The Earl of Lytton (CB)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will also speak to Amendments 13, 19, 22, 30 and 38 in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for putting her name to Amendments 5 and 22. The RHL sector was particularly badly hit as a result of Covid and it has been used, quite reasonably, as a proxy for the challenges facing urban core economies and town-centre trading. The previous Government introduced reliefs in the form of financial support to ameliorate rate bills for this sector, but that has been progressively reduced. I think I have it correct that the figure currently stands at 40% until April this year, reducing to 25% thereafter until April 2026. But at that point there is a cliff-edge readjustment to zero, as I understand it. If I am correct in thinking that Governments past and present still believe that RHL properties should be accorded some relief going forward, because of their function, inter alia, in town-centre and urban core activity economies, it seems odd that hereditaments with a rateable value of £500,000 and over that are none the less in that RHL category and are still challenged by the longer-term changes in spending patterns should not be capable of maintaining, at least for the time being, some element of relief—or at any rate, not being at risk of a surcharge. We clearly have an issue here with defining RHL. That is going to be a problem, because at the moment it is in the hands of the local authority. I have already referred to the difficulties of dealing with that when you take it all on board and try to decide it centrally. We also have the question of what constitutes a high street—we have touched on that before—and, finally, defining where the surcharges and reduced multipliers should actually apply. The problem is that predictability for HM Treasury does not equate to certainty for ratepayers. We keep being told that ratepayers want greater certainty, but I do not see it in what this Bill is trying to produce, or in much else that has gone before in business rates legislation. This amendment, as your Lordships will appreciate, is an attempt to probe what the Government really intend. The intention would have been made a lot easier, as we have heard, if there had been some sort of impact assessment. The Government seem to be unwilling to do any modelling until the draft 2026 valuation list is published later this year. Frankly, I cannot see that this would prevent having some sort of economic impact analysis of discrete subsets by property type and location, even if the actual values remained unknown. However, the point has already been made, and I will look carefully at what the Minister said in answer to it when this was raised earlier. We are getting to the point of having too many moving parts to give us any clear idea of where this is going, including the ability of policymakers in trying to identify outcomes and trends. Amendment 5 seeks to remove the risk of surcharge from larger RHL properties. It is as simple as that; what it says on the tin is what it tries to do. This would try to deal with issues of larger shops, restaurants, leisure centres, cinemas, museums, hotels and all sorts of things that operate in a town centre which actually give the thing life and purpose and bring people into that economy. That is the sort of thing that this amendment would try to deal with. Amendment 13 would provide flexibility in the powers under the Bill to apply the lower multipliers to a wider range of property types. That is not giving local government or billing authorities additional powers. It is saying: let us have those powers in this Bill so that the Treasury can bring them in as and when it sees necessary, without coming back to the whole business of having further legislation. This is made necessary because the range of activities represented by the RHL sector, as I have said previously, may differ between locations and for those reasons that I mentioned. Going forward, it may well require some radical rethinking about what actually underpins the type of use. It might not be RHL but RHL-plus, or something else. It might be minus L, or whatever term we want. We need to be careful that we can understand what underpins local economies. The explanatory statement with Amendment 13 refers to equalising treatment between losers and gainers in terms of the supplemental or “reduced multipliers”. The Bill provides for the possibility of several supplements but only two reduced multipliers, and more flexibility should be brought in there. As I say, I am suggesting something that would give the Government more powers, rather than fewer, but enables them to fine-tune the outcomes. Amendments 19, 30 and 38 are allied to this last amendment. I will not go into detail, but they are consequential and apply the same principles. Amendment 22 makes a specific allied provision for unoccupied RHL properties, which, as we know, are otherwise subject themselves to empty rates, even though because of the circumstances relating to the local economy they may not be—in all normal senses of the words—beneficially occupiable, because market demand has collapsed. This is a serious problem for getting town centres back up and running. I appreciate that is an argument if the Treasury wants to control the RHL definition for the purposes of accurately calculating multipliers for future years, but I believe that argument holds good only so long as rating and billing authorities are not required to make an up-front return to the Valuation Office Agency of those properties in their area considered to be in scope. That may be seen as a fairly imperfect thing but, with all the churn of hereditaments being added, taken away, altered or going temporarily out of rate because they are undergoing major works, or whatever, this is never going to be a precise science anyway. It will always be a little hit and miss. I am quite certain the Treasury has a contingency in the workings to deal with that, so I do not see that there can be any real objection to it.