Plan for Neighbourhoods
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
To reiterate a point I have made before, local authorities are part of the whole process. They will work with central government and my department in particular to have regular, continuous monitoring of how the work is going. That is how we will communicate, but local authorities are heading part of this and they are signing off the board.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
As usual, I will have to talk about my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Unfortunately, no one in Central Bedfordshire received the money so I do not have the interest that the noble Baroness has. I just wanted to understand the accountability and the structure. We are going to have community boards. Who will the money, and the decisions on it, lie with? Will it be the board or the council? Who will be the accountable body for the money? Who will determine who will be on that community board? Several noble Lords have mentioned democracy and who the representatives of the people are, so can the Minister please clarify that?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The relevant local authority will act as the accountable body for the funds, with the responsibility for ensuring that public funds are distributed fairly and effectively. A monitoring and evaluation strategy will be published in the summer. This will set out the framework for assurance and accountability expected from grant recipients, so watch this space.
Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I have relevant interests in local government, as recorded in the register. I hope the Minister has understood every bit of what he has read out, because it is very complicated—that is not meant as anything more than a statement—particularly as there are no examples in front of us as to what the impact of the changes will be.
This statutory instrument needs to be understood in relation to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage. That Bill, if enacted without amendments, will change the norms for business rates income, on which local government absolutely depends for a significant part of its income. The changed multipliers that the Bill envisages will, obviously, also alter the amount that different businesses will pay in non-domestic rates. This, in turn, will alter the income that different local authorities will receive as part of the 50% business rates retention scheme.
That impact will affect local authorities in very different ways. Local authorities with many properties that exceed the £500,000 rateable value boundary set in the Bill will gain in income. These businesses are primarily in major cities and include, for example, office blocks, hotels and major premises of that sort. Local authorities that are more reliant for income from retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their income in the 50% retained element decrease.
During the passage of the non-domestic rating Bill, I sought—and was granted—an assurance that local authorities will not be penalised as a result of the changes. However, that is on the national, global level. This statutory instrument is, I guess, the attempt to deal with these changes so that individual local authorities do not lose income or, conversely, gain too much income. The key question is whether that can be achieved in full. Is it possible under the new system that is going to come into effect in a year, whereby the Covid relief will gradually slip away and the new multipliers implemented will change the balance of income from businesses across the country? I have been assured that the national figure of income will not change. Will individual local authorities have assurance from the Minister that they will not lose out as a consequence of the changes? I accept that this is a very complicated set of calculations, so it would be absolutely fine if the Minister would prefer to write to me.
As the Minister will know, 43% of local authorities are on the verge of issuing 114 notices, so in this instance every penny will count. That is why I am asking the question. The lack of hard examples in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s introduction makes it really difficult to judge the implications of this instrument, so any further evidence will be extremely helpful for folk like me to understand what is going on.
My other point is about the changes to the 100% retention authorities; I want to know how that is worked out and I think it needs a bit more explanation. If those with 100% retention are no longer going to be able to retain 100%, how is it going to be worked out? Those authorities will expect to retain 100%. Again, I understand if the answer needs to be in writing, because this is not obviously easy or straightforward.
Finally, the issue that these changes bring to the fore is the current inability of councils to raise local income—be that in a small tourist tax, as the Manchester combined authority is now doing, or by any other means. A bit more flexibility for local authorities in raising their own small amounts of additional income would be of enormous benefit to many councils as they struggle to make ends meet. It would be worth knowing why flexibility in raising income does not seem to be in the Government’s agenda, because it would help to stem the enormous downward pressure on local public services. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and a written response if needed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I mention my interests as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of this SI. While these are technical adjustments that may sound reasonable on paper, it is useful to consider the wider impact of government actions in relation to the business rates system, particularly as it pertains to our small and medium-sized enterprises alongside larger businesses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned, this is a very complex system, so when we make changes to it there tend to be unintended and uncertain changes. That is the whole reason we have this SI in the first place. I would like some assurance on that, which I will raise in a moment.
I turn to the regulations themselves. The primary change is to adjust how the levy and safety net payments are calculated for authorities that retain a greater share of business rates. The most notable change is ensuring that these authorities, sometimes referred to as 100% authorities, do not have to bear the brunt of additional payments that should, in fairness, be a central government responsibility.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support this rise in planning fees, so I apologise now for repeating some of the very good points that the Minister made. She should not expect me to keep saying that for ever, but I do on this occasion.
We have all known for years that planning departments are underfunded; they are not covering their costs, and the position is simply unsustainable. I am interested that the Government have decided to go for an interim position rather than a full cost recovery. I can kind of understand their wanting it to be balanced, but I wonder whether the work has been done on what will be needed to get to that position, which we believe we should get to.
As the Minister said, planning departments have long been subsidised by the taxpayer through council tax; they have been bearing the burden of the costs of planning applications, which do not directly benefit them—particularly for individual householder applications. It seems completely illogical that everyone should contribute to an individual’s home improvements, which usually add value to just their property.
We welcome the change of emphasis from the last Government, who did at least increase the fees in December 2023—but I always felt that their agenda seemed to be to keep fees down. I note that a Conservative Member of Parliament in the other place described the rise as “eye-watering”. My riposte is that he clearly does not know what builders are charging these days, as the planning fee, which is an essential tool to getting the development right, is but a tiny fraction of the total cost. Two friends have recently had extensions to their homes, and when I hear how much they spent on the projects as a whole, I feel that £528 is probably the lowest in the grand scheme of their costs.
Major housebuilders are demonstrably making money, and their applications take the most time and expertise, so a rise to begin to cover costs seems entirely reasonable—more so given the financial challenges that local government faces. Some of the pre-app talks and site visits can be really extensive and time consuming.
If we have a concern regarding sustainability, it is about the recruitment and retention of planners. The ambition to recruit 300 new planners is laudable and welcome, and it seems churlish to point out the fact that it equates to just one planner per authority—but that is the reality. The Home Builders Federation pointed out, through a freedom of information request, that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity.
The recruitment and retention problem is exacerbated by differential salaries. The best young graduates appear to be snapped up by the major housebuilders, as they can afford to pay significantly more than local authorities. Especially in areas of high house prices, that can make recruitment even more of a challenge.
The Minister will know that some local authorities are working together to look for solutions by co-operating rather than working against each other, competing for the same people and even poaching. Career opportunities can be better for an individual if they can work across several councils, especially with smaller districts.
The RTPI has pointed an important fact—that there is a lack of robust data on how many planning officers we have in each region and local planning area. Accurate data would help to pinpoint where resources and training are most needed, so perhaps the Minister could give us some more detail on the changes to the Pathways to Planning programme.
We think that all these increases are necessary and overdue, and accept that it is sensible to tie this to an annual increase. The fact that previous rises were not index-linked was part of the problem. The gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened significantly over time.
There has been some talk of monitoring and ring-fencing of funds. Because of the parlous situation of local government funding, will local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul? In my experience, most councils will honour the intentions of government when money is handed out for specific needs, and we see no reason why that would not be the case here, without the need to mandate it or introduce checks. This Government are committed to decentralisation, so it is essential to let go and trust local authorities. Trying to micromanage budgets could be unnecessarily overbearing. We believe that councils should make all their own spending decisions. The Government already have mechanisms in place to monitor planning performance.
The Minister was right to point out that councils get no fees from the massive extension to permitted development rights, yet when there are problems with those conversions, the planners are drafted in to give advice and help to put things right. The key is that if there had been a need to obtain planning permission, the issues would have been sorted out right at the beginning. Will the forthcoming planning Bill be more helpful in this regard? We hope so, and in particular we look forward to allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. A degree of flexibility to adjust to local circumstances and needs is essential.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate my declaration of interest that I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. These regulations propose important changes to the planning process, including substantial fee increases for householder applications, prior approvals and approval of details reserved by condition; and a new three-tier structure that will differentiate charges for householders, non-major developments and major developments. I thank the Minister for going through the instrument in some detail, and I will try not to repeat too often what she said.
Although His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose these regulations in principle, we recognise that careful consideration is needed to ensure that these changes serve the interests of both home owners and developers.
The proposed increase in planning fees reflects the increasing demands on planning authorities and the need to recover costs, as the Minister mentioned. The fee for household applications will rise by 105% overall. We agree that these higher fees are necessary, as they ensure that planning authorities will have the resources to operate effectively. However, we must also be mindful of the impact on home owners, especially those who wish to make relatively modest improvements on their homes. We need to strike the right balance between cost recovery and affordability, ensuring that these fees do not place an undue burden on householders already facing financial pressures.
In addition to the householder fee increases, there are Section 73 increases, which, as outlined, will range from £86 for householders, £586 for non-major developments and £2,000 for major developments. This three-tiered structure is logical, and it is fair that the larger developments pay more, but we must ensure that the distinctions between the different types of development are clear, transparent and rational. We must also consider whether these fees inadvertently discourage smaller-scale developments or overburden individual home owners.
Finally, for biodiversity net gain approvals, there are increases of over 100%, from £145 to £298. What is the cumulative impact of all these fees? That is vital. What will they do for various developers, householders and so on? It is right that we get the right resources, but we also need to ensure that we do not overburden developers or small SMEs and enable them still to have financially viable projects.
The aim of these fees is to give resources to planning departments, so it is vital that they then deliver. Given the amount of frustration I get from householders, developers and so on about delays in the planning process and bureaucratic hold-ups, it is important that the fees result in faster, more efficient decision-making. We cannot just raise fees; we have to deliver faster, better planning processes.
I take this opportunity to note that, as mentioned earlier, the proposal to increase planning fees was originally a Conservative proposal—we did it in the previous Government—but I commit again that we need to fix the planning system so that stuff gets done in the allotted time. Timeliness and efficiency must accompany these fee increases.
Looking further ahead, I will touch on some of the proposals in the NPPF, which is really important. One reason we have delays in the planning process is that the planning system is complex, difficult and uncertain. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to simplify the planning process, and we welcome these efforts. We hope that they deliver a simplified planning system, but I also urge caution that simplification, while an important goal, should not come at the cost of clarity or integrity in the planning system. We need a process that is both simpler and more certain, and delivers quality developments so that businesses and individuals can have confidence in the decisions that affect their properties and developments.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the necessity of these fee increases and the proposed changes to the planning system, we urge the Government to ensure that the reforms strike the right balance. The Official Opposition are not opposed to reform, but we call on the Government to ensure that the planning system remains accessible and fair, particularly for smaller developers.
Moreover, as we look at these fee increases and the broader changes to the planning system, we encourage the Government to reflect on the need for a system that is not only more efficient but more responsive and certain. It is essential that the planning process delivers timely and effective decisions to business communities and home owners alike.
Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, when supply goes down and demand goes up, prices increase. What assessment have the Government made of reports that landlords are leaving the rental market at the highest rate ever? Many are citing rental reforms as their reason for leaving.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If I am honest with the noble Lord, I think the pressures on housing come from 14 years of not taking the housing market seriously. We have carefully assessed what the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill might be, and we do not believe that it will have a significant impact on the supply of private rented housing in the market. Supply has been consistent for several years, and we want to maintain that and to make sure that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers the right balance of support for both landlords and tenants. There are many really good landlords, and we want to give them the help and support they need through the Bill, as well as supporting our tenants.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsThursday 27th February 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Feb 2025)
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.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I did not quite understand that point. The Minister is saying that the revaluation has already been taken into account in the figures that the Treasury is coming forward with. Does that mean he can share the revaluation with us?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me clarify this for the noble Lord. As I said repeatedly on day one in Committee, the Treasury will publish an analysis when it sets its multipliers at the Budget, but the work that is going on in providing that analysis will consider all the issues, in particular the issue the noble Lord raised about the 2026 revaluation.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47 addresses the issue that, despite the Government’s claim that they would reform the business rates system, the Bill does not offer that. We heard concerns from several noble Lords on the previous day in Committee that this is not a Bill that will support the high street and level the playing field, as promised in the Labour manifesto. My concern is that businesses will face substantially higher costs. These proposals are supposed to support the high street, with a so-called Amazon tax, yet this is clearly not the case. It is a blunt instrument that will substantially increase taxes on all properties with a rateable value above £500,000. As such, it risks harming the very businesses it is purportedly designed to help, such as anchor stores and other retail, hospitality and leisure facilities fundamental to the high street.
There is a second concern that we have already raised: the cliff-edge nature of these proposals. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have done some very basic analysis of this. For example, a retail, hospitality or leisure business with a rateable value of just under £500,000 would today pay rates of around £175,000, assuming a 0.2 discount and a multiplier of 0.55, whereas if it were to make a small investment and tip over that threshold, it would pay £320,000. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I allow for a little approximation in those numbers. There are plenty of examples of this. For instance, locally to me in Bedfordshire, Luton Hoo, which is currently looking at some investment, has a rateable value of £490,000. Will that investment go ahead, knowing the additional costs? Even more locally—as Members are aware, I am a councillor and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire—near my own ward, a garden centre in Toddington faces the same issue. Again, I am aware that it is looking at some investments.
We have also touched on the impact of future revaluations. The Minister has been keen to point out that this will impact fewer than 1% of properties and only 3,100 retail outlets. He said that he wants to be clear and transparent, so can he tell us how many additional properties will be above the £500,000 threshold after the next revaluation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers specifically to the idea of a commercial landowner levy as a proposed tax reform to replace the business rates system. I support the sentiment of requiring government to consider genuine reform, rather than the lack of change that the Bill provides. I do not agree with the specific reform proposed by the noble Lord, but I acknowledge the need to adapt the system to ensure that online businesses that operate from out-of-town warehouses pay a fair, proportionate share of business rates. Given that the Bill has been brought forth, it seems reasonable to assume that the Government have delayed any plans they had to reform the system, which will damage businesses up and down the high street. They promised lower business rates but are reducing the relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, sending an incoherent message to our high streets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 47 seeks to require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the measures in the Bill, once passed, on broader non-domestic rating policy and to set out what potential changes may be required and/or what alternative approaches to non-domestic rating have been considered. The Government are committed to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government commenced that journey at the 2024 Budget, when we announced our intention to permanently—I say that again: permanently—introduce lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, as well as a higher rate on properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above to ensure that the permanent tax cut is sustainably funded.
At the Budget, the Government also published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, setting out priority areas for business rates reform and inviting stakeholders to have a conversation with the Government on this matter over the course of this Parliament. The areas of interest for further reform as set out in the paper include: incentivising investment and growth, considering the frequency of revaluations and ensuring that the system is transformed to make it fit for the modern 21st century economy. The paper also focuses on tackling avoidance and evasion; for example, through the Government’s intention to publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.
I am delighted to say that those conversations with stakeholders on priority areas for reform have commenced and are ongoing. I thank all those stakeholders who have been in contact to offer their valuable insights and experience of non-domestic rating. Furthermore, on 17 February, the Government published the Business Rates: Forward Look policy note, which provides an update on key milestones for the Government’s overall business rates reform agenda. As set out in that note, we are reflecting on engagement undertaken so far and the views expressed as part of that process. It also sets out that we anticipate further stakeholder engagement on specific reform options ahead of the Autumn Budget, when final decisions will be set out.
I am aware that there is support from Liberal Democrat noble Lords and Members of Parliament for the replacement of business rates with a commercial landowner levy. What is important to the Government is that we have a tax that works. It is not the first time that this House has heard suggestions for a tax on land values or a levy on landowners: it was as common a debate in the last century as in this one. What all those debates show is great uncertainty and a lack of evidence of the benefits: any benefits to the high street would be far from certain. We are clear on the need for reform but, to minimise disruption for businesses, the Government will make improvements to the existing system over the course of this Parliament.
Before I conclude, let me address the points that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised on investment. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific examples of live non-domestic rating bills but, as part of the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, we will look at the effectiveness of the improvement relief scheme, which helps businesses that invest in their property. I look forward to our engagement, post Committee, in more detailed conversations. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. I agree that the system is broken and we are trying to fix it. It cannot go on year after year on an ad hoc basis. We need certainty and sustainability so that people can have a clear and fair system. As we said in our manifesto, we will continue to support leisure, hospitality and retail, and those above £500,000 rateable value—fewer than 1% of properties—will contribute to make sure that our system is fair and balanced.
I hope I have provided reassurance as to the seriousness with which the Government are approaching our stated task of reforming the business rates system, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsMonday 24th February 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-I(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Feb 2025)
Lord Jamieson
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I deputise? Before I do, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. In moving Amendment 3, I shall speak to Amendments 18, 37 and 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, and in favour of Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Amendment 3 seeks to introduce discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier. The other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott—Amendments 18, 37 and 43—question whether the Treasury is the right authority to define these hereditaments. The purpose of these amendments is to seek the Government’s reaction to the proposal that local authorities should have a role in deciding which businesses pay the newer, higher multiplier. Local authorities are in a unique position to comprehensively understand the challenges and circumstances faced by their local businesses, which a centralised body certainly is not.
For all its strengths, we know that His Majesty’s Treasury does not have the local knowledge and in-depth understanding of the needs of individual high streets to make informed decisions on business rates that work in the best interests of the local areas. Local authorities are on the ground and are intimately familiar with the economic, social and cultural landscape of their high streets and areas. From my own experience in Central Bedfordshire, I know the positive impact that a well-run local authority can deliver for its high streets. We are interested to hear how the Government seek to empower councils in these areas. We have heard a great deal from the party opposite about the value of devolution; this is a good example of where the Government should put these sentiments into action. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott look to empower local authorities to tailor policy to best suit their local area’s specific needs.
Fundamentally, policy is about not only implementing rules but creating a framework that works in practice. Therefore, it is essential, even if the Government are unable to accept the amendments in this group, that local authorities are consulted properly before the Bill is passed. Can the Minister set out the consultation process undertaken to date and confirm for the Committee the further steps that his department will take to consult local authority leaders on these changes? Can he also update the Committee on how this change to our business rates system will interact with the Government’s wider plans to reorganise local authorities? We know that the environments in which businesses operate vary dramatically throughout the UK. However, this issue is neglected in the drafting of this legislation.
It is concerning that the broad applications of the definitions of hereditaments, which will be determined by the Treasury, will not address these regional disparities and enable a focus on what works locally. When created by the Treasury, definitions are designed with an overarching and national perspective and may risk creating unintended consequences for local businesses. They do not account for the nuances of local businesses, which are well understood by local authorities, so we must be cautious about adopting a one-size-fits-all approach when introducing legislation that will undoubtedly have significant implications for local businesses. The Government risk implementing blanket definitions that are disconnected from the realities faced locally.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which seeks to remove the power of the Treasury to define a retail, hospitality and leisure property; this addresses the fact that it is local authorities who decide what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property, in line with the government guidance. In tabling this amendment, the noble Lord appears to have many of the same concerns as those expressed in my noble friend Lady Scott’s amendments. I look forward to hearing his speech. We did not discuss this matter before Committee so I was pleased to see on the Marshalled List that I have a friend on this issue on the Cross Benches; I thank and offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and hope that we can work together constructively after Committee.
To conclude, I hope that all noble Lords will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group of amendments. I look to the Minister to engage proactively with the issues addressed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has taken the words out of my mouth. I support much of what he has said.
The starting place for my comments on this group is that the Bill seems to reverse the attempts to regionalise power from the centre; it would take the ability to define these hereditaments back to central government. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said clearly, the definition of RHL properties needs local expertise. There are regional disparities, to which he referred; it is terribly important to understand that. Regional disparities are huge. This measure is a generic product, but it is subject to huge regional variations. One size does not fit all hereditaments. That is an important starting place. It is no accident that the government guidelines allow local authorities to define RHL in accordance with the existing government guidance. That is very sensible. They are the people on the ground. They understand the give and take, as well as the commercial flows, involved.
A large supermarket on a high street may be the only anchor present in that town, being vital to the health of the high street, probably with a car park or a bus stop, and the only source of sufficient turnover of pedestrians to justify its presence in the high street at all. It has to be understood that, if these anchors pack up and leave, high streets really do suffer. There is a terrible price to pay for letting them go and anything that imperils their presence has to be terribly carefully decided, which is why it is a local issue, not a central government one. I strongly urge the Government to allow local authorities to continue to make these decisions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to our debate on this group of amendments, which deals with the role of billing authorities and the definition of hereditaments.
During the debate, I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whom I thank for his support in raising yet again the impact on anchor stores on the high street, which is quite fundamental. I fully support the sentiment of Amendment 32 in his name. It seems plainly obvious that we are closely aligned; I hope that we can work collaboratively before and during Report and that the Minister will both listen to this argument carefully and see what can be done to improve the Bill’s provisions on the definition of hereditaments.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support for discretion. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was concerned that it may mean somewhat less funding for councils in the north of England. That is absolutely not the intention; I would be delighted to look at this matter further and have a conversation outside this Room.
The Minister made a couple of points about certainty. All businesses like certainty but they also want equity. Our concern is about equity and what is reasonable and fair. I was slightly puzzled by what the Minister said—I would be grateful if we could have a conversation on it later—about this idea of “centrally set but locally implemented”. That does not feel like local discretion; it feels like local implementation. I would be keen if he could speak more on that point.
Finally, local authorities have the ability for some local discretion. However, my understanding is that that would be funded locally, which is not particularly desirable.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is saying “Let’s have some conversations to follow this up”. As I have said to all here, I am happy to sit down with any noble Lord or noble Baroness to discuss any point, in particular post Committee, before we get to Report. I would absolutely welcome a conversation with the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister.
We must steer away from blanket definitions issued centrally by the Treasury, which does not have the thorough oversight of local businesses in all parts of the UK. Local authorities have a particular understanding of the business landscape in their areas, so while the definition of hereditaments introduced by the Treasury may work in some places, it will not work everywhere or be appropriate to others. This can be avoided if local authorities are issued with a power to determine a hereditament or other type of property.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, rightly pointed out in his Amendment 32, local authorities already determine what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property. We must therefore ask why the drafting of this legislation provides complete power to the Treasury to define a retail property or a hereditament. Would it not be more suitable for local authorities to define property types? I would argue that, with their first-hand local knowledge, local authorities are best placed to define terms in a way that reflects the realities and suits the needs of their local areas.
Unsurprisingly, many questions have been raised in the debate on this group of amendments, so I look forward to the Minister—I thank him for his willingness to engage with us—providing more clarity on the matters discussed. I hope we will engage positively on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving this amendment and outlining the unintended consequences of this Bill. The proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier is an issue that has sparked considerable debate in the wider community.
The amendments in this group propose two key changes: to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier; and to expand the definition of healthcare to include hospitals and medical and dental schools. These changes seek to address the concern that critical services in the healthcare sector could be disproportionately affected by the Bill’s provisions. These amendments address very real concerns that services could be disproportionately affected through this legislation, revealing further unintended consequences of this Government’s Bill.
Amendment 6 is particularly important as it seeks to remove healthcare from the higher multiplier, directly responding to concerns raised by hospitals and other healthcare providers that are already under significant financial strain. Exempting healthcare from this additional tax burden could protect vital services, ensuring that they can continue delivering essential care without being further impacted by this Bill’s provisions. The National Pharmacy Association has warned that pharmacies across the country are at risk and may be forced to cut hours because of the Government’s triple whammy of increased business costs this April. It cannot be right that access to healthcare is threatened by the Government’s appalling tax policies. Will the Minister give the Committee a commitment today that the Government will change course on their tax policies if it is proven that access to healthcare will be reduced as a result of their policy?
Amendments 20 and 23 seek to clarify and broaden the definition of healthcare, ensuring that medical and dental schools are included in these protections. Given the importance of these institutions in training future healthcare professionals, it is worth considering whether their exclusion from such protections could affect the quality and sustainability of the healthcare workforce—particularly at a time when the sector is facing increasing demand. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will safeguard the future of our healthcare workforce in the light of these concerns.
Finally, Amendment 39 repeats the proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier, reinforcing the argument that this sector should not bear the weight of a tax system that may further stretch its already-limited resources.
I would like to touch on the cliff-edge nature of the £500,000 threshold; this has been mentioned in previous debates by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lady Scott. A local health facility might want to add one consulting room. If that pushes it over the £500,000 threshold, it may no longer be affordable. We need to think carefully about the cliff-edge nature of this measure; I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some additional thought on it and come back to us.
In conclusion, these amendments ask important questions about the impact of this Bill on healthcare sectors. Although the Bill seeks reform, we must ensure that essential services are not disproportionately affected by the higher multiplier or excluded from necessary protections. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has brought forward a compelling case for the need to reconsider the treatment of healthcare in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the Government plan to address these concerns and ensure that vital healthcare services are not unduly burdened; I look forward to his response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. In the previous debate on the amendments in group 4, just a few moments ago, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. Of course, the same considerations apply here. This Government fully support the healthcare sector, but it would not be fair to exclude some and not others. To sustainably fund the lower multipliers, we must ensure that we can raise money from higher multipliers; the only fair way to do this is to apply it to all hereditaments at £500,000 and above.
As I said in the debate on the previous group, it is important to look at the facts. The Valuation Office Agency’s statistics show that, of the 16,780 properties caught by the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health subsector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 and we do not have separate data on medical or dental schools. The impact on this sector is therefore limited and, where it applies, much of it falls on the NHS. The Autumn Budget fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review, which will deliver new mission-led, technology-enabled and reform-driven budgets for departments. We will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments in the round, including any impact of the higher multiplier, when setting these budgets.
On the questions about the Bill creating more cliff edges in the system, the new higher-rate multiplier will apply to properties above £500,000, which will fund and support the high street in a sustainable way. However, the discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget highlights that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the system may disincentivise expansion. It committed to explore options for reform. The Government have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform, and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform. That is open until 31 March 2025.
On the specific question about examples of properties that the noble Baroness mentioned, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the rate bills of specific ratepayers, especially as one of them is a domestic property. To conclude, set in the context of these facts and assurances of how we will approach the issue in the spending review, I hope the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, all of which address the lack of detail provided by the Government on their intentions with this Bill.
Amendments 16, 34 and 42 probe what types of hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure. I am inclined to assume that the definition will remain the same as that which we used to define the requirements for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, and these are indeed the criteria listed in the noble Baroness’s amendments.
These may be unnecessary amendments, given that eligibility for retail, hospitality and leisure relief is already set out in the Government’s guidance for the scheme. However, we discussed our concerns about the power of the Treasury to define this in an earlier group. Crucially, businesses that are already worried about this Government’s plans need certainty and to be able to plan for the future. The Minister said that they need certainty; would not putting a clear definition in the Bill be a good way of delivering that? I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response, as we are likely to return to this part of the Bill on Report.
Amendment 51 seeks to probe the intended application of the Bill in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework. I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s confusion because, in the Labour manifesto, the Government promised reform of the business rates system and explained that such reform would include a larger burden on online businesses that operate from out-of-town distribution warehouses. Contrary to those statements, the Bill will actually have negative consequences on the high street. The noble Baroness is right to question whether the Government intended the higher multiplier to affect the high street in the way it will or whether, despite knowing what the impact would be, they chose to proceed anyway. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that there will be further clarity from him on the application of the Bill.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I rise quickly to support Amendments 16, 34 and 42 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to reiterate my point about clarity for businesses. Businesses want to plan two or three years ahead but cannot. We have a limbo at the moment for about 18 months to two years, and this Bill leaves us in that position. I ask the Minister to go back to the Government and ask for some clarification—that is, some sorts of figures so that businesses can plan for the future.
Solar Panels
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important question for all the growth that we are predicting for our country. My colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working very closely with the national grid to improve grid capacity; it will be essential to have that going forward. We need to make sure that that is the case, both to drive the growth that we want to see, because energy is vital to that, and to keep our energy security for the country the way we want it as we grow the economy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, there is currently a potential conflict between the Government’s desire to ensure all rental homes have a minimum EPC energy efficiency rating of C and planning restrictions for buildings that are either listed or in a conservation zone. This is forcing many housing associations to look at selling many affected but much-needed affordable homes. What will the Government do to address this issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have had issues around energy efficiency improvements to heritage and listed buildings. It is important to get the balance here right, though. Of course, we want to drive energy efficiency and we will be working with all the conservation associations, including Historic England, to look at what more we can do to drive energy efficiency as effectively as possible while still preserving the very important heritage aspects of the buildings in this country.
Permitted Development Rights (Extension) Bill [HL]
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsFriday 7th February 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Permitted Development Rights (Extension) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Permitted Development Rights (Extension) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the Bill to the House today. I declare my interests in the register, particularly that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
There is a housing crisis in this country, particularly in London and the south-east. For example, we see huge numbers of homelessness, particularly in London, with nearly 70,000 families in temporary accommodation, of whom nearly half are placed out of borough. Although the last Government successfully built some 2.5 million homes between 2010 and 2024 and a million in the last Parliament, it is noticeable that London has consistently failed to deliver on its housing targets over recent years. Depending on which housing target is looked at, since 2016 London’s delivery shortfall is between 100,000 and 400,000 homes. Had these homes been delivered, we would most likely have seen a material improvement in the housing crisis in London and the south-east, with fewer families in temporary accommodation and lower rents and improved economic growth.
Getting more housing built will come not from a single silver-bullet solution but rather a series of incremental steps. Increasing densification and enabling householders to expand existing properties, particularly in urban areas, could make a meaningful contribution to this, with the added benefits of densification, which my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, and the 15-minute city, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned. Building in urban areas will avoid the use of greenfield and the loss of farmland. It has the benefit of using existing infrastructure—particularly, again, in London, where there is capacity in both the school and transport systems—and home owners needing extra space could do so without the disruption and difficulty of moving, enabling growing families to remain in their homes and communities.
I believe that there is a role for making modest extensions that do not interfere unduly with neighbouring properties and that are easier to get through the planning system. Also, as we seek to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, we could simplify the process for solar, heat pumps and charging points. Like my noble friend Lady Coffey, I raise the conflict between the requirement for energy efficiency for housing from housing associations, and potentially for rental homes, and the planning restrictions on listed properties and those in conservation zones, for instance.
However, we must also consider the potential serious impact on neighbours. It is easy to imagine how a six-metre extension to a terraced home could materially impact its neighbours. I also need to be consistent with my previous work in this area. As a councillor, I worked with colleagues in local government, when householder permitted development was previously extended, to ensure that a light-touch prior approval regime was set up so that this did not unduly impact neighbours. I continue to support this for some of the larger householder permitted developments.
We also need to look at the building control regime. If we are to make the planning process easier, we become more reliant on building control to enforce quality development. Building control does not cover all aspects —the classic cases being spaces for bins and parking—so there will need to be a review of building control.
I believe that there is scope to look at householder permitted development, particularly in urban areas, as a step to addressing the UK’s housing crisis, but this must be balanced with the impact on neighbours and the wider community. The Bill makes some helpful proposals to deliver more accommodation in our much-pressed housing market, but it will need further work on the details to avoid unintended consequences.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly being a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. As a fellow north-easterner, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, on his excellent maiden speech, and also on his mother’s impending 100th birthday. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, on her passionate maiden speech. I share her concerns for children. I also thank the Minister for the time that she has given noble Lords to explain the Bill. I thank the many groups and people who have written to us and sent us submissions on the Bill.
We all want everyone to have a safe, secure and affordable home. The question is whether this Bill will deliver this or whether it risks undermining a key housing sector to the detriment of landlords and tenants alike. The Minister has argued that the Government have no choice but to introduce this Bill to reform the private rented sector. However, this assertion does not hold up under scrutiny.
While the Renters (Reform) Bill was originally conceived by the previous Conservative Government to address long-standing issues in the private rented sector, in its current form the Bill risks doing more harm than good. Comparing this Bill with its predecessor, the Renters (Reform) Bill in 2023-24, we see some striking differences. The changes proposed by the current Government threaten to destabilise the private rented sector. This is a sector that has seen remarkable growth in recent years, now housing nearly 19% of all households —some 4.6 million people.
Rather than providing the stability renters need, this Bill risks exacerbating the very problems it seeks to resolve. According to Scotland's Housing Network, 16% of landlords are scaling back their supply, and 12% are considering leaving the sector altogether. Scotland shows that the overregulation proposed here has pushed landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and leaving renters in a worse position, with the highest rent increases in the UK. While these reforms are meant to protect tenants, they threaten to leave them with fewer choices and higher costs.
The Renters’ Rights Bill has been said by many in this Chamber—including the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Thurlow and Lord Truscott—to risk introducing a series of provisions that are set to significantly disrupt the private rented sector. It is a well-established fact that private landlords, when faced with increased regulation, often choose to exit the market. This is not just speculation: research from the National Residential Landlords Association in 2023 revealed that one in four landlords were considering selling at least one of their properties due to increased regulation, with many citing the Renters (Reform) Bill as a major factor. According to the English Private Landlord Survey 2024, 31% of landlords planned to decrease the number of properties or sell them altogether, compared to 16% in 2018.
Get Living, a significant player in the build-to-rent sector, has expressed serious concerns about how these changes could undermine long-term investment in rental homes. Savills, Hamptons, Zoopla and others warn that the provisions in the Bill could exacerbate the housing crisis. This is a concerning trend that will directly impact housing availability. As more landlords leave the market, there will be fewer rental homes, and it will be tenants who feel the effects of this most acutely. Moreover, by reducing investment in the rental sector, these reforms could also undermine the Government’s targets for housebuilding.
The previous Conservative Government worked hard to increase housing stock, delivering 2.5 million homes between 2010 and 2024, with 1 million of these delivered during the last Parliament. If the proposed changes in this Bill push landlords out of the market, it will risk reversing the progress on housing delivery.
Further data from Oxford Economics paints a grim picture: only one in eight renters can afford to purchase a home in their area. For many, the private rented sector is the only viable option, but these new regulations are forcing landlords to sell their properties, tightening an already overstretched market. Will the Minister explain why this Bill seems to accelerate the exodus of landlords from the market? What steps do the Government intend to take to reverse this damaging trend?
An issue that has been raised by many noble Lords is Section 21 and its impact on the courts system. I was particularly struck by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The previous Conservative Government were clear in their approach: any abolition of Section 21 would come only after significant reform of HM Courts & Tribunals Service. This would have ensured that the court system was ready and able to process cases efficiently and fairly. Unfortunately, the Bill abandons that commitment, rushing forward with the abolition of Section 21 without first addressing the ongoing strain in our courts.
Our court system is already under immense strain. Landlords are facing significant delays when seeking possession of a property, and these delays would only worsen with the proposed changes to Section 21. The First-tier Tribunal is already overwhelmed with challenges related to rent increases; currently, it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision. Introducing additional cases to this already overburdened system risks further delays, which would ultimately harm both tenants and landlords alike.
Moreover, the legislation includes provisions enabling tenants to challenge rent increases more easily. While the right to challenge unjust rent hikes is important, the process outlined in the Bill could overwhelm our already stretched court system. As highlighted by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Northbrook, a system that allows all rent increases to be appealed with no downside risks flooding the court system. How will the First-tier Tribunal manage the added burden of rent appeals, when it is already struggling with its current case load?
The abolition of Section 21 repossessions means that responsible landlords will be forced to rely on the courts to process legitimate possession cases. However, as the Housing Minister himself admitted in the Bill Committee in the other place, the UK court system is “on its knees”. While the Minister correctly argues that “court readiness” is essential to the successful operation of the new system, which I assume refers to the abolition of Section 21 and the resulting shift in the equilibrium of the renters’ market, His Majesty’s Government have yet to clarify what “court readiness” truly means in practical terms. What resources will be allocated to ensure that the courts are properly equipped for these reforms? The Law Society has rightly warned that
“without investment in housing legal aid and the courts, the Bill will not achieve its aims”.
Student lets have been raised by many noble Lords. The Bill exempts purpose-built student accommodation from the requirement to end fixed-term tenancies, a provision that we agree with. However, this exemption will not apply to other forms of student accommodation, such as private rental properties where second- and third-year undergraduate students typically reside. This Government have abandoned our commitment to sufficiently carve out student accommodation, where it is essential that both landlords and tenants have the certainty of fixed-term contracts to plan for subsequent years. What about master’s and PhD students, who often require longer-term accommodation, typically in smaller, privately rented properties? According to data from accommodationforstudents.com, one- and two-bedroom properties make up one-third of all student housing. The provisions for purpose-built student accommodation should be extended to include all student properties, ensuring the smooth operation of the entire student housing market and protecting the annual cycle of student rentals.
In conclusion, the need for more homes in the private rented sector is urgent. Savills estimates that, by 2031, we will need as many as 1 million additional homes for private rent to keep up with rising demand. How, then, can we afford to risk policies that may drive landlords out of the market and make this shortage even worse? As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, how do we strike the right balance between protecting tenants and maintaining a healthy rental market that supports investment and meets the needs of renters across the country? It is crucial that the Government listen to the voices of landlords, housing experts and tenants who have raised concerns about the impact of the Bill, and we intend to table amendments that address some of the most pressing concerns. Ultimately, we must ensure that the policies we put in place strengthen, not weaken, the system that provides homes for renters, while also supporting landlords, who are crucial to meeting the nation’s housing needs. The future of our rental market depends on striking that balance.
Council Tax
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The social care precept was introduced by the previous Government. There is an increase in demand for social care in our demographic, and that has to be funded. The Government continue to keep under review how adult social care is paid for. At the moment, it is paid for by an additional precept on council tax for those who need social care. It is very important that we continue to support people in our communities who need it, and I am sure the noble Baroness would want us to continue to do that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, under the Liberal Democrat administration, Windsor and Maidenhead Council’s financial discipline has collapsed. The council is now seeking to impose a 25% council tax hike on residents. Does the Minister agree that local residents are paying the price of Liberal Democrat councillors failing to maintain financial discipline?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When I hear the party opposite criticising Labour and Liberal Democrat local councils, whose main financial problem was the economic mismanagement of the previous Government, they ought to have another think about who they are attacking.