the small business rate relief threshold. That is not a guaranteed threshold, by the way; it is at the discretion of the Government of the day, from time to time.

For many of those smaller SMEs above that threshold, business rate costs easily exceed energy costs, even in this day and age. Therefore, for many of those businesses, their focus is on getting their rates down and getting the Government to do that, perhaps overlooking the need to make energy improvements, which they perhaps do not see as central to their business operation, nor producing a dividend that they can cash in good time. This amendment skilfully joins those two things. It offers, to those who find the rates burden excessive—and perhaps we could add “Who doesn’t?”—a mechanism for reducing them by investing in energy performance measures. I certainly agree with what the noble Baroness said about the shape of the guidelines, which would obviously be produced if these amendments were passed, and what those energy improvement measures should be and how they might be properly measured.

There is a clear incentive mechanism here, which is clearly needed because there is no doubt that businesses in that sector in particular are lagging behind on energy efficiency—for the reasons I have outlined: they have other business pressures on them and it is certainly not at the top of their to-do list. Also, they probably do not have an ESG policy or a policy statement committing their enterprise to getting to zero carbon by 2050. These are a band of enterprises which are core to the British economy, but they are not exactly headline-making businesses when it comes to developing their social and environmental policies. They need a nudge. To give them a nudge which reduces their rates bill seems a mechanism which merits careful exploration.

The measures in these amendments would be helpful in that hard-to-reach SME sector, often occupying hard-to-improve premises. To join those two things up would be very worth while. We cannot rely on reaching our 2050 targets for the built environment purely on the good will and common sense of hard-pressed SMEs, which have so much else to do.

There is a greater public good to be achieved. If the Government feel that there is any element of giving money away that they do not need to do, I would simply argue that this is, or could be, an important step in delivering that public good, which is reaching zero carbon by 2050—reducing our carbon emissions and avoiding climate extinction. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say by way of response on behalf of the Government.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As we are at this stage of the Bill, I declare that I am a chartered surveyor, a registered valuer and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. It is some time since my bread and butter was generated from dealing with non-domestic ratings; the concepts are well trod, but I will not claim to have any up-to-date knowledge on some of the finer points.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned some of the concerns that the Minister has put forward. My ears pricked up a bit, as they always do when I hear about ministerial concerns. The first was a reduction in revenue. Let us be clear: we are talking about not making an increase—not actually losing something that was there before. It is the increase created in value that is discounted under the Government’s proposals, for no more than one year. The purpose of these amendments is that the increase should not bite for a longer period. That is important, because the work to improve energy efficiency of buildings is sometimes only really justifiable over quite a long period of time. There is no instant fix. In the meantime, it has to be funded, by a loan or an imputed opportunity cost of money for that period. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, one year is simply too short and would be no incentive. The other question about the reduction in revenue is: what is better, not to be able to charge the increase in rates, or someone not to do the work at all because they consider that they should defer the evil day for doing it? There has to be some incentive all round.

The second point that the noble Baroness referred to about what the Minister had said was on the classification of energy-efficiency works in valuation terms. I really do not see that there is any particular difficulty with that. Valuers are dealing with these sorts of things all the time, whether they be tenants’ improvements that are disregarded for rental value purposes, which is actually the nearest open-market analogy to what one is dealing with in business rates valuation, or whether it be for some other purpose—the cost-benefit of some scheme or other. One obviously has to look at these things in the round. If somebody is just replacing the windows and nothing else, clearly they are doing a bit to the U-value to make it more efficient, but it is not a holistic approach. Alternately, if they are part of any type of scheme that one would put forward—that may come out of the further guidance that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—they will have to look at these things on a holistic basis, because you cannot just put a draught-proof strip on a door and expect your bills to go down. It does not happen like that.

These amendments are very important. I do not see the difficulties that the Minister raised in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, so I wholeheartedly support this. The Government could afford to be a little more generous-minded over the whole thing. I encourage the Minister, when she is replying, to perhaps apply that metric.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. They give us the opportunity to discuss this important matter again.

--- Later in debate ---

It would help to have further action on business rates avoidance, along the lines introduced in Wales and Scotland, to ensure that the rules on reliefs, such as empty property and charitable relief, are applied fairly. I know the Government are considering this issue and any update the Minister can give would be helpful. It is estimated that around 1% of total business rates income—around £250 million—is lost to business rates avoidance each year. It may be only 1% but it is a substantial sum and therefore anything the Government do to replicate what is now happening in Scotland and Wales would be very helpful in England. I beg to move Amendment 4.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to address some of the amendments in this group, so ably moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I note that in his Amendment 4—and to some extent in the question of social advertising—he is referring to the purposes for which a hereditament is occupied. We already have this situation in the sense that if a charity occupies a shop for charitable purposes, it gets a degree of mandatory relief. Possibly the only difference is that the charity must have a Charity Commission registration number, and therefore its whole constitution, terms of engagement and memorandum and articles of association are clearly laid out.

The only thing I would say about Amendment 4 is that it is important to make sure that some sort of asymmetry does not come in as a result of using the purposes of occupation approach; otherwise, I can see that there might be accusations of unfair competition. I therefore see no reason to object to the billing authority’s discretion being exercised in its own favour, subject to there being a properly laid out policy that makes it clear to everybody what it is doing and is possibly subject to democratic processes.

I suppose that Amendment 16 should warm the cockles of my heart in terms of the accreditation of non-domestic rating advisers. Of course, I come from the background of being a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accreditation body in its own right. Indeed, a large amount of the edifice of “check, challenge and appeal”, which was put in place by the Government to deal with the huge backlog of rating appeals many years ago, was to do with the fact that unqualified people were putting in blanket appeals and clogging up the system. The accusation was that many of these were totally unmeritorious and were simply wasting everyone’s time—so there is a case for doing it. There was a case for doing it instead of going through the malarkey of “check, challenge and appeal” in the first place, and all the powder and shot and grief occasioned thereby—but we are where we are and if it can help streamline the business so that people are bound by codes of conduct and can be called to account for their actions, all well and good.

I shall comment a bit on Amendment 18, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I sent him today—I apologise to him for not having sent it a lot earlier—the consultation that is going on regarding avoidance and evasion. In that is some business about who does rating work and rogue rating surveyors. I believe that the consultation finishes on 28 September. I hope there will be further discussion with the industry and stakeholders about how it is going to formulate—but the point made by the noble Lord is well made, and I am glad to see that something is in progress.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and for his clear introduction to them. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his contribution.

As we have heard, these amendments relate to rating agents, anti-avoidance, discretionary relief and viability rights, all of which are really important issues that we need to discuss. Amendment 4 would remove the ban that currently prevents relief being given to certain buildings. We know that the Local Government Association is very supportive of that amendment, because the current rules prevent councils from giving discretionary relief to their own hereditaments. As we have heard, both now and in Committee, this is particularly an issue with local authority markets. It became problematic particularly during Covid-19 because local authorities were unable to give those markets the business rates relief that other businesses were able to benefit from, which meant that many local authorities had to subsidise those rates in order for the markets to continue operating.

I am assuming that the ban is to prevent conflicts of interest; perhaps the Minister could confirm why it is in place. If that is the case, will the Minister consider whether there any added flexibility should brought into this prohibition so that, in times of particular need, councils can be flexible? If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, let us look at what else we could do to help.

Amendment 16 would start the process for accrediting ratings advisers. The reason I want to talk about this amendment in particular is that there seems to be an increasing number of reports of rogue agents claiming that they can help businesses. It seems to be a growing problem. There are concerns that the situation will be further exacerbated when the Government bring in annual returns and the duty to notify in their reforms, partly because that complicates the system.

Our concern is the impact of that on the smaller retail and hospitality businesses in market towns right across the country. They may not be seeing the reductions in their rates bills that they should be in the revaluation from 1 April, making them more vulnerable to approaches by rogue rating surveyors who promise that they will help them negotiate a new revaluation but do not deliver and disappear, leaving the businesses high and dry. That is our particular concern. So do the Government recognise that this is an increasing problem? If so, perhaps we should look at tackling it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed. We cannot allow this situation to continue and to get worse, because it will affect many small businesses that simply cannot afford it.

Amendment 17 exempts social infrastructure sites—such as bus shelters and telephone boxes—which have advertisements from paying business rates. I am not sure that the Minister will have this figure at his finger- tips, but it would be interesting to know how much is currently generated from this kind of advertising: what impact are we talking about?

Finally, Amendment 18 relates to anti-avoidance. I know that the Government have recently consulted on this, so it would be good to know exactly what action they are looking to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I strongly support Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I too read the article in the Times yesterday to which he referred. The fact of the matter is that, while rents have decreased substantially due to inflation and other measures, rateable values are very high and the rates payable are now no indication at all of the actual rental value of the properties. That is one of the reasons why, in an unstable market, it is very important to have the valuations done as often as possible, to reflect the actual rental value of properties.

The second point on which I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, relates to what he has called the Amazon amendment. This is the one critical factor that would bring rates into the modern world. Unless we address this critical issue, we are ignoring the reality of modern-day retail life. It is critical that the Government address this Amazon amendment as soon as they possibly can. If one reads the professional press—such magazines as the Estates Gazette—this is always raised by every retailer as one of the greatest iniquities, and possibly the greatest iniquity, of the current rates system.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, particularly on Amendment 19. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this because it strikes at the heart of what I have always felt about the rating philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, inferred a few minutes ago that rating is demanding too much of the tax base to which it is applied. I have made the same point myself over many years. I remember one eminent rating surveyor telling me, “You know, once the rate in the pound starts to get near to 50%, things start changing. People’s attitudes start changing”.

I am afraid that HMRC, which has global responsibility for this, has been extremely slow to catch up with what is happening and to realise the paradigm shifts created by the increasing burden of business rates. Leaving aside things such as small business relief and so on, I did a calculation—a few years ago, so the analogy is even more potent now—showing that business rate payers in small premises of between 1,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet were paying materially more by reference to property value and square footage occupied, by some considerable factor, than their residential counterparts. I use that because when I first started working in this area, in what was then known as the Valuation Office, all those years ago, there was a common rating system, and residential and commercial had a common base. That is why I got little old ladies in cottages in Lewes High Street in Sussex complaining that the pub next door, which sold all this liquor, had a rating assessment that was half theirs.

What has happened is that, because of the burdens, markets have shifted. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to traders who operate from industrial estates— I think that was one of his examples. I used to joke about this, because the archetypal online operation was a stockroom that was a van on the motorway somewhere, a showroom that was a glossy website, a till that was an online payment portal and a communications system that was a pocket mobile and an email address—this was how the thing operated. People have got very slick, because now you have a big industrial shed at the front of which is a retail and trade counter, which occupies quite a small part of the footprint, and the rest is a big storage shed. We all know the names they have. They sell plumbing, electrical equipment, household goods, all of which you can order online. This is one of the difficulties, because seeing the opportunities of online, many of these operators have seen that the two operate very beneficially with the physical hereditament they occupy as well: the two have a synergy that works effectively. This is absolutely a moment when the Government need to take stock.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, refers to high streets. I will return to this in a few minutes when I get to amendments of mine. Unless we get this right, the attrition of high streets will continue, and they will change into something that is not a general purpose destination for people wanting to shop for everyday goods. They will become a sort of entertainment centre with restaurants and bars and the night-time economy. That may be a good idea, but there is an area of conflict here. If we want to bring residential property back into town centres, then residential occupiers do not relish the thought of people turning out at eleven o’clock at night, having had a jolly good time at the bar. That is one of the issues. Another issue is that a lot of these places need to be serviced; they need to have their bins emptied. If there is a local authority or contractor refuse lorry turning up at 6 o’clock in the morning, people will get fed up with that.

We have to start getting this right, as to what the complementary uses are and how to deal with them. More particularly, how do we reverse this process of the alienation of people—who are otherwise willing and able traders—from our traditional high streets? This matters because that is how they are designed and built. That is the social construct that led to the buildings being built and appearing the way they are. I shudder at trying to transform them into totally different uses. When I see things like permitted development for change of uses in town centres, I worry about what will happen and whether that is an irreversible change that will produce more of the conflicts that I have referred to.

Although I slightly shudder every time somebody mentions a review of business rates, because we seem to have an awful lot of them, I think that this is a body of work that needs some serious thought from academics, practitioners and particularly from people like valuers and retailers, because that is where this analysis comes in. The valuers are not making the roles; they are simply interpreting how people go about their business and do their trade. The derivative is a value, and whether it is a rateable value, a capital value or for investment purposes, we need not alienate these purposes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he has raised an absolutely fundamental point in relation to non-domestic rates.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their passionate speeches. It is clear to me that we share the same objectives; we may just have slightly different ways of getting there. I hope I can satisfy noble Lords by the end of my speech.

This group of amendments returns to the theme of the effectiveness of the business rates system as a whole. Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would require a further review of the business rates system to, respectively, expand small business rate relief or rebalance the tax burden between high street and internet retail. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, concern the frequency of revaluations.

I turn first to whether we should conduct a review of the tax. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill is the product of the Government’s own comprehensive review of the business rates system. That review was delivered in around 18 months in 2020 and 2021, which allowed us to do justice to the significance and complexity of the exercise. The review considered a wide range of evidence and reached clear conclusions about the effectiveness of a tax as a means of funding local services and the limited evidence in support of a fundamental overhaul, but also the opportunities for reform.

The Bill seeks to deliver more frequent revaluations and to enable the abolition of downward transitional relief—two of stakeholders’ key asks—alongside other measures. Making these revaluations more frequent, as we are doing with the new three-yearly cycle, will make the tax more up-to-date and therefore fairer. We agree with noble Lords. I accept that some would like us to go further, but a majority of respondents to the review supported a three-yearly revaluation cycle. Moving from every five to every three years is a major reform of the system, and to do this we must implement significant changes to how ratepayers and the VOA interact, which will take several years to bed in.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

8: Clause 10, page 19, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the VO by making disclosure mandatory save for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4).

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 9, 10 and 11 at the same time. All of these cover slightly different things, and I will try and skate through fairly quickly. In each case, I am simply looking for some reassurance from the Government Bench that these matters are in focus and that certain things will be done.

The first is the question of disclosure of information between the Valuation Office and a ratepayer’s surveyor. It may well be that practices have grown up because of these rather unsatisfactory, unqualified surveyors, who have been going around for some time. There are many fewer of them than there used to be. It may well be that the Valuation Office has somehow built a defensive carapace against this, faced with representations that might not have been all they were cracked up to be. But at the end of the day, there is this question, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will understand, of equality of arms: there has to be some common sharing of information and data relating to the value of the hereditament, otherwise negotiations really are in a pretty pickle and, in many cases, will get into worse level of dispute than is absolutely necessary.

As my explanatory statement says, Amendment 8 would reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the valuation office by making disclosure mandatory, except for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4), which is basically a data protection exception. I would very much appreciate comment that this will happen and there will be guidance within the Valuation Office Agency to deal with this—to improve transparency and to reinforce confidence.

Amendments 9 and 10 relate to the question of an annual return or confirmation requirement on ratepayers, which is a new provision that the Government are seeking to insert. I had to check my notes from the previous stage of the Bill, but according to the information I had, this would result in some 700,000 hereditaments having to make an additional return or being at risk of making an additional return. The point that was made to me, and that I continue to make, is that this is potentially excessive. In discussions with the Bill team and the Minister, we were given reassurances that there would be piloting and that they would not roll this out unless it was running smoothly and the online system for reporting was robust. I would simply like to have reassurance on that point and that the results of the pilot will be a matter of discussion with stakeholders, so that we do not just have a one-sided arrangement on that. The truth of the matter is that many ratepayers do not understand the terminology because they are traders; they are not people who are involved in getting to understand what a “hereditament” is—as I may have said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it is not a word easily conjured with. There is a great deal that they do not understand about making returns as they are at the moment, so there is a need for a process of general simplification. That deals with Amendments 9 and 10, which are connected.

Amendment 11 relates to something slightly different, which is consequential on this whole reporting business, and that is that, when a business ratepayer advises the Valuation Office Agency that there has been a change, the matter is dealt with promptly, whether it is a reduction or an increase. An increase obviously affects the income from the rating scheme as a whole, but a reduction is something that directly affects the ratepayer. At the moment, I understand there is still quite a considerable backlog within the Valuation Office Agency. The concern is that, unless the backlog is cleared and unless there is better funding and resourcing within the Valuation Office Agency, these things will be held up. The idea here is that ratepayers in particular should not receive retrospective increases in their rating liabilities unless the valuation office acts promptly on receipt of ratepayer-provided information. This is to give an incentive to the valuation office to make a prompt approach and deal with it, but it is all to do with speed of turnaround of necessary changes. Not everything that is advised to the Valuation Office Agency will be relevant, but quite a lot of it may be. If we are going to get into this new era of reporting 60 days after an event has happened and at the end of the year, then we need some reciprocity in relation to that. That is the gist of those amendments.

I just add that, although the Minister has not spoken to them yet, I support government Amendments 12 and 13. They are necessary and appropriate. I have no real views on Amendment 20 either way; it is an administrative consequence of other amendments. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has tabled a number of amendments related to the provision of valuation evidence to the Valuation Office Agency. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this again, following the earlier debate in Committee, and to explain how the Government have listened to the suggestions heard in that debate.

As has been noted previously, these reforms are essential to securing the sustainable delivery of more frequent revaluations, which I know noble Lords support. Clause 10 consists of a power to allow the VOA to share valuation information with ratepayers. Amendment 8 would make this power a duty, and I will explain why the Government cannot support this. The Government are absolutely committed to providing greater transparency about how rateable values are calculated. The VOA has recently consulted on how, in practice, they intend to use this clause. It is an important part of the reforms and a key plank of our commitment to ratepayers. However, as that consultation reflects, we cannot overstate the importance of privacy rights. The information relied on by the VOA in establishing a valuation will, in some cases, include personal and sensitive data, so it is right that we take an approach which is common among other data gateways; namely, that the gateway is permissive: it permits the VOA to disclose information rather than placing a requirement to do so. This approach safeguards the interests of ratepayers and their data, but I am clear that within the necessary constraints of the clause we are committed to the transparency of valuations.

Amendments 9 and 10 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to remove the requirement in Clause 13 for rate- payers to submit an annual confirmation as well as a notification to the VOA when there is a notifiable change related to their property. On this amendment, the Government are mindful of those concerns. Of course, we should not burden businesses where we do not need to. However, we have a safeguard in place for that very purpose. The Bill provides that the annual confirmation can be brought into force later than the other parts of the VOA duty, and the Government have been clear that we will not bring it into force until we have ensured that it will be sufficiently straightforward for ratepayers to complete. We intend that completing the annual confirmation should be a matter of only a few minutes for those who are already up to date with the duty. Moreover, the annual confirmation will serve a valuable purpose for ratepayers, as well as the VOA. By providing a further opportunity to ensure that they have complied with the duty, the annual confirmation will act as a safety net.

Amendment 11 seeks to prevent the VOA backdating changes to the rating list after a certain period. We are aligned on the importance of the VOA acting promptly and accurately on information received about a property. The VOA takes this very seriously and is performing well—it meets its own targets for processing checks within 12 months and challenges within 18 months in 99.9% and 98% of cases respectively. Of course, as we develop these new systems for the VOA duty, we will review the VOA’s operational targets accordingly, but in light of the VOA’s performance on its existing targets we do not see the need for primary legislation in this space. Furthermore, we hope the noble Earl will recognise that the information provided under the duty may vary considerably by type of property. In the view of the Government, that does not point to a one-size-fits-all approach being appropriate. Instead, it requires effective and transparent performance monitoring, which we will continue to provide under the new system.

I shall explain the steps the Government are taking through government Amendments 12 and 13 to improve the penalties regime for the VOA duty following proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in Committee, for which I am grateful. Amendment 12 deals with the daily penalties which the VOA may apply where a ratepayer continues not to comply with the valuation notification requirement 30 days after being served an initial penalty notice. Its purpose is to encourage timely compliance with the duty. However, it has been noted that in the similar provision for the separate duty to provide HMRC with a taxpayer reference number, a cap on daily penalties equivalent to 30 days of the maximum penalty is applied. The Government have decided to extend this protection for ratepayers to the valuation notification duty. Of course, it is vital that the VOA can secure the information it needs to deliver more frequent revaluations, and to do this it needs effective compliance tools. Nevertheless, the Government have reflected on the points raised in Committee and accept that placing a cap on the total amount a ratepayer may be fined is appropriate. I have a note that I hope helps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: this is equivalent to 30 days of penalties, each being £60.

Amendment 13 alters the burden of proof that the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. The penalty decisions with which this is concerned are for the criminal offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement. The Bill prescribes that, for a higher penalty to be applied, the VOA must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has made the false statement knowingly or recklessly. That is the correct standard of proof for a criminal offence.

However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, identified an issue with the procedure where a ratepayer appeals such a penalty decision to the valuation tribunal. The tribunal would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer had not committed the offence. The Government wish to amend this to ensure that the proper burden of proof is applied, to the benefit of ratepayers.

Finally, Amendment 20 is a minor and technical change that we think we should make to the 1988 Act as a consequential effect of the provisions in this Bill concerning business rates multipliers. Clause 15 makes changes to the multiplier rules and separates the multiplier provisions relating to England and Wales. Section 140(2)(b) of the Act refers to Ministers making separate estimates of rateable value for England and Wales. As the provisions relating to England and Wales will now be separate, that section is obsolete and can be deleted. This is simply a drafting correction to improve the clarity of the statute book and the Government do not foresee any practical effect.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his scrutiny of this area of the Bill, which has allowed us to make important improvements. I hope, with those reassurances and our amendments, he will be prepared to consider not pressing his amendments.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is something that I probably should have asked her about earlier in connection with her Amendment 12, which is the figure of £1,800. Discussions with her noble colleague and the Bill team made it clear that it is intended to be an aggregate figure. I do not know whether she referred to that but I did not hear; if she could confirm that that is so, just for the record, I would be very grateful.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

What I can confirm is what I have written on my note, which says that this is 30 days of penalties, which are £60 per day, which comes to the figure of £1,800 that the noble Earl referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I am not going to add much to anything that has been said. On Amendment 8, there is clearly a significant issue in terms of transparency. I had thought that the wording

“V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so”

was a sufficient get-out-of-jail-free card, but I take it that the Government do not feel able to accept that.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on how the making of returns will function, particularly her comment that one size does not fit all. We have been a bit subjected to one size fits all in some aspects of rating valuation and I am very glad to hear that that will not always be the case. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

14: Leave out Clause 14

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I regret to say that in this amendment I am obliged to refer to a rather contentious matter. As I have made clear, I am not going to divide the House, but a serious question needs to be answered. I tabled the amendment to delete Clause 14 because of my concern that what the Government claim Clause 14 does is at material variance with the wording, as I see it, of the Bill. It is also at serious variance with what I understand to be the current assumptions regarding the, as it were, state and condition of the hereditament for valuation purposes not in terms of its individual condition as to the fabric but where it sits in its economic and practical environment.

As I understand it, the Government claim to be restoring matters to those understandings that prevailed previously, but the proof of the pudding shows that is not so or we would not have this clause before us because it would then be unnecessary. In my view, an earlier measure to remove the status of Covid as a material change of circumstances—which is what this is all about—was legitimate. It was deliberately circumstance specific and affected the whole country and so could rightly be described as a pan-national economic event. But the Government now seek to extend that principle to any change affecting the physical enjoyment of the hereditament as a consequence of what is described as an “economic” matter and that that should be disregarded as a material change of circumstances. In other words, it should not be possible if that change occurs for somebody to challenge their assessment.

I dispute that this approach has ever been the test of a material change of circumstances hitherto. Copious cases—Addis Ltd v Clement (VO) in particular—have clarified this. There is an obvious reason: where a public authority takes steps that deny or degrade the benefits of enjoyment of a hereditament, it is offensive that a tax unadjusted to reflect this fact should continue to be levied. This is not just a modern confection but goes to the heart of fair and just administration, the rule of law, confidence in government and the certainty and security of process that affect investment, productivity, and commitment to medium and long-term partnership. It is an essential part of a social and economic contract—unwritten it may be but there all the same. Any Government would be wise to observe these obvious and potent economic factors in administering the needs of the nation. We are talking about an ancient principle.

The Government make a distinction in relation to an economic matter affecting society at large but then go on to define this as any matter directly or indirectly attributable to a “relevant factor”. In fact, these are not economic matters at all but the fiat of some authority exercising powers that are not of general economic application to the nation at large or a significant part of it. The definition of “relevant factors” is set out at Clause 14(l)(d) in new paragraph 2ZA(3)—near the bottom of page 32 for those noble Lords following this astutely. In effect, it means that any legislation, regulation or advice of any country or public authority or steps to comply with these is to be disregarded in terms of what amounts to a material change of circumstances—so much for being ruled by our own laws. It also does not clarify the status of pronouncements from organisations such as the WHO, the UN or International Monetary Fund. So, in future, if a local authority alters the entire geometry of the use and enjoyment of a business premises through, let us say, planning powers, it will not count as an MCC, regardless of how severe the impacts may be. This provides a perverse incentive to disregard negative effects of sudden policy decisions which, as I say, may be nothing to do with economic choices.

I wonder whether when formulating these measures the Government ever considered the growing mistrust of their handling of the business rates regime generally and the effect, along with others no doubt, on high streets from trader and investor confidence, or ever paused to consider off balance sheet indications in any of these respects. The Government in seeking to differentiate general economic changes from direct physical enjoyment at hereditament level do not seem to be able to make a tidy distinction between the two, so they take a line of least resistance and bundle them together. That is Clause 14.

By way of further explanation, there are of course two poles to consider: first, those matters which affect the economy as a whole to be dealt with on revaluations—there is no dispute about that; we accept that as we accepted it in Covid. Then there are other more rapid and acute physical changes to the hereditament itself. Again, there is no dispute on that because they will continue to be treated as material changes of circumstances. In between, there are those immediate and localised regulatory and other measures affecting an individual property or those in a defined location and not shared with the wider economy of a town or a region.

I wanted some further clarity on this, so I sent some examples of queries to the department. I hope it received those and that, in replying, the Minister may be able to throw some light on them. The first one was where a local authority reduces the hours of operation of certain licensed premises to provide better amenity for nearby residents and as a result business is curtailed— I referred to the conflicts earlier today. Secondly, an important town centre car park is closed due to concerns about the concrete frame and as a result footfall for traders in that part of town declines substantially. Thirdly, a small corner convenience store is affected because the large residential block next door is ordered to be evacuated over fire safety concerns and the occupiers are dispersed into other accommodation elsewhere. Fourthly, an authority in a popular holiday area makes licensing of holiday let premises mandatory but then limits or conditions the licences it issues to reduce the impact on local housing availability and as a result the income to certain operators is significantly affected. Finally, a biosecurity exclusion zone is declared in a defined area due to an animal disease outbreak. The public are advised to stay away and traders in the area suffer a sharp downturn in business. As I understand it, every one of those would be ruled out as being a material change of circumstances by virtue of Clause 14. The only qualification is on the last one. Does the geographical extent of the biosecurity exclusion zone alter the degree to which the effects fall to be disregarded as an MCC or does it make no difference?

Let me give an extreme example of what the effects might be. A metropolitan mayor decides to ban all petrol and diesel sales in his or her area under some statutory or regulatory power or perhaps on the advice of health officials concerned about air pollution, but by virtue of Clause 14—and maybe for up to three years until the next revaluation—petrol filling stations in the area would have to continue paying business rates as if nothing had happened. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to revise Clause 14 because that, on the best authority I know, is what it will do. The best authority I have—Members of this House, particularly learned Members, excepted—is rating counsel Luke Wilcox, who provided me with a note which says

“my main concern with clause 14 as it is currently drafted is that its effects will be much wider than the Government’s stated intention. The Government’s intention appears to be to treat general legislation as part of the general market conditions affecting revaluations, rather than as matters capable of being MCCs”.

He goes on to say that

“the phrase ‘indirectly attributable to’, as it appears in para 2ZA(2)(a), is so wide in its scope that matters affecting an individual property or class of properties, such as a planning or licensing decision, will cease to be MCCs (because they are made under a general legislative provision). Such an effect would appear to be beyond the Government’s stated intention. If such a significant alteration is to be made to the established law of rating, then it should be made following proper deliberation, rather than as an unintended consequence of a provision aimed at a different policy effect”.

In all this, there appears to have been little or no discussion with ratepayers or their professional advisers, nor any wider consultation with that class of stakeholders. It is undoubtedly a major departure from what is known as the “reality principle”—namely, that rating should reflect the real circumstances of the hereditament in assessing it for rating purposes. The Valuation Office Agency’s own rating manual does not use the approach now suggested. Whether it is going to be amended, I do not know—I suppose it will be—but, as it clearly states the situation that has commonly been understood for many years, that rather suggests that the Government’s claim of restoring what they say were the previous understandings is unsupported.

Many will feel that this is getting us towards the realms of no-appeals regulations—in other words, “Let’s not have any appeals at all and dispense with them, and the whole thing can be dealt with through by the arbitrary exercise of power through the Valuation Office Agency”. But that would have profound implications for the rules-based system—something that I have referred to before in relation to several government Bills.

This clause cannot go unchallenged. Although I am not proposing to press the amendment, I think it warrants a detailed comment from the Government as to how they think it will work fairly and equitably in the context of the rating system. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the point of view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has raised this very issue, I think at Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and I have given him support because I have grave doubts about the definition in the Bill of a “material change of circumstance”.

The noble Earl has given a list of possible examples of where there should be a material change of circumstance because of what happens in the area as a whole—perhaps a planning change or a licensing change undertaken by a local authority. When it comes to the Minister’s reply, it would be extremely helpful if there could be a letter to all of us who have taken part in the debate, but addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explaining the Government’s view on each of the examples that the noble Earl has given.

I have another one to add to his list. As it stands, Clause 14 means that material changes of circumstance should relate to physical changes only to a property. That is how I interpret it. However, as the noble Earl has demonstrated, there can be many ways in which that physical property can be impacted upon and have a material change of circumstance because of what somebody else does. My example is that a local authority decides that a bus route will no longer come down one road but will go down a different one. The patronage of the shop—if it is a shop—goes down as a consequence. Is that a “material change of circumstance”? I suggest that it is and that it should qualify. I do not think that Clause 14 can apply only to a physical building. That is my position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment and the noble Earl for his response. He said that it would depend on the change of rollout of the relevant factors. Let me remind your Lordships what those are; they are in four categories in new paragraph 2ZA(3):

“(a) legislation of any country or territory;


(b) provision that is not within paragraph (a) but is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory;


(c) advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory;


(d) anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything”—


covered by the preceding paragraphs. I paraphrase, of course.

I struggle to see what actions would be taken by a municipality or authority dealing with something that makes a substantial change that would not be covered by those criteria and thereby excluded. The noble Earl referred to the difficulties of non-stop revaluation. We have a situation that everyone has been happy with for quite a number of years, and it has not resulted in non-stop revaluation. The noble Earl also referred to the equality of valuation approach, but the tone of the list—the general levels of value, to put it simply—would not be altered; it would simply be that by reference to that general pattern of values, a particular hereditament, if there was a material change of circumstances, had taken a hit. That is what we are trying to deal with.

With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I find his explanations unconvincing, as I found the explanations of his noble friend when we met her unconvincing, and as I found the explanations of the department officials unconvincing. Although I will withdraw the amendment, I do so with a sense of profound disappointment that the Government have not been able to come up with a better narrative—a better explanation. There is a point behind what they say in getting at what we might call general economic changes, but to extend that to the microcosm of what happens in a locality stretches my credulity beyond breaking point. It does not add up, and I hope that the noble Earl will go away and make it clear to the department that that is what I believe, what a lot of ratepayers believe and what a lot of professionals believe.

For the time being, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.