Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, having heard from the Deputy Chairman of Committees that we were going to the first Motion first, we have the second Motion first. I want to go back. I do not want to talk about studios. It is not that I do not know anything about recording studios; it is that I have nothing to add to what noble Lords have said.

I want to raise a wider point about what happens when you make changes in the business rates system. It is important that the business rates system has the right incentives and is fair to small businesses, particularly those on the high street that make such a cultural contribution to our nation. We have seen in the newspapers as well as in these regulations what happens when you make alterations to the business rates that pertain to pubs, hotels, restaurants, between retail and industrial, and to large businesses versus small. It is one of those truths that the winners tend to keep quiet, but it can be existential for losers. That is partly because the amount of money that is raised by business rates is fixed and, as you give a relief in one place, it pops up as additional burdens elsewhere. That is just the way the system works.

However, for local government, stability and buoyancy in the system are important. When you change the system, there are downstream consequences, because business rates very largely pay for the delivery of local government services. Yes, there is redistribution within the nation of the money that is raised. For example, we are in Westminster, which raises nearly £1 in every £12 raised in business rates in our nation, and that £2 billion or so is redistributed to Redcar, Redruth, Wroxham and all around the country with a complicated process of ceilings and floors. There are also systems within county areas, as they tend to be, so that all the councils can pool together to grow the economy. That is important, because the system is designed with powerful incentives for councils to grow the economy on the simple truth that the more you grow the economy, the more you keep. Of course, resets happen every now and again and they are a disincentive to grow. All that effort is wasted as the business rates baseline is washed away. That is the context within which I wish to make my subsequent remarks.

In the past few weeks, there have been technical changes in the way that baselines and pooling are done that would have had material effects on district councils. For most councils, about 10% of their net budget would have been swept away, badly impacting on homelessness, recycling, building and all the things that we need to get the economy going. That is especially germane because district councils outside the M25 and the urban metropolitan centres tend to be the planning authorities that get growth going.

I know that the District Councils’ Network and, more widely, the local government family are grateful that the technical changes that could have caused that 10% disaster have been fixed for the coming year, but for one year only. As we look at business rates more generally and at altering the application of business rates, we need to make sure that the Treasury and the local government department are better aligned in future years so that we avoid the perverse outcomes that we might have seen.

It is not fair on councils to have the uncertainty. It is certainly not the right thing for the economy, because confidence and long-term stability provide that central alignment between central and local government to generate wealth in these islands. It is incumbent on the national Government to ensure that they do not accidentally damage that delicate balance that keeps the economy growing, people in work and taxes paid.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my name in support of all the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the take-note Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am grateful to him and to the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing our particular attention to the regulations before the Grand Committee.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Fuller and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, is true—UEFA would say that, wouldn’t they?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.

This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.

I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—