Lord Shipley:

Moved by Lord Shipley

4: Clause 4, page 15, line 36, at end insert—“(4) Omit subsections (8A) and (9).”Member's explanatory statementThe intention of this amendment is to remove the prohibition on a billing authority giving relief on a hereditament occupied by a billing authority, a precepting authority or a GLA functional body.

My Lords, now that we have begun Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I have said previously that there are many good things in this Bill. When we have moved amendments, as we are doing today, the aim is to make it a better Bill. The Government—any Government—face huge challenges with business rates. Inflation-linked rises in the cost of business rates is one challenge, and I think it is generally acknowledged that business rates have simply got too high for many businesses to cope with. Proportionately, when you go back one or two decades, business rates are indeed very high.

A second problem lies with internet sales, which, frankly, are destroying the high street. One-third of retail sales are now online, and that is having a devastating effect. Just two days ago, the British Retail Consortium wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to freeze property taxes in order to prevent further high-street closures. As the consortium said, a rise would have the impact of

“threatening the viability of many shops and hindering the industry’s capacity to invest”.

I subscribe to that view, and I hope that when we come to the Autumn Statement some indication will be given that that will be the Government’s intention.

As I said in Committee, while I welcome revaluations moving to every three years, I would prefer them to be every two years, because valuations that are more up to date reduce costs and confusion and make life easier for lots of businesses. I see this Bill as a staging post to getting to two years—we shall look at that in a future group. I would also prefer locally set multipliers and would like to think that the Government would look at greater fiscal powers for local government over the next two or three years. That said, this Bill makes positive changes, and I would now like to address the amendments that I have put down to make the Bill even better.

In moving Amendment 4, I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. The intention of Amendment 4 is to remove the prohibition on a billing authority giving relief on a hereditament occupied by a billing authority, precepting authority or GLA functional body. These prohibitions prevent authorities awarding relief to premises such as markets which they own. This was a particular issue in the 2020 retail, leisure and hospitality relief, where billing authorities found that they could not give relief to premises of which they, or a precepting authority, were the occupier—including, for example, local authority markets. My amendment, which is supported by the Local Government Association and by the National Association of British Market Authorities, would address this problem.

There are in the country some 1,150 markets, of which 84% are operated or controlled by local authorities. They perform a vital role in the retail sector and our community infrastructure, and many have long histories. During the recent Covid pandemic, however, these markets were unable to enjoy the substantial financial help provided by the Government on business rates because of a restriction in Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 that prevents a local authority giving relief to itself or to a precepting authority. Local authority markets were obliged to bear the full burden of business rates while many businesses and, indeed, markets operated by private and community organisations were able to take advantage of the substantial help provided by the Government.

In 2022, the National Association of British Market Authorities carried out a major survey of our markets. Stall occupation in many markets has fallen significantly from 2018, when the last survey took place. The number of traders continues to fall: five years ago, there were 32,000 market traders; last year, the number had fallen below 30,000. Many local authorities report having to subsidise their markets to enable them to continue operating. With the many demands on local authority budgets, there is a prospect of these subsidies being withdrawn to protect front-line services, which could threaten the continued existence of many markets, many of which are a venue for information on a wide range of public services, making available banking, library and health services where such services are no longer represented at other venues in the area.

The Government have previously changed their position on this general issue as they granted a specific exemption to Section 47, providing that local authority public conveniences should no longer be liable for business rates. This earlier concession provides added support for the amendment now being sought.

Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the benefits and practicality of a system of accreditation for rating advisers. This amendment seeks to explore an avenue to combat the rogue and unprofessional practices of some rating advisers. It is about having a consultation, because the new system defined in the Bill will get more complex, with new reporting requirements and demands for greater accuracy. There will be greater demand for rating advisers. In my view, such rating advisers should be accredited and maintain professional standards if they offer commercial services. Therefore, I advocate a consultation on what steps should be taken.

Amendment 17, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, who is unable to be here today but whom I thank for his support, provides that advertising rights in respect of social infrastructure sites, including bus shelters, other advertising rights granted by contracting authorities and public telephone kiosks shall be exempt from local non-domestic rating. The current business rates system is challenging the viability of advertising-funded social infrastructure and community services. It is now increasingly at risk. Yet these sites return value to local communities through rental payments, service provision, their installation, their very existence, their cleaning and their maintenance, as well as any other social investment, including living roofs, air quality sensors and solar panels, all of which help local authorities meet their net-zero targets. If a business rates exemption applied, it could lead to higher investment directly into local communities. Councils can benefit from rent, revenue and profit sharing currently amounting to around £143 million a year, paid directly to them, but it is claimed that the new legislation that the Bill represents puts this at risk.

From a recent article I read on the matter, the problem seems to be that business rates may increase every three years. If I had my way, there would be a two-yearly review, so it is possible that in some cases business rates would increase every two years. Industry agreements with councils, however, typically have a term of seven to 15 years, so business rates may therefore increase at least five times during a standard contract term. That assumes that business rates are increasing—which they could—so regular changes to business rates would make financial planning for such contracts much more difficult than it currently is and would require the industry to hedge against future rates increases. It may well impact on the amount of support that local authorities have.

There are 36,000 advertising sites subject to business rates. Every one is valued, invoiced and paid individually. There is a huge amount of work for the Valuation Office Agency, local councils and operators. Yet social infrastructure sites are low-value, accounting for only a quarter of all business rates income generated by advertising rights. This amendment is about only social infrastructure sites. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to doing some further work on this. I accept that we need to build support across all parties and levels of government, but there is an interest here in supporting our social infrastructure.

Finally, I come very briefly to Amendment 18, which states:

“The intention of this amendment is to introduce into law the power to make anti-avoidance regulations, as provided for in Part 4 of the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020. The amendment mirrors Part 4, with such changes as to make it applicable to UK law”.

It would help to have further action on business rates avoidance, along the lines introduced in Wales and Scotland, to ensure that the rules on reliefs, such as empty property and charitable relief, are applied fairly. I know the Government are considering this issue and any update the Minister can give would be helpful. It is estimated that around 1% of total business rates income—around £250 million—is lost to business rates avoidance each year. It may be only 1% but it is a substantial sum and therefore anything the Government do to replicate what is now happening in Scotland and Wales would be very helpful in England. I beg to move Amendment 4.

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.

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.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short and interesting debate on a wide-ranging subject. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has given us the opportunity to look into these matters a little further.

I will go through the amendments, but not necessarily in chronological order, so noble Lords will have to bear with me. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, tabled Amendment 16 based on his concerns regarding the conduct and sharp practices of some rating advisers, as mentioned also by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I sympathise with and recognise the concerns behind this amendment and welcome the opportunity to discuss the work the Government are doing to address them.

I reiterate in the clearest terms that most rating agents are legitimate organisations registered with a professional body. Nevertheless, as my noble friend the Minister has said previously, we know that a minority of agents seek to take advantage of their clients through predatory practices and exploitative contracts, or by actively promoting rates-avoidance strategies. The Government have published a wide-ranging consultation, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on avoidance and evasion in the business rates system. The consultation includes a specific chapter on those rogue agents with whom this amendment is concerned and seeks views on how the Government could address any issues arising from their conduct. While there is no regulatory regime that covers all rating agents, a set of agent standards has been jointly published by the three professional bodies: the RICS, the Rating Surveyors’ Association and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation.

Recognising the importance of the professional bodies to the system, the Government will, as a matter of course, take the views of these organisations into account and will be engaging with them through the ongoing consultation process. The Government also provide advice on GOV.UK on how to find a reputable agent and the considerations that businesses should take into account when deciding to appoint an agent. Furthermore, the Valuation Office Agency is currently developing a standard for all rating agents, in alignment with existing HMRC agents’ standards.

The Government are keen to work collaboratively with rating agents to tackle poor practice. Our aim is to find a balanced solution that prevents sharp practice but does not impinge on the legitimate work of agents up and down the country.

Amendment 4 would remove the legislative bar which prevents local authorities awarding discretionary rate relief to their own properties. I understand that the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are primarily with the application of business rates to local authority-run markets. The Government fully recognise the contribution that markets make to the vibrancy and diversity of our communities. We are supporting local authority-run markets with access to the £2.6 billion towns deal programme and the £1 billion Future High Streets Fund. We have also made permanent the permitted development rights which enable markets to be held by local authorities for an unlimited number of days.

However, enabling authorities to relieve their own rates costs in relation to marketplaces, and any other properties they occupy, would overturn an important and long-standing principle and not be the right way to support markets. Local authorities have a distinct dual role, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, functioning as both ratepayers and administrators of the business rates system. Given this dual role of authorities, they cannot in all circumstances be considered the same as any other ratepayer.

There is therefore a long-standing principle that local authorities should not have the power to award discretionary rate relief to the properties they own or occupy, just as central government does not, and indeed should not, hold the power to reduce its own rates liabilities. Of course, should the Government wish to relieve local authorities of specific rate costs then, subject to the will of Parliament, they can choose to do so. This could be achieved by providing a mandatory relief with the specific criteria set out in legislation, as was implemented recently for public toilets.

Amendment 18 would provide the Secretary of State with a power, subject to consultation, to lay anti-avoidance regulations. I understand that it seeks to mirror the approach taken by the Scottish Government. As I have said, we are currently consulting on business rates avoidance and evasion, so the noble Lord will understand that there will be a proper time to consider possible interventions. Through this process, we are engaging closely with those who have the clearest knowledge of these practices across business, agent and local government groups. The Scottish regulations, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have only recently come into force. However, as part of our consultation, we will work alongside the devolved nations to broaden our understanding of the issues faced and the initial impact of those regulations.

Amendment 17 seeks to remove from business rates advertising rights on structures such as bus shelters. The rating of advertising has been a normal part of business rates since the 19th century. Advertising is a non-domestic use of land which can be quite valuable. Rents—sometimes considerable rents—are often paid to secure sites for advertising, so it is quite correct that advertising is included in business rates, along with other non-domestic uses of land and buildings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked about the value of those sites. For advertising sites on bus shelters, the revenue for local government is not minimal. For electronic or digital displays at bus shelters in central London, the annual rates revenue is between £1,400 and £4,000 per display, depending upon their location. Even at the other end of the scale, static paper advertising displays outside London can still see revenue in the low hundreds of pounds each.

As we have heard, the amendment would exempt advertising only at social infrastructure sites, such as bus shelters, but the logic for this is not clear. Of course, a local authority might use bus stops to advertise jobs or local initiatives, but in the same week, that screen might host adverts from mobile phone operators or fast-food chains. What, then, is the social need that justifies a tax break? It could also create a commercial advantage for advertisers at such sites compared to companies using other sites, which would continue to pay rates. Such other sites may be only across the road from a bus shelter, for example on the side of a building, and therefore be in direct competition. Accordingly, I do not think there is a case for special treatment of advertising on bus shelters compared to other sites or sectors more generally.

I am grateful for this debate and to noble Lords for raising these three important issues. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will be prepared to consider withdrawing his Amendment 4 and not pressing others.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I found very helpful. I shall withdraw Amendment 4. I hope that all the amendments I have put my name to today will form part of a constant review of business and non-domestic rate structures, because the system is showing serious signs of stress. I do not think it can continue as it currently is. As a consequence, Governments of whatever persuasion will have to address the fact that reform of business rates is increasingly essential. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Clause 5: Frequency with which lists are compiled