Earl of Lytton
Main Page: Earl of Lytton (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)Tuesday 19th September 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 View all Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 140-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (15 Sep 2023)
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Looking at those amendments and their context, I think they present a viable option for the Minister to examine and respond to. It is important to consider where the benefit is likely to fall should these amendments be accepted. As I see it, it will primarily benefit SMEs above the small business rate relief threshold. That is not a guaranteed threshold, by the way; it is at the discretion of the Government of the day, from time to time.
For many of those smaller SMEs above that threshold, business rate costs easily exceed energy costs, even in this day and age. Therefore, for many of those businesses, their focus is on getting their rates down and getting the Government to do that, perhaps overlooking the need to make energy improvements, which they perhaps do not see as central to their business operation, nor producing a dividend that they can cash in good time. This amendment skilfully joins those two things. It offers, to those who find the rates burden excessive—and perhaps we could add “Who doesn’t?”—a mechanism for reducing them by investing in energy performance measures. I certainly agree with what the noble Baroness said about the shape of the guidelines, which would obviously be produced if these amendments were passed, and what those energy improvement measures should be and how they might be properly measured.
There is a clear incentive mechanism here, which is clearly needed because there is no doubt that businesses in that sector in particular are lagging behind on energy efficiency—for the reasons I have outlined: they have other business pressures on them and it is certainly not at the top of their to-do list. Also, they probably do not have an ESG policy or a policy statement committing their enterprise to getting to zero carbon by 2050. These are a band of enterprises which are core to the British economy, but they are not exactly headline-making businesses when it comes to developing their social and environmental policies. They need a nudge. To give them a nudge which reduces their rates bill seems a mechanism which merits careful exploration.
The measures in these amendments would be helpful in that hard-to-reach SME sector, often occupying hard-to-improve premises. To join those two things up would be very worth while. We cannot rely on reaching our 2050 targets for the built environment purely on the good will and common sense of hard-pressed SMEs, which have so much else to do.
There is a greater public good to be achieved. If the Government feel that there is any element of giving money away that they do not need to do, I would simply argue that this is, or could be, an important step in delivering that public good, which is reaching zero carbon by 2050—reducing our carbon emissions and avoiding climate extinction. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say by way of response on behalf of the Government.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments. As we are at this stage of the Bill, I declare that I am a chartered surveyor, a registered valuer and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. It is some time since my bread and butter was generated from dealing with non-domestic ratings; the concepts are well trod, but I will not claim to have any up-to-date knowledge on some of the finer points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned some of the concerns that the Minister has put forward. My ears pricked up a bit, as they always do when I hear about ministerial concerns. The first was a reduction in revenue. Let us be clear: we are talking about not making an increase—not actually losing something that was there before. It is the increase created in value that is discounted under the Government’s proposals, for no more than one year. The purpose of these amendments is that the increase should not bite for a longer period. That is important, because the work to improve energy efficiency of buildings is sometimes only really justifiable over quite a long period of time. There is no instant fix. In the meantime, it has to be funded, by a loan or an imputed opportunity cost of money for that period. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, one year is simply too short and would be no incentive. The other question about the reduction in revenue is: what is better, not to be able to charge the increase in rates, or someone not to do the work at all because they consider that they should defer the evil day for doing it? There has to be some incentive all round.
The second point that the noble Baroness referred to about what the Minister had said was on the classification of energy-efficiency works in valuation terms. I really do not see that there is any particular difficulty with that. Valuers are dealing with these sorts of things all the time, whether they be tenants’ improvements that are disregarded for rental value purposes, which is actually the nearest open-market analogy to what one is dealing with in business rates valuation, or whether it be for some other purpose—the cost-benefit of some scheme or other. One obviously has to look at these things in the round. If somebody is just replacing the windows and nothing else, clearly they are doing a bit to the U-value to make it more efficient, but it is not a holistic approach. Alternately, if they are part of any type of scheme that one would put forward—that may come out of the further guidance that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—they will have to look at these things on a holistic basis, because you cannot just put a draught-proof strip on a door and expect your bills to go down. It does not happen like that.
These amendments are very important. I do not see the difficulties that the Minister raised in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, so I wholeheartedly support this. The Government could afford to be a little more generous-minded over the whole thing. I encourage the Minister, when she is replying, to perhaps apply that metric.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. They give us the opportunity to discuss this important matter again.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to address some of the amendments in this group, so ably moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I note that in his Amendment 4—and to some extent in the question of social advertising—he is referring to the purposes for which a hereditament is occupied. We already have this situation in the sense that if a charity occupies a shop for charitable purposes, it gets a degree of mandatory relief. Possibly the only difference is that the charity must have a Charity Commission registration number, and therefore its whole constitution, terms of engagement and memorandum and articles of association are clearly laid out.
The only thing I would say about Amendment 4 is that it is important to make sure that some sort of asymmetry does not come in as a result of using the purposes of occupation approach; otherwise, I can see that there might be accusations of unfair competition. I therefore see no reason to object to the billing authority’s discretion being exercised in its own favour, subject to there being a properly laid out policy that makes it clear to everybody what it is doing and is possibly subject to democratic processes.
I suppose that Amendment 16 should warm the cockles of my heart in terms of the accreditation of non-domestic rating advisers. Of course, I come from the background of being a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accreditation body in its own right. Indeed, a large amount of the edifice of “check, challenge and appeal”, which was put in place by the Government to deal with the huge backlog of rating appeals many years ago, was to do with the fact that unqualified people were putting in blanket appeals and clogging up the system. The accusation was that many of these were totally unmeritorious and were simply wasting everyone’s time—so there is a case for doing it. There was a case for doing it instead of going through the malarkey of “check, challenge and appeal” in the first place, and all the powder and shot and grief occasioned thereby—but we are where we are and if it can help streamline the business so that people are bound by codes of conduct and can be called to account for their actions, all well and good.
I shall comment a bit on Amendment 18, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I sent him today—I apologise to him for not having sent it a lot earlier—the consultation that is going on regarding avoidance and evasion. In that is some business about who does rating work and rogue rating surveyors. I believe that the consultation finishes on 28 September. I hope there will be further discussion with the industry and stakeholders about how it is going to formulate—but the point made by the noble Lord is well made, and I am glad to see that something is in progress.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and for his clear introduction to them. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his contribution.
As we have heard, these amendments relate to rating agents, anti-avoidance, discretionary relief and viability rights, all of which are really important issues that we need to discuss. Amendment 4 would remove the ban that currently prevents relief being given to certain buildings. We know that the Local Government Association is very supportive of that amendment, because the current rules prevent councils from giving discretionary relief to their own hereditaments. As we have heard, both now and in Committee, this is particularly an issue with local authority markets. It became problematic particularly during Covid-19 because local authorities were unable to give those markets the business rates relief that other businesses were able to benefit from, which meant that many local authorities had to subsidise those rates in order for the markets to continue operating.
I am assuming that the ban is to prevent conflicts of interest; perhaps the Minister could confirm why it is in place. If that is the case, will the Minister consider whether there any added flexibility should brought into this prohibition so that, in times of particular need, councils can be flexible? If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, let us look at what else we could do to help.
Amendment 16 would start the process for accrediting ratings advisers. The reason I want to talk about this amendment in particular is that there seems to be an increasing number of reports of rogue agents claiming that they can help businesses. It seems to be a growing problem. There are concerns that the situation will be further exacerbated when the Government bring in annual returns and the duty to notify in their reforms, partly because that complicates the system.
Our concern is the impact of that on the smaller retail and hospitality businesses in market towns right across the country. They may not be seeing the reductions in their rates bills that they should be in the revaluation from 1 April, making them more vulnerable to approaches by rogue rating surveyors who promise that they will help them negotiate a new revaluation but do not deliver and disappear, leaving the businesses high and dry. That is our particular concern. So do the Government recognise that this is an increasing problem? If so, perhaps we should look at tackling it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed. We cannot allow this situation to continue and to get worse, because it will affect many small businesses that simply cannot afford it.
Amendment 17 exempts social infrastructure sites—such as bus shelters and telephone boxes—which have advertisements from paying business rates. I am not sure that the Minister will have this figure at his finger- tips, but it would be interesting to know how much is currently generated from this kind of advertising: what impact are we talking about?
Finally, Amendment 18 relates to anti-avoidance. I know that the Government have recently consulted on this, so it would be good to know exactly what action they are looking to take.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I strongly support Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I too read the article in the Times yesterday to which he referred. The fact of the matter is that, while rents have decreased substantially due to inflation and other measures, rateable values are very high and the rates payable are now no indication at all of the actual rental value of the properties. That is one of the reasons why, in an unstable market, it is very important to have the valuations done as often as possible, to reflect the actual rental value of properties.
The second point on which I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, relates to what he has called the Amazon amendment. This is the one critical factor that would bring rates into the modern world. Unless we address this critical issue, we are ignoring the reality of modern-day retail life. It is critical that the Government address this Amazon amendment as soon as they possibly can. If one reads the professional press—such magazines as the Estates Gazette—this is always raised by every retailer as one of the greatest iniquities, and possibly the greatest iniquity, of the current rates system.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, particularly on Amendment 19. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this because it strikes at the heart of what I have always felt about the rating philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, inferred a few minutes ago that rating is demanding too much of the tax base to which it is applied. I have made the same point myself over many years. I remember one eminent rating surveyor telling me, “You know, once the rate in the pound starts to get near to 50%, things start changing. People’s attitudes start changing”.
I am afraid that HMRC, which has global responsibility for this, has been extremely slow to catch up with what is happening and to realise the paradigm shifts created by the increasing burden of business rates. Leaving aside things such as small business relief and so on, I did a calculation—a few years ago, so the analogy is even more potent now—showing that business rate payers in small premises of between 1,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet were paying materially more by reference to property value and square footage occupied, by some considerable factor, than their residential counterparts. I use that because when I first started working in this area, in what was then known as the Valuation Office, all those years ago, there was a common rating system, and residential and commercial had a common base. That is why I got little old ladies in cottages in Lewes High Street in Sussex complaining that the pub next door, which sold all this liquor, had a rating assessment that was half theirs.
What has happened is that, because of the burdens, markets have shifted. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to traders who operate from industrial estates— I think that was one of his examples. I used to joke about this, because the archetypal online operation was a stockroom that was a van on the motorway somewhere, a showroom that was a glossy website, a till that was an online payment portal and a communications system that was a pocket mobile and an email address—this was how the thing operated. People have got very slick, because now you have a big industrial shed at the front of which is a retail and trade counter, which occupies quite a small part of the footprint, and the rest is a big storage shed. We all know the names they have. They sell plumbing, electrical equipment, household goods, all of which you can order online. This is one of the difficulties, because seeing the opportunities of online, many of these operators have seen that the two operate very beneficially with the physical hereditament they occupy as well: the two have a synergy that works effectively. This is absolutely a moment when the Government need to take stock.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, refers to high streets. I will return to this in a few minutes when I get to amendments of mine. Unless we get this right, the attrition of high streets will continue, and they will change into something that is not a general purpose destination for people wanting to shop for everyday goods. They will become a sort of entertainment centre with restaurants and bars and the night-time economy. That may be a good idea, but there is an area of conflict here. If we want to bring residential property back into town centres, then residential occupiers do not relish the thought of people turning out at eleven o’clock at night, having had a jolly good time at the bar. That is one of the issues. Another issue is that a lot of these places need to be serviced; they need to have their bins emptied. If there is a local authority or contractor refuse lorry turning up at 6 o’clock in the morning, people will get fed up with that.
We have to start getting this right, as to what the complementary uses are and how to deal with them. More particularly, how do we reverse this process of the alienation of people—who are otherwise willing and able traders—from our traditional high streets? This matters because that is how they are designed and built. That is the social construct that led to the buildings being built and appearing the way they are. I shudder at trying to transform them into totally different uses. When I see things like permitted development for change of uses in town centres, I worry about what will happen and whether that is an irreversible change that will produce more of the conflicts that I have referred to.
Although I slightly shudder every time somebody mentions a review of business rates, because we seem to have an awful lot of them, I think that this is a body of work that needs some serious thought from academics, practitioners and particularly from people like valuers and retailers, because that is where this analysis comes in. The valuers are not making the roles; they are simply interpreting how people go about their business and do their trade. The derivative is a value, and whether it is a rateable value, a capital value or for investment purposes, we need not alienate these purposes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he has raised an absolutely fundamental point in relation to non-domestic rates.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their passionate speeches. It is clear to me that we share the same objectives; we may just have slightly different ways of getting there. I hope I can satisfy noble Lords by the end of my speech.
This group of amendments returns to the theme of the effectiveness of the business rates system as a whole. Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would require a further review of the business rates system to, respectively, expand small business rate relief or rebalance the tax burden between high street and internet retail. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, concern the frequency of revaluations.
I turn first to whether we should conduct a review of the tax. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill is the product of the Government’s own comprehensive review of the business rates system. That review was delivered in around 18 months in 2020 and 2021, which allowed us to do justice to the significance and complexity of the exercise. The review considered a wide range of evidence and reached clear conclusions about the effectiveness of a tax as a means of funding local services and the limited evidence in support of a fundamental overhaul, but also the opportunities for reform.
The Bill seeks to deliver more frequent revaluations and to enable the abolition of downward transitional relief—two of stakeholders’ key asks—alongside other measures. Making these revaluations more frequent, as we are doing with the new three-yearly cycle, will make the tax more up-to-date and therefore fairer. We agree with noble Lords. I accept that some would like us to go further, but a majority of respondents to the review supported a three-yearly revaluation cycle. Moving from every five to every three years is a major reform of the system, and to do this we must implement significant changes to how ratepayers and the VOA interact, which will take several years to bed in.
The Earl of Lytton
“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the VO by making disclosure mandatory save for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4).
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 9, 10 and 11 at the same time. All of these cover slightly different things, and I will try and skate through fairly quickly. In each case, I am simply looking for some reassurance from the Government Bench that these matters are in focus and that certain things will be done.
The first is the question of disclosure of information between the Valuation Office and a ratepayer’s surveyor. It may well be that practices have grown up because of these rather unsatisfactory, unqualified surveyors, who have been going around for some time. There are many fewer of them than there used to be. It may well be that the Valuation Office has somehow built a defensive carapace against this, faced with representations that might not have been all they were cracked up to be. But at the end of the day, there is this question, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will understand, of equality of arms: there has to be some common sharing of information and data relating to the value of the hereditament, otherwise negotiations really are in a pretty pickle and, in many cases, will get into worse level of dispute than is absolutely necessary.
As my explanatory statement says, Amendment 8 would reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the valuation office by making disclosure mandatory, except for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4), which is basically a data protection exception. I would very much appreciate comment that this will happen and there will be guidance within the Valuation Office Agency to deal with this—to improve transparency and to reinforce confidence.
Amendments 9 and 10 relate to the question of an annual return or confirmation requirement on ratepayers, which is a new provision that the Government are seeking to insert. I had to check my notes from the previous stage of the Bill, but according to the information I had, this would result in some 700,000 hereditaments having to make an additional return or being at risk of making an additional return. The point that was made to me, and that I continue to make, is that this is potentially excessive. In discussions with the Bill team and the Minister, we were given reassurances that there would be piloting and that they would not roll this out unless it was running smoothly and the online system for reporting was robust. I would simply like to have reassurance on that point and that the results of the pilot will be a matter of discussion with stakeholders, so that we do not just have a one-sided arrangement on that. The truth of the matter is that many ratepayers do not understand the terminology because they are traders; they are not people who are involved in getting to understand what a “hereditament” is—as I may have said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it is not a word easily conjured with. There is a great deal that they do not understand about making returns as they are at the moment, so there is a need for a process of general simplification. That deals with Amendments 9 and 10, which are connected.
Amendment 11 relates to something slightly different, which is consequential on this whole reporting business, and that is that, when a business ratepayer advises the Valuation Office Agency that there has been a change, the matter is dealt with promptly, whether it is a reduction or an increase. An increase obviously affects the income from the rating scheme as a whole, but a reduction is something that directly affects the ratepayer. At the moment, I understand there is still quite a considerable backlog within the Valuation Office Agency. The concern is that, unless the backlog is cleared and unless there is better funding and resourcing within the Valuation Office Agency, these things will be held up. The idea here is that ratepayers in particular should not receive retrospective increases in their rating liabilities unless the valuation office acts promptly on receipt of ratepayer-provided information. This is to give an incentive to the valuation office to make a prompt approach and deal with it, but it is all to do with speed of turnaround of necessary changes. Not everything that is advised to the Valuation Office Agency will be relevant, but quite a lot of it may be. If we are going to get into this new era of reporting 60 days after an event has happened and at the end of the year, then we need some reciprocity in relation to that. That is the gist of those amendments.
I just add that, although the Minister has not spoken to them yet, I support government Amendments 12 and 13. They are necessary and appropriate. I have no real views on Amendment 20 either way; it is an administrative consequence of other amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has tabled a number of amendments related to the provision of valuation evidence to the Valuation Office Agency. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this again, following the earlier debate in Committee, and to explain how the Government have listened to the suggestions heard in that debate.
As has been noted previously, these reforms are essential to securing the sustainable delivery of more frequent revaluations, which I know noble Lords support. Clause 10 consists of a power to allow the VOA to share valuation information with ratepayers. Amendment 8 would make this power a duty, and I will explain why the Government cannot support this. The Government are absolutely committed to providing greater transparency about how rateable values are calculated. The VOA has recently consulted on how, in practice, they intend to use this clause. It is an important part of the reforms and a key plank of our commitment to ratepayers. However, as that consultation reflects, we cannot overstate the importance of privacy rights. The information relied on by the VOA in establishing a valuation will, in some cases, include personal and sensitive data, so it is right that we take an approach which is common among other data gateways; namely, that the gateway is permissive: it permits the VOA to disclose information rather than placing a requirement to do so. This approach safeguards the interests of ratepayers and their data, but I am clear that within the necessary constraints of the clause we are committed to the transparency of valuations.
Amendments 9 and 10 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to remove the requirement in Clause 13 for rate- payers to submit an annual confirmation as well as a notification to the VOA when there is a notifiable change related to their property. On this amendment, the Government are mindful of those concerns. Of course, we should not burden businesses where we do not need to. However, we have a safeguard in place for that very purpose. The Bill provides that the annual confirmation can be brought into force later than the other parts of the VOA duty, and the Government have been clear that we will not bring it into force until we have ensured that it will be sufficiently straightforward for ratepayers to complete. We intend that completing the annual confirmation should be a matter of only a few minutes for those who are already up to date with the duty. Moreover, the annual confirmation will serve a valuable purpose for ratepayers, as well as the VOA. By providing a further opportunity to ensure that they have complied with the duty, the annual confirmation will act as a safety net.
Amendment 11 seeks to prevent the VOA backdating changes to the rating list after a certain period. We are aligned on the importance of the VOA acting promptly and accurately on information received about a property. The VOA takes this very seriously and is performing well—it meets its own targets for processing checks within 12 months and challenges within 18 months in 99.9% and 98% of cases respectively. Of course, as we develop these new systems for the VOA duty, we will review the VOA’s operational targets accordingly, but in light of the VOA’s performance on its existing targets we do not see the need for primary legislation in this space. Furthermore, we hope the noble Earl will recognise that the information provided under the duty may vary considerably by type of property. In the view of the Government, that does not point to a one-size-fits-all approach being appropriate. Instead, it requires effective and transparent performance monitoring, which we will continue to provide under the new system.
I shall explain the steps the Government are taking through government Amendments 12 and 13 to improve the penalties regime for the VOA duty following proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in Committee, for which I am grateful. Amendment 12 deals with the daily penalties which the VOA may apply where a ratepayer continues not to comply with the valuation notification requirement 30 days after being served an initial penalty notice. Its purpose is to encourage timely compliance with the duty. However, it has been noted that in the similar provision for the separate duty to provide HMRC with a taxpayer reference number, a cap on daily penalties equivalent to 30 days of the maximum penalty is applied. The Government have decided to extend this protection for ratepayers to the valuation notification duty. Of course, it is vital that the VOA can secure the information it needs to deliver more frequent revaluations, and to do this it needs effective compliance tools. Nevertheless, the Government have reflected on the points raised in Committee and accept that placing a cap on the total amount a ratepayer may be fined is appropriate. I have a note that I hope helps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: this is equivalent to 30 days of penalties, each being £60.
Amendment 13 alters the burden of proof that the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. The penalty decisions with which this is concerned are for the criminal offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement. The Bill prescribes that, for a higher penalty to be applied, the VOA must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has made the false statement knowingly or recklessly. That is the correct standard of proof for a criminal offence.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, identified an issue with the procedure where a ratepayer appeals such a penalty decision to the valuation tribunal. The tribunal would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer had not committed the offence. The Government wish to amend this to ensure that the proper burden of proof is applied, to the benefit of ratepayers.
Finally, Amendment 20 is a minor and technical change that we think we should make to the 1988 Act as a consequential effect of the provisions in this Bill concerning business rates multipliers. Clause 15 makes changes to the multiplier rules and separates the multiplier provisions relating to England and Wales. Section 140(2)(b) of the Act refers to Ministers making separate estimates of rateable value for England and Wales. As the provisions relating to England and Wales will now be separate, that section is obsolete and can be deleted. This is simply a drafting correction to improve the clarity of the statute book and the Government do not foresee any practical effect.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his scrutiny of this area of the Bill, which has allowed us to make important improvements. I hope, with those reassurances and our amendments, he will be prepared to consider not pressing his amendments.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is something that I probably should have asked her about earlier in connection with her Amendment 12, which is the figure of £1,800. Discussions with her noble colleague and the Bill team made it clear that it is intended to be an aggregate figure. I do not know whether she referred to that but I did not hear; if she could confirm that that is so, just for the record, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
What I can confirm is what I have written on my note, which says that this is 30 days of penalties, which are £60 per day, which comes to the figure of £1,800 that the noble Earl referred to.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I am not going to add much to anything that has been said. On Amendment 8, there is clearly a significant issue in terms of transparency. I had thought that the wording
“V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so”
was a sufficient get-out-of-jail-free card, but I take it that the Government do not feel able to accept that.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on how the making of returns will function, particularly her comment that one size does not fit all. We have been a bit subjected to one size fits all in some aspects of rating valuation and I am very glad to hear that that will not always be the case. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.
The Earl of Lytton
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I regret to say that in this amendment I am obliged to refer to a rather contentious matter. As I have made clear, I am not going to divide the House, but a serious question needs to be answered. I tabled the amendment to delete Clause 14 because of my concern that what the Government claim Clause 14 does is at material variance with the wording, as I see it, of the Bill. It is also at serious variance with what I understand to be the current assumptions regarding the, as it were, state and condition of the hereditament for valuation purposes not in terms of its individual condition as to the fabric but where it sits in its economic and practical environment.
As I understand it, the Government claim to be restoring matters to those understandings that prevailed previously, but the proof of the pudding shows that is not so or we would not have this clause before us because it would then be unnecessary. In my view, an earlier measure to remove the status of Covid as a material change of circumstances—which is what this is all about—was legitimate. It was deliberately circumstance specific and affected the whole country and so could rightly be described as a pan-national economic event. But the Government now seek to extend that principle to any change affecting the physical enjoyment of the hereditament as a consequence of what is described as an “economic” matter and that that should be disregarded as a material change of circumstances. In other words, it should not be possible if that change occurs for somebody to challenge their assessment.
I dispute that this approach has ever been the test of a material change of circumstances hitherto. Copious cases—Addis Ltd v Clement (VO) in particular—have clarified this. There is an obvious reason: where a public authority takes steps that deny or degrade the benefits of enjoyment of a hereditament, it is offensive that a tax unadjusted to reflect this fact should continue to be levied. This is not just a modern confection but goes to the heart of fair and just administration, the rule of law, confidence in government and the certainty and security of process that affect investment, productivity, and commitment to medium and long-term partnership. It is an essential part of a social and economic contract—unwritten it may be but there all the same. Any Government would be wise to observe these obvious and potent economic factors in administering the needs of the nation. We are talking about an ancient principle.
The Government make a distinction in relation to an economic matter affecting society at large but then go on to define this as any matter directly or indirectly attributable to a “relevant factor”. In fact, these are not economic matters at all but the fiat of some authority exercising powers that are not of general economic application to the nation at large or a significant part of it. The definition of “relevant factors” is set out at Clause 14(l)(d) in new paragraph 2ZA(3)—near the bottom of page 32 for those noble Lords following this astutely. In effect, it means that any legislation, regulation or advice of any country or public authority or steps to comply with these is to be disregarded in terms of what amounts to a material change of circumstances—so much for being ruled by our own laws. It also does not clarify the status of pronouncements from organisations such as the WHO, the UN or International Monetary Fund. So, in future, if a local authority alters the entire geometry of the use and enjoyment of a business premises through, let us say, planning powers, it will not count as an MCC, regardless of how severe the impacts may be. This provides a perverse incentive to disregard negative effects of sudden policy decisions which, as I say, may be nothing to do with economic choices.
I wonder whether when formulating these measures the Government ever considered the growing mistrust of their handling of the business rates regime generally and the effect, along with others no doubt, on high streets from trader and investor confidence, or ever paused to consider off balance sheet indications in any of these respects. The Government in seeking to differentiate general economic changes from direct physical enjoyment at hereditament level do not seem to be able to make a tidy distinction between the two, so they take a line of least resistance and bundle them together. That is Clause 14.
By way of further explanation, there are of course two poles to consider: first, those matters which affect the economy as a whole to be dealt with on revaluations—there is no dispute about that; we accept that as we accepted it in Covid. Then there are other more rapid and acute physical changes to the hereditament itself. Again, there is no dispute on that because they will continue to be treated as material changes of circumstances. In between, there are those immediate and localised regulatory and other measures affecting an individual property or those in a defined location and not shared with the wider economy of a town or a region.
I wanted some further clarity on this, so I sent some examples of queries to the department. I hope it received those and that, in replying, the Minister may be able to throw some light on them. The first one was where a local authority reduces the hours of operation of certain licensed premises to provide better amenity for nearby residents and as a result business is curtailed— I referred to the conflicts earlier today. Secondly, an important town centre car park is closed due to concerns about the concrete frame and as a result footfall for traders in that part of town declines substantially. Thirdly, a small corner convenience store is affected because the large residential block next door is ordered to be evacuated over fire safety concerns and the occupiers are dispersed into other accommodation elsewhere. Fourthly, an authority in a popular holiday area makes licensing of holiday let premises mandatory but then limits or conditions the licences it issues to reduce the impact on local housing availability and as a result the income to certain operators is significantly affected. Finally, a biosecurity exclusion zone is declared in a defined area due to an animal disease outbreak. The public are advised to stay away and traders in the area suffer a sharp downturn in business. As I understand it, every one of those would be ruled out as being a material change of circumstances by virtue of Clause 14. The only qualification is on the last one. Does the geographical extent of the biosecurity exclusion zone alter the degree to which the effects fall to be disregarded as an MCC or does it make no difference?
Let me give an extreme example of what the effects might be. A metropolitan mayor decides to ban all petrol and diesel sales in his or her area under some statutory or regulatory power or perhaps on the advice of health officials concerned about air pollution, but by virtue of Clause 14—and maybe for up to three years until the next revaluation—petrol filling stations in the area would have to continue paying business rates as if nothing had happened. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to revise Clause 14 because that, on the best authority I know, is what it will do. The best authority I have—Members of this House, particularly learned Members, excepted—is rating counsel Luke Wilcox, who provided me with a note which says
“my main concern with clause 14 as it is currently drafted is that its effects will be much wider than the Government’s stated intention. The Government’s intention appears to be to treat general legislation as part of the general market conditions affecting revaluations, rather than as matters capable of being MCCs”.
He goes on to say that
“the phrase ‘indirectly attributable to’, as it appears in para 2ZA(2)(a), is so wide in its scope that matters affecting an individual property or class of properties, such as a planning or licensing decision, will cease to be MCCs (because they are made under a general legislative provision). Such an effect would appear to be beyond the Government’s stated intention. If such a significant alteration is to be made to the established law of rating, then it should be made following proper deliberation, rather than as an unintended consequence of a provision aimed at a different policy effect”.
In all this, there appears to have been little or no discussion with ratepayers or their professional advisers, nor any wider consultation with that class of stakeholders. It is undoubtedly a major departure from what is known as the “reality principle”—namely, that rating should reflect the real circumstances of the hereditament in assessing it for rating purposes. The Valuation Office Agency’s own rating manual does not use the approach now suggested. Whether it is going to be amended, I do not know—I suppose it will be—but, as it clearly states the situation that has commonly been understood for many years, that rather suggests that the Government’s claim of restoring what they say were the previous understandings is unsupported.
Many will feel that this is getting us towards the realms of no-appeals regulations—in other words, “Let’s not have any appeals at all and dispense with them, and the whole thing can be dealt with through by the arbitrary exercise of power through the Valuation Office Agency”. But that would have profound implications for the rules-based system—something that I have referred to before in relation to several government Bills.
This clause cannot go unchallenged. Although I am not proposing to press the amendment, I think it warrants a detailed comment from the Government as to how they think it will work fairly and equitably in the context of the rating system. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support the point of view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has raised this very issue, I think at Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and I have given him support because I have grave doubts about the definition in the Bill of a “material change of circumstance”.
The noble Earl has given a list of possible examples of where there should be a material change of circumstance because of what happens in the area as a whole—perhaps a planning change or a licensing change undertaken by a local authority. When it comes to the Minister’s reply, it would be extremely helpful if there could be a letter to all of us who have taken part in the debate, but addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explaining the Government’s view on each of the examples that the noble Earl has given.
I have another one to add to his list. As it stands, Clause 14 means that material changes of circumstance should relate to physical changes only to a property. That is how I interpret it. However, as the noble Earl has demonstrated, there can be many ways in which that physical property can be impacted upon and have a material change of circumstance because of what somebody else does. My example is that a local authority decides that a bus route will no longer come down one road but will go down a different one. The patronage of the shop—if it is a shop—goes down as a consequence. Is that a “material change of circumstance”? I suggest that it is and that it should qualify. I do not think that Clause 14 can apply only to a physical building. That is my position.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment and the noble Earl for his response. He said that it would depend on the change of rollout of the relevant factors. Let me remind your Lordships what those are; they are in four categories in new paragraph 2ZA(3):
“(a) legislation of any country or territory;
(b) provision that is not within paragraph (a) but is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory;
(c) advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory;
(d) anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything”—
covered by the preceding paragraphs. I paraphrase, of course.
I struggle to see what actions would be taken by a municipality or authority dealing with something that makes a substantial change that would not be covered by those criteria and thereby excluded. The noble Earl referred to the difficulties of non-stop revaluation. We have a situation that everyone has been happy with for quite a number of years, and it has not resulted in non-stop revaluation. The noble Earl also referred to the equality of valuation approach, but the tone of the list—the general levels of value, to put it simply—would not be altered; it would simply be that by reference to that general pattern of values, a particular hereditament, if there was a material change of circumstances, had taken a hit. That is what we are trying to deal with.
With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I find his explanations unconvincing, as I found the explanations of his noble friend when we met her unconvincing, and as I found the explanations of the department officials unconvincing. Although I will withdraw the amendment, I do so with a sense of profound disappointment that the Government have not been able to come up with a better narrative—a better explanation. There is a point behind what they say in getting at what we might call general economic changes, but to extend that to the microcosm of what happens in a locality stretches my credulity beyond breaking point. It does not add up, and I hope that the noble Earl will go away and make it clear to the department that that is what I believe, what a lot of ratepayers believe and what a lot of professionals believe.
For the time being, I beg to withdraw the amendment.