Lords Chamber

Tuesday 1st April 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:37
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:41
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Disruption to the operation of the Royal Horticultural Society Garden Wisley and its environmental and research centre because of the roadworks around Junction 10 of the M25 Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the questions that get my name on the Order Paper. In doing so draw attention to my non-financial interest as the Vice President of the Royal Horticultural Society. RHS.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The noble lady will know the settlement this year, announced in February this year finally, has given an extra £1 billion to police forces. The noble lady says it isn't enough. I can recall being police minister when the noble lady's party cut funding. I say to her it is an extra £1 billion going into policing this year. What we are trying to do is give flexibility and what she says is right about efficiencies and modernising.

That is why we are trying to ensure that we help organise better purchasing, better efficiency and make better use of Is there more activity around prevention and a public health approach such as what has been approach such as what has been attempted in Glasgow towards knife attempted in Glasgow towards knife crime? Such as programs tackling the bad actors that can lead to violence. One of the things the government committed to in its manifesto was creating a young futures system to provide safe space and support to people vulnerable to knife crime.

That includes a range of measures where people are involved in accidents and emergencies all in youth clubs, all schools, or are seen to be vulnerable. They can be referred to the youth futures system so we can look at how we can support these individuals to turn them away from knife crime and support them with the life skills to improve Online retailers and resellers are getting around the Lord to supply these weapons to young people. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister to outline what the government is doing to prevent the supply of weapons, which has to happen if we are going to stop knife crime at source?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to my noble friend. The police and crime Bill is currently in the House of Commons but will reach this House shortly and has strong measures to restrict and has strong measures to restrict the sales of knives online and give the sales of knives online and give strong penalties towards the illegal sale of knives and includes online police coordination to take action police coordination to take action against illegal knife and weapon against illegal knife and weapon content.

On March 27 this year the government announced a ban on ninja swords. I will bring before this House in short order measures for a statutory instrument with the House statutory instrument with the House of Commons to make sure we have a surrender scheme and then from August 1, 2025, if approved by this house, a complete ban on ninja swords.
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Office for Students: Sussex University fine for breach of free speech obligations Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-

Fourth Oral Question. Paper.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill - Consideration of Commons reasons and/or amendments
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. I beg to move that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons been considered. That the Commons reasons been considered. As many are of that
15:23
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I beg to move motion A this house do not insist on this this house do not insist on this amendment 1B to which the Commons amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 1C I shall also speak to other motions. shall also speak to other motions. Motion to a, B, C, D, E, and F ask Motion to a, B, C, D, E, and F ask not to insist on the legislation. The other place disagreed on the basis that they understood about basis that they understood about public revenue.

The other place did not offer any further reason stating this reason is sufficient. Amendment seeks to allow the Treasury to exclude things for the multiplier. As set out in this house previously, these amendment are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the bill. The measures set out in clauses 1 124 deliver on the government's grip that set out in the Autumn Budget. They represent the first step of this government's work to transform the business rates system.

It is essential that the government can progress this work by taking this first step. Further reforms will come as the government has made clear, and further information will be set out in the upcoming months. We want to start our journey with the bill. Therefore I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on the ask noble Lords not to insist on the amendments. Amendment 15 B to 15E will remove the decision to remove VAT on private schools to one moved to the Secretary of State in the regulations.

I have stated the government's view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments. Motion E asks the noble Lord Thurlow not to insist on his amendment. The other place disagreed with this amendment on the basis that the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of amendment 13 B is concerned with a review that will consider the impact of clauses 1-4 of the bill properties of the rateable value of close to £500,000.

I understand this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers and business rates operate on whether the threshold serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this house, the government has already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work. In their 40s to play this in legislation is not necessary. The second part of amendment 13 B The second part of amendment 13 B6 removal of a new class with this rate and associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses.

As I have set out previously, this is a question that has arisen in recent years and is something that the government had interest in. I should be clear to the house that the government's intention is to only have one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online focused warehouses. I can assure the noble Lord and the house at the bill already provides the government with the ability to do additional higher multipliers in the future if required.

The noble Lord amendment explored how these online warehouses could be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digital icing business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separate from those businesses who operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on what we have found.

The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in the future, by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the government could in future target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. This is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do this systematically using the latest data and technology and give us the best prospect of a solution which can be fully integrated into the business rates system. We are confident that this approach is preferable to one which looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground.

Especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed who they are used by that more accurate data on the businesses using them risks capturing warehouses used by businesses which were seeking to protect racing a far higher burden on high street retailers. I'm aware that this is something the noble Lord feels as valuable, and I hope the the noble Lord will understand why we cannot accept the amendment.

We are keen to continue engaging with him or with the three professional bodies he mentioned in his amendment. On this basis I respectfully ask him not to insist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

upon his amendment. I beg to move The question is that motion AB agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. First of all I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association. This
15:29
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Local Government Association. This is a bill which not only fails to deliver on the government's manifesto, it is far from the reform at the business rates system that was promised, and it will be damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in this bill a number of times. I remain exceptionally concerned. First of all, about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres. The impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses values close to that mark will affect their decisions about investment.

And the government's decision to place a tax on education. We have urged the government to rethink this time and time again. But they remain unmoved by our arguments. More importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street, I hope this won't result in the destruction of our town centres. But the government are making it more difficult for these businesses with this blunt tool. It will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.

The government has rejected even our amendments would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if it proved to be damaging. But they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions stop only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided. A similar amendment was tabled to allow the Secretary of State to reverse that tax on education. Again, it was rejected. I understand government would point to the figures that suggest that there has been no change to the number of pupils in independent schools.

But these figures do not consider the lengths to which a parent will go to ensure their child's education is not disrupted. The data will be more telling in a years time. We offered the Secretary of State a discretionary power to reverse this policy but they refused it. Despite the combined effect of this tax with the appalling imposition of VAT, and the devastating rise in employers National Insurance contributions, I hope that parental choice remains, I hope that children do not have education years disrupted by this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am concerned about the impact on this effect to children's education. I am concerned with the government feels able to tax government feels able to tax charities were disagrees with their purposes. It is a dangerous precedent and the decision to precedent and the decision to continue down this route, despite the number of concerns raised, is at the number of concerns raised, is at least disappointing. However, this is a house of scrutiny. Given financial deadlines associated with this bill, I will not be pressing any further amendments.

But I any further amendments. But I sincerely hope in 12 months that our High Street will not have been hollowed out any further. But I am extremely concerned that this bill And importantly that children will be forced to leave independent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schools, disrupting their education, putting more pressure on the state system, my lords. My lords, last week there was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, last week there was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, last week there was a considerable majority in support for an amendment tabled in my name which enabled the government by regulation enabled the government by regulation to prevent the higher multiplier from being applied to NHS from being applied to NHS properties. This mainly consists of 290 of the major hospitals in 290 of the major hospitals in England. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord the Minister say just now that there was sufficient leverage within the bill to enable those changes to be made.

I ask him now to explain how that will work. It is most disappointing that the government felt unable to accept the amendment. It is clear however that the government has very challenging decisions to make. Nevertheless, given the reducing waiting times as a key priority, we on these benches were hoping and indeed hopeful of government support on this issue. We recognise at this stage we can take the bill no further. We will not press any further amendments.

I want to finally give thanks to all those who have taken part in this interesting bill, which attracts those of (BLEEP) who like to understand how business rates work and who benefits and who does not. I I look I look forward I look forward to I look forward to the I look forward to the digitalisation of the whole process where changes could then be made. From these benches, our thanks to all of those who have taken part. To the Whips' Office, who have given me enormous support and I thank the Minister and his team for all the helpful conversations we had, though they didn't get anywhere.

But nevertheless, I thank the Minister for always being willing to meet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, it has been an
15:35
15:36
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
from across the House and right through to this final stage. I add through to this final stage. I add to those thanks the Minister and his to those thanks the Minister and his team, who have spent a good deal of time on a number of occasions, willing to engage with me and to try to find compromise and a way through the complex and difficult aspects of elements of the bill which have elements of the bill which have become quite technical and needed a become quite technical and needed a deep dive.

I do feel a sense of regret. The government has missed a real opportunity to deal once and for all with the injustices heaped upon 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 who have fulfilment centres. The ones who are not on the High Street. It really is tragic that this opportunity has been missed in my opinion.

It is a wrong the bill could have corrected. The Minister's proposals to address aspects of this. But possibly not for many years to come. The digitisation process of nondomestic rates which we have discussed is in hand. It is planned for 2028. But I wonder if like many other government initiatives it takes 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 did leave the door open. I think we have done enough. HMG should not be frustrated in manifesto items. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to continue dialogue going forward which I would like to engage in, if I have not been put in front of a firing squad as a hereditary before the time comes. I withdraw my amendment.
15:38
Lord Lexden Portrait Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-
-
Throughout the government's position, it has in essence being that we have to take away some of the resources of 7% of our country's schools to enable 93% to make schools to enable 93% to make Schools will gain little or nothing from labour's tax rates. It will simply harm independent schools. Throughout debate I have tried to provide a voice for small independent schools, as president of the Association. Whose 720 members are for the most part cherished, As I have said several times, 40% of independent schools have less than 100 pupils.

Their future is now in 100 pupils. Their future is now in jeopardy thanks to this government. Ministers will be held into account, here in Parliament and the country at large for the damage these policies will do to those schools, which richly contribute to immunities in spheres such as special needs, music, the arts, sport, as I and a number of noble friends have demonstrated in these debates. These discriminatory tax burdens threaten their very My Lord, I thank all noble Lord who took part in this debate as well as those who dedicated their time and efforts to scrutinising this bill.

I am thankful to Lady Barran, lady Pinnock and Lady Scott and Lord Fox, Lord Jamieson, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Storey, Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Storey, Lord Shipley and the Earl of Litton. The time and consideration noble Lord has given is appreciated. I acknowledge it is not always possible to see ITI. I hope the understanding and appreciation I have of their efforts and expertise To noble lords for their agreement not to insist on these amendments.

Through this bill we are beginning to deliver on our mission to transform the business rate system. We have taken a vital step on that path in doing so, ensuring a sustainable permanent tax cut for hospitality and leisure properties . The government is delivering on its commitment to Break Down Barriers to Opportunity. Removing the business rates charitable release for public schools will provide vital revenue to support commitment to education and young
15:41
15:41
15:41
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
they came from all their financial background. The noble Baroness Pinnock invited me to write a letter on a question. I will reject that invitation because I have the answer invitation because I have the answer for her now. Specifically in for her now. Specifically in relation to the powers to exclude classes of property from the higher Multiply if in the future we wanted to. We do have the powers in clause 3. Specifically referred to allowing for the higher Multiply. I thank the noble Lord Thurlow for his remarks.

I know that he is concerned with regard to the timetable of the digitalisation of business rates project. The solution lies in delinking a business and property data and that answer lies within the I look I look forward I look forward to I look forward to engagement I look forward to engagement with the noble Lord, myself and officials in particular. Once again I thank him and all of the noble Lord for not insisting on their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion is agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Move formally? I have already spoken to motions B, C, D and F and with the leave of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

B, C, D and F and with the leave of On block. The question is they be agreed to on the block. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Do you want to take a moment to shuffle the benches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lord, My Lord, I My Lord, I will My Lord, I will allow My Lord, I will allow the My Lord, I will allow the noble Lord to sit down. The Hereditary
15:43
15:44
Baroness Mobarik Portrait Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
-
-
proportionately between parties and groups affected. I shall speak to the detail of it shortly. But I came to this conclusion after a number of conversations and considerable thought on how to resolve this matter in a way that reflects the disposition of our house. That is of respect, courtesy and consideration to colleagues. Something one should expect in any place of work. My lords, when I spoke at second reading, I expressed the view that current and Hereditary Peers should have a working life.

If this is to remove their ability to sit in this House as Hereditary Peers. It was a wish to protect valued and respected colleagues from eviction from this colleagues from eviction from this house. Prompted as I said then by a feeling that there may be an element of discrimination or prejudice at play. Sensitive to such things from play. Sensitive to such things from a young age and from experience, I hope that I will always stand up to prejudice, no matter from where it comes or to whom it is directed.

It Having listened carefully to the debates on this bill in recent weeks, I'm still trying to understand why this bill is being brought forward by the government and there are so many other more pressing issues for them to address. Nevertheless, if I could indulge your Lordships attention for a little longer, I would like to share some background to this amendment. I came to this house just over a decade ago. I was introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a preeminent Hereditary Peers and format Leader of the House.

I knew my noble friend from serving on the Strathclyde Commission which he so ably chaired, and was hugely honoured that he agreed to be one of my supporters. During my first few weeks here, my noble friend, Lord Younger, another Hereditary Peers, became my mental. I don't think there could have been anyone kinder and more conscientious. He did everything he could to ensure that I understood the workings of your Lordships House. Several months on, Lord Taylor asked if I would consider being a party whip.

I said yes. My group had something in common. They were all Scottish, and a fair number of them were Hereditary Peers. If anyone is concerned about representation of the regions, Scotland is very well represented by hereditary. To mention a few of those in my old flock, the Earl of Lindsay, who currently serves on a Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. And as president of the chartered trading standards Institute. Has also been president of the National trust of Scotland and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Earl of Caithness, chief of Sinclair, who currently serves on our Procedure currently serves on our Procedure Committee and the Obesity committee. Has also been a Minister of State in no less than five government departments. Transport, the Home Office, environment, His Majesty's Treasury, and the foreign office. In the Earl of Dundee. The Royal standardbearer of Scotland. A farmer who runs two charitable trusts that he founded, and he has served for many years the Council of Europe and the organisation the Security and cooperation in Europe.

He has also been a government whip and government spokesman for education, Scottish affairs, Home Affairs, and energy. All of them made me feel so welcome, and showed me the utmost respect and kindness. I could not have asked for better colleagues looking out for me when I joined this house. What I'm trying to say is that the people affected by this bill are our friends. Not only are they our friends, but they are distinguished parliamentarians who contribute so much to this house to which we all belong.

A more recent colleague and friend of mine in this house is my noble friend, someone who served as the Minister of State for business and defence, both unpaid positions I might add. And we have regular catch ups. On our very first meeting, the noble Earl and I discovered some common threads. A very close friend of my late father, an eminent gentleman, who was a former ambassador of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, whose family had had a strong connection with the noble Earls grandfather.

Historic photographs and information were shared. But that is where the cosy back story ends. My noble friend's grandfather was the viceroy of pre- partition India. I as you would expect, have rather a dim view of empire. But I do not choose to see my noble friend through the lens of history. When we entered this place, those strange concepts of class and privilege are left outside. We are here as equals, as peers, the clue is in the name.

But to be clear, I do not argue for that hereditary principle. It belongs in the century before last. But the point is, if we don't believe that someone should become a member of this house because of who their parents were, then surely it is not right to remove people from this house because of who their parents were? With that in mind, I come to my amendment. I hope the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, the leader of our whole house, knows that I hold her and her frontbench team in the highest esteem.

She has told us that this bill is not a cunning attempt at gerrymandering. And we should believe her. My amendment follows on from that understanding. If this bill is not about gerrymandering, then on the day that this bill passes into law, which will, as it was a manifesto commitment, at that point, the Prime Minister should recommend that life peerages impact the number, that life peerages should be given to those where Hereditary Peers had been lost.

To replace the Hereditary Peers they have lost with Life Peers. No backroom deals, a term that has been used more than once during these debates. Let us just be transparent. Here are the numbers lost, and they should be replaced. If we feel that some, even most, of the Hereditary Peers are worthy of being appointed as Life Peers, then there really should be no objection. And where there are hereditaries who do not attend the house or who intends to retire, then this will be
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page