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.