English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group I will address several government amendments to Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, starting with government Amendment 312, which makes minor changes to an existing provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to ensure that it aligns with wider reforms to the local audit system. Technical amendments to the audit system at this time of night are guaranteed to be soporific, so I will get through as quickly as I can.

Section 32 of the 2014 Act enables the Secretary of State to make further provisions via accounts and audit regulations. These regulations can, for example, set requirements regarding the form, contents and publication of financial accounts. This amendment updates the list of consultees that a Secretary of State must consult before making or amending accounts and audit regulations. The amendment replaces the Comptroller and Auditor-General with the local audit office, and the addition of the local audit office reflects the fact that it will be central to the new audit system. The Comptroller, meanwhile, will no longer be responsible for the code of audit practice—that will pass to the local audit office.

The amendment also replaces recognised supervisory bodies with any external registration body, and this is in keeping with changes elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill maintains the concept of a register of local audit providers as the basis for the regulation, quality monitoring and oversight of professional conduct. The register will no longer be held by a recognised supervisory body. Instead, the local audit office will have the right to hold a register itself or to designate an external registration body to hold the register and deliver these regulatory functions on its behalf. The amendment would ensure that whichever body holds the register—either the local audit office or an external registration body—is consulted on accounts and audit regulations.

Government Amendments 319 to 324 are essential amendments to expand the scope of Schedules 7A and 7B to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to ensure that tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after 17 March 2026, and any subsequent rent reviews during the term of the tenancy, are also within scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type, such as options and rights of first refusal, may require the tenant to enter into a new tenancy on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used by landlords to avoid the ban’s effect and encourage gaming of the system, which we want to prevent.

Government Amendment 325A is an essential technical amendment to ensure that delegated powers across the Bill, which have been inserted into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, are consistent with the intended position. This would bring them into alignment with the position described in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum.

Government Amendment 327 will allow for regulation- or order-making powers within the Bill provisions concerning local scrutiny committees, charges payable by undertakers, executing works in maintainable highways and the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles to be commenced by commencement regulations at the appropriate time. The amendment achieves this by preventing these powers from commencing upon Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 318C. But in what is possibly my final contribution to the proceedings of this House, I want to make a couple of brief valedictory comments. It has been a privilege and an honour to have been elected to this place some 11 or 12 years ago and to take part. I do not say that lightly. I have had so many helpful tips and hints from Members on all sides of the House who have helped me stumble through the protocols. I include the doorkeepers and other officers of this place in my thanks and remarks.

I am disappointed that it should end with expulsion, not choice, but my family has form. I follow a tradition in that the first Thurlow in this place, in the late 18th century, was also expelled. He sat on the Woolsack at the time. I got off lightly.

I turn my attention to the Bill and thank the Minister for the meeting with the team last week. I refer to my interests as a former chartered surveyor who still has some practice in commercial property markets. My comments relate to Part 5 and banning upwards-only rent reviews, which has already been touched on by the Minister. This is a revision of the Landlord and Tenant Act and has no place in this unrelated Bill. It shows all the signs of an afterthought slipped in late in the day.

There was a lack of consultation. The Library briefing in the other place described it as a “surprise”, “not trialled” and “not a manifesto item”. Now before us and still with no proper consultation, it is being inserted into the Bill.

There was an impact study, but it was deeply flawed. I read it and it was very one-sided. There was not a single reference to the loss of capital value to landlords in this clause. Rental value is one of two principal elements of the valuation process for commercial property. Did the Government forget to consider it? Did they not understand how these values are arrived at? They should have consulted.

The clause is designed to help SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—and I agree 100% with that sentiment and with that sentiment being applied to banning upwards-only rent reviews. But the Bill treats SMEs in small properties as though they are the equivalent to office blocks in Canary Wharf or the City of London, data centres worth hundreds of millions of pounds, or other large logistics operations. They have nothing in common with SMEs. This is not a one-size-fits-all subject. SMEs need support, but the Bill should focus exclusively on them, not on big business.

There are good reasons for excluding large commercial properties. These days, large office blocks retail at over £1 billion each in these centres, and the buyers are sovereign wealth funds and big international investors. Removing upwards-only rent reviews rocks the stability of our landlord and tenant system and reduces the attraction of the UK versus competing centres abroad, and that, of course, impacts growth.

At the end of 2022, the IPF estimated the total value of the inventory of commercial property here at £900 billion. The property market was estimated at £138 billion by the LSE in 2024. I mention this to underscore the importance of the sector to the wider economy. If the Government really want growth, this clause is a clear act of self-harm. Destabilising the valuation base of the UK commercial property market will reduce inward investment. This clause adds risk.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Thurlow]

318C: Schedule 34, page 363, line 26, at end insert—
“2A In this schedule, “business tenancy” and “business tenancy with a rent review” refer only to a business that is a small or medium-sized enterprise, as defined by the section 123 of the Procurement Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the removal of upward only rent reviews will apply only to SMEs, so as to mitigate any potential loss in value for larger commercial properties and to protect investors and lenders against loss in value as a direct result of this Bill.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions on Amendment 318C and particularly for the kind and generous comments from across the House to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me. I regret too that the surveying and property expertise is becoming depleted by the forthcoming cull and would simply like to remind the Minister that it is not too late to do something about it.

Turning to Amendment 318C, I seriously urge the Minister to reflect on leaving Clause 5 unchanged. It will cause great self-harm and frighten off inward investment and be bad for growth. There would be wisdom in seeking recommendations from the property profession as to how better to exercise this objective of upwards-only rent reviews. Meanwhile, I shall not move my amendment.

Amendment 318C not moved.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in Committee so far, but in my four-minute contribution at Second Reading I raised two issues, which are the subject of these next two amendments. The first may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere.

Perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpaths. I have three asks to make of the Government. The footpath issue is one that a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House have been following—“chasing down” might be a better phrase—for many years. I am therefore grateful for the support of two of the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me to give an apology as she cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has left the Chamber because we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities as a shadow spokesman before the general election, and I wish her well in her new role.

However, one name is missing from the Government Benches, that of Lord Rosser. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I add a short personal note. Lord Rosser was a doughty supporter of the footpath cause over many years and, despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell, he came, possibly to speak for the last time, in support of a regret Motion that I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordships’ House the water should close over us quietly and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.

With that, to horse. First, I need to declare an interest, as I am a member of the Ramblers, which campaigns on behalf of footpaths and open access. I am currently making use of our footpaths by walking from Land’s End to John O’Groats—in stages, I hasten to add—and I am just reaching Inverness. In the 1,000 or so miles that I have so far covered, I have seen at first hand how our network of public rights of way provides physical and mental support. In effect, it lifts the soul, even if, after seven hours on the road, the feet and the muscles may be a little sore.

The background to this issue is as follows. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required local authorities to provide and prepare official records of public rights of way, known as definitive maps. As a result, some 120,000 miles of rights of way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first ask of the Government: the reason for paragraph (c) in my amendment, “preservation”, is to get the Minister’s commitment that nothing in the Bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part. The key word here is “network” because, if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the Bill will not put at risk this important national asset, which is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors?

There is a further challenge. While the recording of 120,000 miles of footpaths was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected. There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 attempted to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights of way to the official definitive maps. The deadline was set for 25 years later, 1 January 2026, three months from where we are now. After that date, applications for adding unrecorded public rights of way based on historic evidence will no longer be possible and any of those miles would be lost for ever.

Progress on recording those 20,000 miles was disappointingly slow: first, because local authorities had many other uses for funds and found it hard to justify putting additional resources into this activity, balanced against all those other pressures; secondly, because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both financially as well as in management time and effort. I have first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of agricultural land in Shropshire, where we needed the diversion of a footpath; although it was not contested, it took over three years to achieve. I place on record my thanks to Shropshire County Council and Mr Rodenhurst, who is the county council footpath officer, but he too had to work to an existing system.

Some anecdotal evidence suggests that many councils can process only two or three applications every year. At one point, a working party of interested stakeholders was set up to streamline the system, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Therefore, my second ask of the Minister is whether that working party still exists and whether it has any role in the Government’s thinking on how to speed up this recording process.

Finally, as the deadline of 1 January 2026 became ever closer, I, together with a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House, began to campaign for a better, permanent solution. At first, it looked as though we had had success. In February 2022, the then Conservative Government announced that the deadline would be abolished entirely, but a year later, in March 2023—presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers—that decision was reversed and, instead, the deadline was extended by regulation by five years, to 1 January 2031. In my view, this is an exercise in pushing the pea around the plate, if ever I saw one.

On Boxing Day 2024, the new Labour Government announced that they would fulfil the prior undertaking of the Conservative Government to repeal the deadline but that they could do so only when, in that hallowed phrase, parliamentary time allows. This Bill provides parliamentary time within which the Government could fulfil that commitment, so my third and final ask of the Minister is whether the Government are prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline for ever. If the Government cannot accept and answer my questions, perhaps they could accept Amendment 213, which provides for a review in six months. That at least enables your Lordships’ House to monitor progress on this important topic. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, having heard such eloquent advocacy for swifts and other birds, I will make a case for humans in Amendment 213. I will explain. First, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for tabling this amendment. I am very keen to support him.

My particular interest is actively to promote the case for the restoration of ancient rights of way—the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. I declare my interest as the owner of a property, a family farm, with a right of way laced right through the middle. I am also grateful to the Ramblers for its briefing.

In considering this, we should start from the premise that rights of way, whether registered or not, are a national asset. They belong to the nation—to citizens and individuals. No reasons were given except for the need for certainty as to whether these unregistered rights of way would be terminated or disallowed in future. The only certainty was that UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because, in that rediscovered but unregistered place, these rights of way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights of way?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

99A: Clause 50, page 64, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) Training for all members of local planning authorities must include specific training on the role of design for the external appearance of developments as it relates to their exercise of relevant planning functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that mandatory training for all members of local planning authorities in England includes training on design as it relates to their role in determining planning applications, particularly in the context of the built environment, character of the area, local materials, and variety of styles to break up monotony within larger housing developments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce the second group of amendments today and to speak specifically to my Amendment 99A. These amendments focus on the need for wider training in design for those involved in the planning process, particularly within local authorities. In doing so, I declare my interests as a surveyor and a consultant in the property sector and the occupier of a listed building, although that is not relevant in this group. These interests are set out in the register.

To understand fully the background to this group, it is important to have some awareness of the way in which planning applications are processed within local authorities. Anyone present in the Chamber today who has had experience of making planning applications in the past few years will be woefully aware of the difficulties that process usually involves. It has become something of a nightmare for applicants. There are difficulties in arranging meetings with senior planners, and receiving advice and guidance in any sort of a timely fashion is hopelessly slow. Non-controversial consents can be delayed for many months. My son George is currently waiting and waiting and waiting for progress to build a house. It is non-controversial, and there have been no objections, and he has had support from the local planning authority, but can he get his piece of paper? No, he cannot, and it is difficult for him to establish why.

As we heard eloquently in discussions on the first group, the teams are underresourced—in almost all cases, from what I can glean, critically underresourced. Morale is often low, and we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, about this. The revolving door of staff leaving for better paid, more interesting work, usually in the private sector, is a constant drain on resources.

Planning officers receive a steady flow of new applications, each of which needs attention. They are often up against well-resourced applicants, frequently professional developers who are adept at using loopholes to optimise their objectives by working the system. This has the unfortunate effect of putting staff in planning departments on the back foot; they feel defensive, when they should be positive and playing a constructive role, working with applicants in all cases to produce the optimum fair and appropriate result. It becomes very difficult for them to perform this service. With the revolving door of staff, the file on any given project, particularly a larger one, may go through the hands of three different planners who have none of the history and embedded knowledge to work with. They are bound to be defensive. Proper training is vital for these professionals, but that training should not exclusively refer to the disciplines of health, safety, building control and knowledge of the wider body of legislation, let alone enforcement. Training for planners should involve a wider and more subjective brief.

Particularly with regard to the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes over the next few years, we must expect to see a large number of massive housing projects, which will be given some sort of fast-track treatment. Planning officers and members of committees need therefore to have an understanding of more than just the compliance with regulations and the fast-tracking, which other sections of the Bill address. Careful thought needs to be given to the impact of these new large housing projects on communities and the public at large. We must avoid the easy mistake of allowing hundreds and hundreds of lookalike matchbox developments to be built at the lowest cost, at the expense of appearance. These massive schemes—indeed, small schemes of several houses as well—should have regard to a wider design brief to overcome the relentless roadside appearance of almost identical buildings.

There have been some impressive exceptions, such as Poundbury, in Dorset, Chapelton, south of Aberdeen, and many others, but they are few and far between. This must change. It is not difficult to build row upon row of houses from a master plan with all the economies of scale for the principal elements of the construction process with a little more attention to interesting external elevations and the use of different building materials and finishes. In fact, this is cosmetics; while it will cost a little more, the benefit to local communities and society as a whole of an interesting streetscape, rather than relentless monotony, is an uplifting social service. I think it goes without saying that landscaping should be part of this.

This explains why planning officers should be carefully trained, to ensure that these simple but lasting improvements are introduced to larger-scale projects early on, for the wider benefits, not just for the residents—though they will be the principal beneficiaries. This training would require planning professionals, and in turn housing developers and their architects, to consider the impact of projects as a whole. It would require developers to display a carefully thought-out approach to the appearance of their completed developments and the wider impact of the finished product, insisting upon imaginative treatment when applied to external appearance. The process of continuous professional development, or CPD as it is known, would be a simple and rapid chance to deliver training to these professionals and to do so within months, rather than years. Bearing in mind the obligation within most professions for a minimum number of CPD hours annually, this really is an opportunity.

I firmly believe that this subject of imaginative design and external appearance applying to projects as a whole should become a required element of the training for professional planners. As the Government attempt to squeeze hundreds of thousands of housing units into a limited space, with lasting effects on the landscape and the quality of life of residents, it is an opportunity to kickstart a new era, with an intelligent planning discipline for the benefit of society as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and hope she will accept this proposal. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To take the noble Lord’s last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to Amendment 135, but we shall see. I hope I have reassured him on the point about continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that, so I hope that reassures him.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear that there is a real concern regarding the crisis in provision in the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All these amendments should be non-controversial from a political point of view. They are about supporting apprenticeships and training at all levels and improving the positive aesthetic, pride in planning and career opportunities.

I thank the Minister for agreeing, in her very first few words in winding, with all the amendments proposed—if I heard her correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle. I am particularly pleased that she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of matchbox lookalike developments. I think we have been travelling in different directions. As a surveyor, I do a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. I think the objective is the same and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think we have to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the Government have announced do not descend to the lowest common denominator of design and appearance.

I am afraid I am nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group by way of regulation and delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. We will doubtless return to the Minister’s comments on Report.

Amendment 99A withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak on Part 2 of the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, as a former practising chartered surveyor. I certainly support the Bill. I like it very much. I wish to address just a few concerns this evening.

Most of the ground has been well covered. I will try not to repeat too much. First, I want to touch on housing. One and half million homes in a short window of time is a huge undertaking. It will not be done piecemeal. It requires many vast new-build schemes. These are going to be predominantly, I am sure, on green spaces. We must learn from the mistakes of the last 30 or 40 years, when acres of matchboxes identical to each other have been built with no thought whatever to the appearance to those passing by, or nearby, or living in them. What an opportunity this is to introduce some design vision to the process—style guides and development themes. Please, let us move on from matchboxes.

Introducing design at the outset is free. It is more expensive—only slightly more expensive—because it is cosmetic, but it costs nothing to the developer. It is factored into its appraisal, and it comes off site value. Living in an attractive, landscaped environment has a great impact on society as a whole and, of course, to the people who live there themselves. The Bill refers to design training for planning committee members. This is an excellent suggestion and will inform the design vision I refer to. The RIBA states that feedback from its members over the last couple of years suggests that 54% of local planning authorities lack any design expertise.

Secondly, I am very pleased the Bill refers to brownfield land, but it is not much more than that. The reference to passports to accelerate the development process is welcome and applauded, but I regret there is no single brownfield land clause in the Bill. It merits and deserves a clause of its own. It is of primary importance because tens of thousands of residential dwelling units could be built on brownfield land. They are usually in metropolitan areas. There is no need for the additional infrastructure services of schools and transport infrastructure, medical centres and shops—simply expenditure on expanding the existing provision in the metropolitan areas.

My third concern is planning departments. I will build on the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and support the planning system as it was structured. I do not want to refer at all to the roll call of consultants who surround and influence the planning process. The system of local planning authorities itself is well designed, but it is broken. Years of under-resourcing have taken their toll. The Government’s Autumn Statement had £45 million for 300 new apprentice planners, which is a woefully inadequate addition to the cohort. It is fewer than one per local planning authority. There are 2,200 current vacancies in the planning system among local planning authorities and 13% of planning authorities are trying to operate with a shortfall of 25% or more in their numbers. Morale is understandably low. They are under-resourced and unloved.

It is a revolving door of employment. Case handlers change, sometimes twice, for an applicant. Knowledge of the file is interrupted. Site visits, meetings and relationships are destroyed as the faces change. Delays are inevitable. The Government must act and rebuild from the bottom up. Do not break the structure, but rebuild, recruit and retrain. Return professional pride to these wonderful teams of people. Let them take pride in their work again.

Finally, there is flood risk. The Bill makes no direct reference to flood risk management. There are too many homes being built with a one in 100 likelihood of flooding, which, as we all know, is accelerating rapidly with climate change. We should not build on flood-risk land; it is madness. The Bill could stop it. To conclude, this is a good Bill, but there are gaps which need filling.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I will make just a couple of comments on the two amendments tabled by my noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best. I start with Amendment 220 and the point made in support of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because what is proposed here is clearly, in effect, a public register. I was not absolutely sure that I understood whether that was delimited in certain ways by the reference to “other interested stakeholders”, whoever or whatever they might be in any given circumstance, but a public register is what we are dealing with.

If I may, I link this across to the next group of amendments, because it is appropriate to mention here that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has Amendment 222, which has an extensive list of requirements. I simply say that some of what she sets out there might need a rethink as to whether it is appropriate for that degree of detailed information to be on a public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes.

I have a question on Amendment 225. I absolutely agree with the functionality point, and I add to that by saying that there must absolutely be an email communications option in any database of this sort. Given the state of the normal, regular postal service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, their agent or, for that matter, any renter using the database.

My question is to do with the way the database is applicable to local authority schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, confirmed what I believed to be the case: namely, that local authority schemes might vary considerably. If we have a national database, I simply ask how that deals with strictly local things on a per local authority basis. The rules of the game must obviously apply nationally, but the property concerned, the landlord and the renter in particular may be local. I simply flag up how that will function or whether there will be a subsidiary local authority subset on a per local authority basis.

If we have approach, and given the amount of data that the noble Baroness’s later amendment suggests, then, in terms of the amendments previously spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I suggest that we are looking at quite a considerable lead-in period in practical terms to get this database in place. If it is to be of use, it needs to start off as some sort of cut-down version in order to enable the essential information to be there, even if it is then expanded. I therefore see this being achievable by some sort of rollout over time. Trying to put it in place from day one would be a recipe for something approaching chaos.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.

The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.

Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.

Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.

I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

I speak on this Bill from the rural perspective, which is very different from the urban perspective. The rural perspective is much more concerned with communities. In the fixing of rents, this is very much taken into account by most rural landlords. Affordability is one method: the 30%. Some return on capital is needed to keep the show on the road. However, taking account of individual circumstances is crucial.

Where there is talk about tying rents to inflation, it is very sensible that all leases make clear that, when rents are assessed annually—which seems to me a reasonable level—that should be on the basis of taking account of inflation. When the inflation is very high, it would be quite wrong to impose a full level of inflation on a tenant. We have had double-digit inflation in the last three years and those of us who were alive then will never forget 1975-76, when we had inflation of 25% per year, for goodness’ sake. Inflation is a dangerous animal. You should use it as a guide, but over a period. Also, you take account of individuals and their contribution to the community in which they live. After all, a rural community is about people in a much greater way than an urban community can be. I do not know whether the Minister has thought about this, but I would hope that she would make reference to what might work better in a rural community than in an urban community.

I very much agreed with my noble friend Lord Young, one of the liberators from a system which had almost destroyed the private rented sector. The other person who I have huge respect for is the noble Lord, Lord Best, who I have known for a very long time and whose judgment, knowledge and experience provide a very useful guide. I recommend that the Minister should have quiet, private discussions with people like that on the practicalities, because this Bill is getting knotted up in practicalities. It is easy to write it all down in clauses and subsections, but how it works will depend on human beings. Governments have a role. As a Burkean Conservative, I believe that the role of a Government is to hold the ring, to prevent people from being ill-treated in the community. It is people who matter.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, this is my first contribution in Committee, so I declare my interests as the owner of a residential property in receipt of rent and as a practising chartered surveyor for some 35 years. I would like to stop for a moment and consider why rents are so high. Well, it is simple. It is supply and demand; we have not got enough, because there has not been sufficient building since the evolution of the AST regime that we heard about, which began to encourage investors back into the market.

British institutions—life companies, pension funds, insurance companies—used to own millions of pounds-worth of private rented accommodation in the UK. The post-war rent restrictions made it uneconomical and they dumped it, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young. It took many years for that to come back. The investors returned slowly with the AST and now we are interfering with it all again.

I am not objecting to that interference; I think ASTs needs updating. But the important thing to remember, or point out to the Committee, is that there is a vast amount of institutional money lying in the wings waiting to invest in private rented property. It is there, it is identified, some of it has been spent, and it is going to create tens of thousands of units of private rented accommodation. We are talking not about tens of millions but billions of pounds, and a lot of it is foreign investment. Institutional investment is the holy grail of generating high-volume addition to the inventory.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, last week there was a considerable majority of support in this House for an amendment tabled in my name, which enabled the Government, by regulation, to prevent the higher multiplier from being applied to NHS properties, mainly consisting of 290 of the major hospitals in England. I was surprised to hear the Minister say just now that there is sufficient leverage within the Bill to enable those changes to be made. I ask him now to write to me to explain how that will work.

It is most disappointing that the Government felt unable to accept the amendment. However, it is clear that the Government have very challenging decisions to make. Nevertheless, given that reducing waiting times is a key priority, we on these Benches were hoping for—and indeed hopeful of—government support on this issue. We recognise at this stage that we can take the Bill no further and we will not press any further amendments.

Finally, I want to give thanks to all those who have taken part in this interesting Bill, which attracts those of us who like to understand how business rates work, who benefits and who does not. We look forward to the digitalisation of the whole process, whereby changes could then be made. From these Benches, we thank all who have taken part, including the Whips’ Office, which has given me enormous support, as well as the Minister and his team for all the helpful conversations that we have had. They did not get anywhere but, nevertheless, I thank the Minister for always being willing to meet.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting and lively debate through all its stages, covering the many aspects of the broad landscape of this Bill. I thank all who took part and supported my amendments from across the House right through to this final stage. I add my thanks to the Minister and his team, who have spent a good deal of time on a number of occasions, willing to engage with me to try to find compromise and a way through the complicated and difficult elements of the Bill, which have become quite technical and needed a deep dive.

I feel a sense of real regret. The Government have missed a real opportunity to deal once and for all with the injustices heaped on the small high-street retailers, which continue to subsidise the rates paid by these mammoth non-high-street retail fulfilment centres: the internet operators exclusively—not the ones on the high street that have fulfilment centres but the ones that are not on the high street. It is tragic that this opportunity has been missed. It is a wrong that the Bill could have put right. The Minister’s proposals address aspects of this, but possibly not for many years to come. The digitisation process of non-domestic rates, which we have discussed, is in hand and planned for 2028, but I wonder whether, like many other government initiatives, it will take many years longer than expected. What a waste. It was not too difficult—an opportunity missed.

It is not my desire to prolong the debate, notwithstanding the reasons cited for refusal in the other place, which left the door open. I think we have done enough, and HMG should not be frustrated in their manifesto items. I thank the Minister for his opportunity to continue a dialogue going forward, which I would like to engage in if I have not been put in front of the firing squad as a hereditary before that time comes. I will not press my amendment.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about independent schools. Throughout, the Government’s position has been in essence that we have to take away—they say—some of the resources of 7% of our country’s schools to enable 93% to make improvements. State schools will gain little or nothing from Labour’s tax raid, which will simply harm independent schools. Throughout our debates, I have tried to provide a voice for small independent schools, as president of the Independent Schools Association, whose 720 members are, for the most part, cherished small local schools. As I have said several times, 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils. Their future is now in jeopardy, thanks to this Government. Ministers will be held to account here in Parliament and in the country at large for the damage their policies will do to these schools, which contribute so richly to our communities in spheres such as special needs, music, the arts and sport, as I and a number of noble friends have shown in these debates. Labour’s discriminatory tax burdens threaten their very survival.

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

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Noble Lords]

It is in this group.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

Amendment 74 withdrawn.