Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Monday 25th November 2024
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:34 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 175 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Kevin Hollinrake has been selected.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last month, the Chancellor set out the Government’s first Budget. That Budget was a once-in-a-generation event to wipe the slate clean after 14 years of the Conservatives. At that Budget, we laid the foundations for our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The scale of the mess that we inherited at the general election meant that we had to take tough decisions on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions have been difficult, but they were necessary. They have enabled us to deliver economic stability and fix the public finances. Doing that is crucial to getting public services back on their feet, and to giving businesses the confidence they need to invest and thrive.
Stability, certainty and predictability are highly prized by businesses when making decisions about where and how much to invest. In opposition, I spoke to businesses time and again about the importance of stability, so in government we have made sure to deliver for them by publishing our corporate tax road map alongside the Budget. In my meetings with businesses about what they need to succeed, the system of business rates also came up time and again. I heard businesses criticise a system that is inflexible, that disincentivises investment and that places an unfair burden on those businesses on high streets across England.
That is why, in the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed our first steps towards creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. We are determined to support high streets, as they are places that bring people together and serve as focal points for economic activity. Their success is what people across the country want to see, and it is a priority for the Government to deliver it. That is why, in our first Bill on business rates in this Parliament, the Government have prioritised making progress to rebalance the rates burden faced by high street businesses.
The Bill before us seeks to put into law the commitments made at the Budget by enabling the introduction from 2026-27 of permanently lower tax rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 that make up the backbone of high streets across England. We are determined to give those businesses a tax cut, and we know that that must be fully funded in a challenging fiscal context. For that reason, the Bill also enables us to generate sustainable funding for those tax cuts through an increase of multipliers on the most valuable 1% of business properties in the country.
This targeted approach captures the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from high streets. It will enable us to lock in new, permanently lower tax rates for core high street businesses, providing not only a tax cut but stability and certainty after the one-year retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has been precariously extended year by year since the pandemic. Our approach provides a permanent tax cut to help high street businesses succeed, alongside the certainty that they need to invest and the means to pay for it within our tough fiscal rules.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister talks about certainty, but one of the biggest problems for small businesses is that so many things are happening at once, including the national insurance contributions increase, the Employment Rights Bill that is coming in, and now the levy that has been cut down from 70% to 40%. The cumulative effect of all those makes a massive difference for my businesses. A hairdresser that I met only this weekend talked about how much of a problem that will be. How does the measure help to engender stability for those small businesses, which have to wait until 2026?
James Murray
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, around the difficult decision that we had to take on employer national insurance contributions, we provided explicit protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country. I suggest that he talks to businesses in his constituency about that.
We are not shying away from the fact that difficult decisions were taken in the Budget, but he might also consult the plans that were left in operation by the previous Government in July. If we had pursued those plans, and if we had not taken any action on business rates, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely next April. The cliff edge looming next April would have seen it go down to zero. We have extended it, despite the tough fiscal circumstances, for another year at 40%. That is a reasonable way forward while we put in place these permanent reforms.
As I mentioned, the measures in the Bill to level the playing field for high streets are the beginning of our efforts to transform the system of business rates. Our ambition to go further is set out in the paper published alongside the Budget, “Transforming business rates”. That paper sets out the Government’s priority areas for further reform to support investment and make the system fairer. It invites businesses and industry representatives to work with us on designing the best possible system for the future.
I am grateful to all those businesses and representative bodies that I have spoken with in the last few weeks for their engagement already. We will consider what more the Government should do to incentivise investment and growth, including by looking at the efficacy of improvement relief and empty property relief, the impact of losing small business rate relief on expanding businesses, and the cliff edges within the current system.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
If the Minister is looking for other methods by which public finances could be effectively deployed, will he look carefully at the last decade, during which small business rate relief has been used by second home owners to flip their properties to business rating and pay nothing at all? In Cornwall alone, that has resulted in over £500 million of taxpayers’ money being paid out to wealthy second home owners through covid aid and the small business rate relief. Will he look at how wealthy people have been incentivised to use that method to their advantage? Will he ensure that we have a much fairer system that puts first homes before second homes?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman raises a crucial point about ensuring that the tax system is fair and that it supports the behaviour that we seek to incentivise.
That leads me neatly to my next point. As part of the discussion paper on transforming business rates, we have committed to consulting on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England. Although that might not necessarily address the exact problem the hon. Gentleman highlights, it speaks to the general issue of avoidance in relation to business rates.
We will also look at how the burden adjusts with the economic cycle, and we will assess the merit of a further increase in the frequency of re-evaluations. I look forward to working closely with businesses and representative organisations to deliver a business rates system that is fit for the 21st century, and that work begins today with the powers in this Bill to deliver our permanent tax cut for high streets.
As I said earlier, the tough decisions that the Chancellor set out in the Budget to deliver economic stability and fix the public finances enable us to give businesses the confidence they need to invest, and to get public services back on their feet. One public service that is crucial to breaking down barriers to opportunity is the education system, which is why the Government have prioritised ensuring that every child has access to the high-quality education that they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like others, I have repeatedly raised the need for exemptions for religious schools. For the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, for example, the expression of its faith and treasured beliefs does not sit comfortably with mainstream schooling, and it is the same for many other faiths. If the Government are determined to press ahead, does the Minister agree that exemptions must be made, at the very least, for such schools? On behalf of those Churches, those faiths and those people, I have to say that the Government must think again.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for a rare intervention, but this Bill is about business rates in England. Some of his wider points may relate to the removal of the VAT exemption for private school fees in other countries and nations of the UK. Those provisions will be debated as part of the Finance Bill on Wednesday and, if he repeats his comments, I might be able to address them more specifically.
Today, we are addressing the business rates system that applies in England. This is important because every parent aspires to get the best education for their child, and we as a Government are determined to ensure that those aspirations are met. At the Budget, the Government announced a real-terms increase in per pupil funding, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding.
This funding increase needs to be paid for so, to help make that happen, the Government are ending the tax breaks for private schools, as set out in our manifesto. This includes ending charitable rate relief eligibility for those private schools in England that are charities. This Bill will do that, and its measures operate alongside the ending of the VAT exemption for private school fees, which is being delivered through the Finance Bill that I will be moving on Wednesday. Together, these measures will raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Bill makes provision for maintaining the charitable status of institutions that are wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for pupils with an education, health and care plan. Will the Minister set out the definition of “wholly or mainly”? What support will be put in place for councils to afford the burden of extra pupils moving into mainstream education? Schools will be facing the double whammy of losing charitable status and VAT being imposed on school fees. Hampshire county council is already under financial strain, and it will face a crisis point by 2026-27 under these proposals.
James Murray
As I will explain, the test of “wholly or mainly concerned” is 50% of pupils, or more, having an EHCP specifying that their educational needs can be met only in a private school. I will provide some more detail in a moment.
Of course, the Government have prioritised funding for the state education system in this Budget. The £2.3 billion increase, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding, is possible only because of the difficult decisions that we have taken on taxation, including in the Bill.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the Budget’s prioritisation of state schools should be welcomed? I have talked to teachers in Harlow and, under this Labour Government, they feel hope for the first time in 14 years. Is it not shocking that the Conservative party is still bemoaning the removal of tax exemptions from private schools, rather than focusing on the mainstream education attended by 96% of children?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that we, as a Government, are focused on improving state education for children across the country, because we know that every parent aspires for their child to get the best possible education. That is what our plans seek to achieve, and I would welcome it if the Opposition supported our efforts for the good of children across the country.
Members will have the chance to scrutinise the detail of this Bill in Committee, but I will now spend a few moments outlining how the Bill’s provisions are intended to operate.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that many independent schools, such as Lady Eleanor Holles school and Hampton school in my constituency, are involved in a huge amount of partnership work with schools in disadvantaged areas, like Feltham’s Reach academy, to help disadvantaged children to have opportunities that they would not otherwise get? Does he recognise that both the measures in this Bill and the introduction of VAT on private school fees will lessen that partnership work, which will have a detrimental impact on many state schools?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but what will have a positive impact on state schools across the country is the extra funding that we announced in the Budget. If Opposition Members want to support extra funding for schools, they have to support some of the tough decisions to raise that revenue in the first place. They cannot have it both ways. I know the new Leader of the Opposition is very keen to oppose tax rises while claiming that she supports the investment, but she cannot have it both ways. If Opposition Members want to support extra funding for schools, the NHS and other public services, they have to have some responsibility and accept the decisions that we are taking, or propose some of their own.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?
James Murray
I will come to business rates. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to respond in full in just a moment. [Interruption.] I see that he is impatient to tell us how much he supports the Bill—or am I misreading the signs from across the Dispatch Box?
As I have said, this Bill will enable the introduction of new multipliers in the business rate system from 2026-27. The provisions in this Bill will enable the introduction of two lower tax rates, which may be applied only to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The definition of “qualifying properties” will ultimately be set out in secondary legislation but, for the avoidance of doubt, it is our intention that the scope of these new tax rates will broadly follow that used for current retail, hospitality and leisure relief. These new rates will provide permanent tax cuts, offering certainty to businesses by ending the continued uncertainty of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has been rolled over annually since covid-19.
Our intention is for a lower rate that offers a tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties that currently pay the standard multiplier, with a rateable value between £51,000 and £499,999. Another rate will offer a larger cut to the retail, hospitality and leisure properties currently paying the small business multiplier, which are those with a rateable value below £51,000.
We are clear, however, that any tax cut must be sustainably funded. For that reason, the Bill will also enable the introduction of higher multipliers, which can be applied only to the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above, which represents less than 1% of all properties in England. The rates for any new multipliers will be set in the 2025 autumn Budget in the light of the outcomes of the 2026 revaluation. The Government recognise, however, that it would be inappropriate to take unfettered powers that allowed the Government to change tax liabilities by unlimited amounts. For that reason, the Bill includes sensible guardrails to limit the use of those powers.
The guardrails determine that the two lower tax rates, when introduced, may not be set lower than 20p below the small business non-domestic rating multiplier, and that the higher tax rates, when introduced, may not be set higher than 10p above the non-domestic rating multiplier. Let me make it clear that those values are maximum parameters and do not represent the changes that we intend to implement. They are guardrails that offer sensible limits with proportionate flexibility. They ensure that the Government can respond to future revaluations as well as the changing economic and fiscal context. As I said, the exact rates for 2026-27 will be set out in next year’s Budget.
Alongside the provisions on multipliers, the Bill contains provisions relating to private schools that will raise around £140 million a year. There are more than 2,400 private schools in England, of which approximately half are charities and are able to benefit from business rates charitable relief. The Bill will remove the eligibility of private schools that are charities for that relief. The Bill provides a specific definition of a private school as
“a school…at which full-time education is provided for pupils of compulsory school age…where fees or other consideration are payable for that…education”
or
“an institution…which is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19…where the provision of full-time education…is wholly or mainly provision in respect of which fees or other consideration are payable”.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have questioned how the Government’s plans will affect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. My officials and I carefully considered the design of the policy, and the provisions in the Bill mean that private schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable rate relief. To be clear, in answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), “wholly or mainly” in business rates generally means 50% or more. The Government believe that will ensure that the majority of special educational needs schools will not be affected by the measure.
The measure will operate in addition to the existing business rates exemption for properties used by private schools wholly for the training or welfare of disabled people. That exemption, which we are retaining, means that those types of properties pay no business rates at all. Taken together, the existing and new provisions are intended to ensure that most private special educational needs schools will not be affected by the removal of charitable rate relief.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Given the terrible SEND crisis across the country, does the Minister really think that it is good enough that only “most” of those schools will be exempt?
James Murray
I hope that the hon. Member will welcome the fact that we have committed an extra £1 billion in 2025-26 to high needs funding in the education system. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. I would welcome her support for our measures in that regard.
Dr Luke Evans
I appreciate the Minister making this carve-out on SEND, but I would be grateful if he could give us some statistics. He said that “most” will be carved out. Have the Government done any work to determine how many schools will still fall under the provisions? If not, placing such an impact assessment in the Library would be useful for Members across the House.
James Murray
Let me point the hon. Gentleman to a document that has already been published: “Removal of eligibility of private schools for business rates charitable relief”, which sets out the impact and all the figures that he requests. There are 2,444 private schools in England, 1,139 of them are charities, and we expect that under our plans 1,040 will lose the relief. The schools that are wholly or mainly concerned with provision for children with an EHCP that specifies that their educational needs can be met only in a private school will retain access to charitable rate relief. I hope that that document will give him some of the statistics that he requests.
Let me add a few more details, in case they help hon. Members in understanding the policy. I can confirm that stand-alone nurseries with their own rates bills are not within the scope of the Bill. If they are charities, they will retain their eligibility for the existing relief. In addition, the Bill references independent training providers, which provide valuable vocational training courses on behalf of the Government, ensuring that there are suitable further education opportunities for all. Because of the funding mechanism used by the Government to fund independent training providers to provide full-time education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds, the Bill provides a specific carve-out to ensure that those institutions will not be affected by the measures in the Bill. As previously announced, it is the Government’s intention that this measure will come into effect from 1 April 2025. As business rates are a devolved tax, the measures in the Bill will apply only in England.
The measures in the Bill will play their part in bringing about the change that the Government were elected to deliver. The powers to introduce new multipliers serve as first steps on the road to transforming the business rates system. We are determined to transform the business rates system to support our high streets in a sustainable way, to offer stability and promote investment, and to drive the economic growth that is our mission as a Government. Our vision of a modern business rates system is one that helps to create wealth and decent jobs in every part of the country, and that ensures that high streets serve as the heart of local communities.
We are also determined to break down barriers to opportunity and help all parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. That is why the Bill will make changes to the relief from business rates that private schools that are charities currently enjoy, raising crucial funding to help to ensure that every child has access to the high-quality education that they deserve. The Bill delivers change. Change is what the British people voted for, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House observes that the Autumn Budget 2024 has cut central Government funding for retail, hospitality and leisure business rate relief in 2025-26, and that this Government funding will end completely in 2026-27; expresses concern that the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill represents a stealth increase in business rates on high streets and the hospitality sector, as well as on larger businesses, on top of the Government’s increases in National Insurance contributions; regrets the lack of a proper cumulative impact assessment on the effect on business; notes that the removal of charitable rate relief on independent schools, taken together with the imposition of VAT, will mean fewer children going to private schools and will therefore create extra pressure on state schools, will undermine aspiration and parental choice, and mean larger class sizes in state schools and increased costs for taxpayers; and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.”
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Conservative party has a proud record of supporting businesses on the high street. We cut business rates to support small businesses, including doubling small business rates relief from £6,000 up to £15,000, and almost trebling higher rate relief from £18,000 to £51,000. We increased the frequency of business rate revaluations, making our business rates system fairer for businesses and more responsive to local economic trends, helping businesses to invest, create jobs and grow.
The contrast with this business-bashing Labour Government could not be greater. They have brought forward a mass of new red tape for business by means of the Employment Rights Bill. I note that the Regulatory Policy Committee released its commentary today on the impact assessment, which it said is “not fit for purpose”. It says that the annual costs to businesses could be much higher than £5 billion, and the impact assessment has received a red rating.
The Government have also imposed huge new tax increases on businesses. The worst thing is that they were not even man enough to tell businesses that they were going to do it—quite the opposite—which is why, as much as the Minister says that businesses have confidence in his plans, the Institute of Directors has said that it has seen the biggest one-month fall in investment confidence in its history. The Confederation of British Industry said today that 50% of its members will reduce headcount, and two thirds are scaling back hiring. Is that the kind of growth that he imagined he would bring forward with his legislation?
Infamously, the Labour party promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Next week, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill that reneges completely on that promise by raising employer’s national insurance contributions by £24 billion a year. Labour has also hit business through the family farms tax, and our best family businesses in other sectors by halving business property relief. I remind the Minister that family businesses employ 13.8 million people in this country and pay over £200 billion every year in taxes. The Government are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.
In its manifesto, the Labour party promised to
“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.
In a speech to the House on 12 May 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“We would scrap business rates to help our high streets flourish.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 300.]
The Treasury Minister himself also stated his party’s intention to “scrap business rates” to the House on 25 October 2023. The Bill before us breaks those promises because it does not “replace” or “scrap” the business rates system. Not only that, but as a result of the Bill and the measures in the Budget, business rates are actually going up, both for online companies and businesses on our local high streets—yet more broken promises from a Government of broken promises.
Maybe the Government do not realise exactly what they are doing, perhaps because members of their Cabinet have no experience of starting and running a business. Shamefully, there has been no consultation with businesses about the changes. True to form, the Government have not published a full regulatory impact assessment alongside the Bill on the changes to business rates multipliers. It is a discourtesy to the House and to our constituents for the Government to refuse to consult with businesses, consider the impact their policies will have or publish the information that would allow Members of the House to scrutinise the plans properly. Instead, they are using their majority to ram through the half-baked damaging measures in the Bill.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I find it more than ludicrous to hear the Tories lecturing Labour about red tape. What the Tories have served up to the country through Brexit and the damage they have done to our economy is a disaster. To hear them masquerading as—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Only interventions relevant to the speech in hand should be made. There is no need for that performance.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that it was not the Conservative party that voted to leave the European Union, but the people of this country. We respect democratic mandates.
I hope every Member on the Government Benches who walks through the Lobby to support the Bill tonight realises the price their constituents will pay for that decision. If the Government will not publish the likely consequences of the Bill, let me set out what I believe the consequences will be.
The Government claim to be cutting business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England, but that is not the case. The business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that we introduced cuts 75% off bills, but that support is being reduced by the Labour Government. They are almost halving that relief to 40%, meaning that shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise.
James Murray
Was that 75% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses due to expire in April 2025?
Kevin Hollinrake
As the Minister knows, it had been renewed every year since 2021. The Conservative party supports businesses. When that 75% was passed on in England, the same moneys were provided to Scotland and Wales. What did Wales do? Only 40% relief was passed on, not 75%. That is the Welsh Government’s attitude to business. The Conservative party supports businesses, but the Labour party does not because it does not understand them.
Businesses face a stealth tax from Labour, with a £925 million rise in rates next year. That will add more than £5,000 to the business rates bill for the average pub, on top of £5,000 per year in extra costs for national insurance rises. It will also add more than £9,000 to the rates bill for the average restaurant, on top of the £12,000 national insurance increase, which means an additional £21,000 in total per annum for a typical business.
There will also be an increase of up to £2.7 billion in 2026 through higher business rates via the new multipliers, despite Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase the amount raised by the levy. These tax rises, as the CBI has said again today, will be passed on to workers through lower wages and to consumers through higher prices, making a mockery of Labour’s claim that it would not raise taxes for working people. The British Retail Consortium has warned the Government:
“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”
The Bill will replace retail, hospitality and leisure relief with a lower multiplier for businesses with a rateable value below £500,000. That will be funded by the new higher rate multiplier for premises with a rateable value of more than £500,000, as the Minister set out. Setting the threshold at that higher level is a blunt instrument. I can assure the Government that it will have consequences for businesses that are not big online retailers. It will hit large supermarkets, supermarket delivery, large department stores, football and cricket clubs, conference centres and airports. Some of those on whom the new charges will be levied pay tens or hundreds of millions of pounds in rates. At the maximum level, it will mean a 20% increase to their rates bill.
It is no wonder that the outgoing chief executive of John Lewis has criticised Labour’s lack of business rates reform and warned that, alongside the national insurance increase, this is a “two-handed grab” from businesses. The Cold Chain Federation has warned that the business rates changes and the NICs increases could lead to the cost of food and medicine going up. That might be a double whammy for consumers, as the National Farmers Union has warned that the cost of food will go up because of the family farm tax. The Labour Government do not seem to have thought that through. The Labour party used to say that the business rates system created uncertainty, but now KPMG has described the Government’s plan to change the business rates system, as set out in the Bill, as “creating uncertainty for businesses”.
The Bill is silent on the matter of small business rates relief, which is a lifeline for many businesses on our high streets. When the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution winds up the debate, will he confirm that the Government intend to retain small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament? Business is listening, and it needs to know.
Let me address the sting in the tail of the Bill: Labour’s education tax. The shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), feels passionately, as do all Conservative Members, that the Government are making the wrong decision. This Bill is part of the Government’s education tax, because removing the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities goes hand in glove with the utterly wrong-headed, anti-aspirational and counterproductive policy of charging VAT on private school fees.
Chris Vince
Will the shadow Minister tell us how many state schools there are in his constituency, and whether he will talk so passionately about them when he talks about the decisions that this Government are making to support state schools?
Kevin Hollinrake
The Bill is about raising rates on private schools, which is why I mention them, but I am very happy to talk in glowing terms about the state schools in my constituency, including the one that I attended as a boy and the ones that my children went to. I am for state schools, but I am also for independent education. Why is it either/or? Why would anyone ever tax education?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Stop School Cuts campaign website estimates the combined school cuts since 2010 in Thirsk and Malton, the shadow Minister’s constituency, as more than £70,000. Will he point to where in the public record he has spoken out about that?
Kevin Hollinrake
I was part of the fairer funding formula for schools in my area, which had the worst-funded local authorities in the country. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that schools in my constituency improved under the stewardship of the Conservative Government. Surely that is the key metric, rather than just how much money is put in.
Dr Luke Evans
The impact of taxing private schools with VAT will be that thousands of pupils move out into the state system. That will take away funding. It is already having an impact, but no mitigation has been put in place. The Education Secretary said that 3,000 was not the correct number, but she would not give out the number of pupils who have moved. The Government know those numbers and they need to come clean, because the impact of those pupils moving will eat away at whatever the tax raises.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that 90,000 pupils will be transferring to the state sector as a result of these plans. We Conservatives hold firmly to the principle that education should not be taxed. The only other nation to have tried is Greece, which abandoned the policy within months because of the disastrous consequences.
The Independent Schools Council has said that some independent schools will close entirely and others will scale back the education they offer, causing significant upheaval and disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of children. As surely as night follows day, that will mean fewer children going to private schools and increased pressure on state schools.
I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened me about whether this policy complies with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The legal issues memorandum considers the principle of non-discrimination regarding the difference in treatment between private schools and state schools, but not between private schools that are charities and other charities that will still qualify for charitable rates relief. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.
During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world, a legacy that this Government seem determined to trash. In short, this Bill may be short, but it is long on disastrous consequences. I implore Government Members to think about their local schools and their high street businesses that are about to be clobbered, and about the resulting job losses, higher prices and boarded-up shop fronts. I ask all Members to think about what is in their constituents’ best interests, do the right thing and vote against the Bill.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I will focus on the removal of private schools’ eligibility for charitable business rates relief. Before I was elected to the House I was a scientist, but before I was a scientist I trained as a secondary school teacher. In school, I saw at first hand the dedication and resilience of my colleagues, but I also bore witness to the challenges that they faced—challenges that led many, many teachers to leave the profession after only a few years. I left after only my training year, citing the unsustainability of marking books at 1 o’clock in the morning, planning lessons at the weekend and never seeing my family as the reasons why I could not continue in the profession, despite loving being a teacher. I chose to leave the profession to do something that I feel is much easier: to take a doctorate in engineering.
When I trained 10 years ago, teaching had a profound retention issue, but now it is worse. One in 10 new teachers leaves after just one year in the role; one in four leaves after just three years. Little over half of teachers see their career last more than 10 years. Many are outstanding teachers who do not want to leave the profession. Even now, I miss teaching every day.
The picture in our education system gets worse when we look at maths and science, subjects that I know the whole House believes are vital. The maths teacher shortage began in 2012, and in 2023 the intake of new maths teachers was just 60% of the Government’s target. I was a physics teacher, and in 2023 there were six times as many vacancies for science teachers as there were in 2010. In my view, the failures of the previous Government’s education policy led to this abysmal state of affairs, and they are profoundly unacceptable.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is talking from personal experience about an important part of our education system. He talks a lot about teachers and the previous Government’s failed education policy, but will he take a moment to recognise the vast improvements in our performance in international league tables and the fall in the disadvantage gap in the years leading up to covid-19? Will he at least give some credits to the outputs, not just the inputs?
Adam Thompson
I will come to some of those points further on in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman is willing to hang on for a few minutes.
I trained as a teacher when the former Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath was Education Secretary. He made significant changes to the education system during his tenure, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) has just alluded to. Those were changes that I and the vast majority of my colleagues at the time strongly disagreed with. Those changes ignored decades of pedagogical research and favoured the metrification of our children over learning. They harked back to the rote learning of 50 years ago and set pedagogy back decades.
Austerity was already being very much felt in the sector. Teachers were expected to put in the same effort, but with fewer resources and with their pay frozen. Now it is worse. After a decade of Conservative Education Secretaries following in the footsteps of the former Member for Surrey Heath, teachers’ pay has taken a significant real-terms cut. In many ways, he inspired me to enter politics as a Labour Member—a sentiment that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House share. Opposition Members may challenge me about why I raise these points, but I think they are all part of what the Bill is about. They are about keeping teachers in their jobs, paying them fairly and giving them the resources that they need to give our children the education that they deserve.
The previous Government set a goal that all children should finish year 11 with at least GCSEs in maths and English. That is a laudable goal, which has my full personal support, but last year just 45% of children in England—not even half—achieved it. Only one state secondary school in my constituency of Erewash attained results above that average, and even in that top-performing school, just half their children in year 11 attained GCSEs in maths and English. Every other state secondary school in my constituency was below that 45% average, and at the worst-performing the result was fewer than a third.
I should note that I place none of the blame for those issues on the local schools themselves. I have met several local heads and many teachers, all of whom it is powerfully obvious to me have made incredible sacrifices to deliver excellence in our local education system, and all of whom have been burned by the failures of education reforms introduced throughout the past decade. The people of Erewash elected a Conservative Member of Parliament in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019, and in return the previous Government let their children down.
I have been talking a lot about state schools, which is only natural when they are the schools that 94% of our children attend, but I would also like to highlight the major independent school in my constituency, Trent college in Long Eaton. In the run-up to the election and since then, I have been around as many of the schools in Erewash as I can, and Trent college is no exception. I have spoken many times to staff and pupils, and this weekend I attended a show put on by the incredible Wildflower community choir at the school’s chapel. It is a wonderful school, with excellent staff led by the brilliant Bill Penty. The staff provide fantastic opportunities to all the pupils who attend. The facilities are the best I have ever seen in a school and the staff do a huge amount for our community, but it is a simple fact that the vast majority of my constituents cannot afford to send their children to Trent college and that many of its pupils come from outside my constituency.
A great part of what this Bill is about is making sure that the incredible opportunities received by the children at Trent college, and the aspirations that they are encouraged to have, are available to all children in Erewash. I want every child in Erewash and the country to receive the best education they possibly can. This Bill will support the extension of those opportunities to every child in every state school in Erewash and the country.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful and impassioned speech. Notwithstanding his support for the Government’s policy, I wonder whether he regrets the fact that it is being introduced midway through the year, so that children, including those with special educational needs, will find themselves struggling to get involved with the curriculum and to fulfil the examinations for which they have put in a lot of effort and preparation.
Adam Thompson
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if Opposition Members did not want us to have to take drastic measures to re-establish our country’s economy, they should not have left a £22 billion black hole in it.
I want to flag a particular failure in the education system that was brought to crisis by the previous Government: the provision of SEND education. It has long been under-supported, and after the past decade, things are worse. Opposition Members will claim that the Bill will make SEND provision worse still. Let me tell them that for SEND children and their families in my constituency and across Derbyshire it is scarcely conceivable that things could get any worse. Some 20% of the casework that I receive in my office relates to SEND problems. The recent Ofsted report on SEND services offered by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council found that it had “widespread” weaknesses, that communication with parents was “poor” and that children’s needs were often not accurately identified or provided for. The report is utterly damning—it is the worst Ofsted report I have ever seen—and Derbyshire county council’s failures are extreme. For my constituents, the local elections cannot come soon enough.
I was very pleased when the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £1 billion to support SEND services. Having spoken extensively to parents of SEND children in my constituency, I can say that they are not worried about whether private school fees might increase; they are worried about whether their children will be able to go to school at all. This Bill is about providing equality of opportunity. It is about ensuring that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income does not determine their chances in life. This Bill will provide funds to fix our state schools, reverse the bite of austerity, get more teachers into school and help them to stay there, ensure that all children are properly included, and ultimately provide them with the education they all deserve.
I feel strongly that supporting this Bill is my duty to my Erewash constituents and to its schools, its teachers, its children, their parents and the future of our towns and villages. It is my duty, therefore, to vote for the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Great British high street is on life support. Many bricks-and-mortar businesses are barely surviving and, where they are, it is often against the odds. Changes in our trading relationship with Europe, the covid-19 pandemic, energy prices, the cost of living and the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget have all taken their toll, but for years one measure has stifled high street businesses more than any other: the broken business rates system.
The business rates system is unfair on companies, bad for our local communities and damaging to our national economy. It penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy-efficient. It leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills and it puts bricks-and-mortar shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants. In too many places pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces, and consumers are seeing the cost of this unfair tax passed on to them.
More broadly, this outdated system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy, yet for too long it has been allowed to continue. In their 2019 manifesto, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates to ease the tax burden on smaller businesses. Yet in 2022, when I challenged the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), on his personal commitment to making that happen, he admitted in this place that it was
“Another of the promises I now vainly wish I had not made”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 430.]
Businesses are tired of being treated with such cynicism and of relying on a patchwork of last-minute temporary reliefs. They cannot plan, they cannot invest and they cannot grow. They are crying out for fundamental reform and a new, fairer system. Before this autumn Budget, Liberal Democrats called on the Chancellor to reform business rates completely, with a new system, and to do so no later than April 2026. We believe the new system should be based on our Liberal Democrat calls for a commercial landowner levy—a bold move that would deliver a real shot in the arm for our high streets.
Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, instead of fair reform, this Bill is just more tinkering. Rates relief has been a sticking plaster—but, boy, is that plaster being ripped off in April, with a big reduction in relief. Many small businesses now say that the increase in business rates, combined with the increase in national insurance contributions, will be too much for them to absorb.
Andrew George
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Along with the point I made in my previous intervention about the opportunity for abuse under the rates relief system, particularly by holiday homes, does she accept that the methodology used by the current rating system for parking spaces in out-of-town retail outlets such as supermarkets hands a massive advantage to those supermarkets in comparison with town centre shops, and that we need a rating system that actually levies a rate on that benefit at a level that ensures an even playing field?
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this broken business rates system is unfair in many ways and it is the big giants, online or otherwise, that are getting an easier ride.
The Bill fails to address many other problems with business rates. For example, it does nothing to support businesses outside the three sectors of retail, hospitality and leisure, meaning it excludes key sectors such as manufacturing that are particularly negatively affected by the current system. It does not address the £51,000 cliff edge. Properties with a value over that threshold are not eligible for the small business multiplier, even though they are small businesses, and with rates relief going down, business rates bills for small businesses will go up. From next April, business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure will be cut from 75% to 40% and this Bill does nothing to avert that blow.
The Minister said he wants to rebalance business rates. I welcome that direction of travel, if it turns out to be true, but in the absence of an impact assessment, I am particularly worried about unintended consequences. I say this in the spirit of constructive opposition: it appears as though the Government are moving from a system of temporary relief to a lower multiplier. At the moment, a small business enjoys 75% business rates relief, but a very large chain has its relief capped at £100,000. If I have understood it correctly, independent shops will see their relief drop from 75% to 40%, while big chains such as pubcos and supermarkets may see their relief uncapped, which could give them a tax reduction of tens of millions of pounds. I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to share some modelling to reassure me that that is not going to happen and that we will not see independent businesses inadvertently subsidising big chain stores and multinationals.
The impact of the Government’s changes to business rates will have a massive effect on small businesses in my constituency. The oldest pub in Britain—or so they claim—Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, will see a whopping increase of £30,000 per year in its business rates alone. The Save St Albans Pubs campaign says that even an average pub in St Albans, with a rateable value of £100,000, will face an additional £19,000 in its business rates bill from April. If we assume that an average pub makes 30p profit per pint, each of those pubs would need to sell an extra 60,000 pints a year, or almost 1,200 pints extra a week—and that is before factoring in the increase in national insurance contributions.
Other low-margin, large-premises businesses, such as children’s soft play activity centres, will also lose out under these changes. DJ’s Play runs much-loved indoor play centres across Hertfordshire, which exist in large warehouse-style premises. The buildings are large, but the profit margins are not. DJ’s Play and many others like it provide a valuable and enriching educational experience for children, but they too will struggle to keep their heads above water.
The Liberal Democrats are also opposed to the Bill because it would levy a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities. We are opposed in principle to the taxation of education, because it is a public good. We believe that parents must be given choice when it comes to their children’s education. Many families feel that, whether due to bullying, SEND provision, mental health issues or other factors, the state system cannot meet their child’s needs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One of the first things the coalition Government voted to do was to scrap the Building Schools for the Future programme, which impacted schools in my constituency including Calder high school, Brooksbank and Todmorden high school. Will the hon. Lady reflect on whether that was a mistake by her party and whether it has prevented state schools from being able to provide for more students?
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He may know that during those coalition years, both the health and education day-to-day budgets were protected and it was after the Liberal Democrats left the coalition in 2015 that capital budgets were serially raided to pay for day-to-day spending.
To return to my point, there are almost 100,000 children with SEND in private education without education, health and care plans, and it will be those families who bear the brunt of this measure.
We Liberal Democrats have tabled our own reasoned amendment setting out the reasons why we are against the Bill, but I have a number of questions for the Minister that I would be grateful if he could address in his summing up. Will there be an impact assessment that sets out the impact on small businesses on high streets? Will he exclude any new investment from business rates valuations from April, so that businesses that are able to invest in their future will not see that investment pushing up their rates bills even higher? Will he think again and complete the consultation before unfreezing the rates relief, which could badly affect small businesses and our high streets? Will he confirm whether the change from a system of capped temporary relief to an uncapped lower multiplier will inadvertently end up with small businesses subsidising big corporations?
The Government say that they want growth, and so do we, but these business rates changes will stifle the growth of small businesses and high streets at a time when we should be unleashing it. We urge Ministers to think again.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), I will speak about the removal of the charitable tax status of private schools. I stand here as not just the Labour MP for Wolverhampton North East, but someone who has spent more than 25 years working in state secondary schools as a science teacher and a deputy headteacher. My experiences in classrooms have shown me the stark realities of the funding disparities across our education system.
Removing the charitable tax status of private schools is necessary and fair. Many staff working in state schools across the country will empathise with me when I say that in recent years, something as basic as a class set of glue sticks or reliable access to working printers has become a luxury. We have to make tough choices. We are struggling to provide subject and department capitation budgets for subjects such as science, art, design and technology and music and to provide the resources needed for students to thrive with hands-on learning. We are struggling to fix leaking roofs and fund much-needed support services for vulnerable students. These are not decisions that any school leader should face, but they are the reality in too many state schools. Contrast that with the resources available to private schools, which benefit from the charitable tax exemption, giving them a financial advantage. Is it fair that while state schools struggle to afford basic supplies, private schools enjoy tax breaks that widen the gap? I think not.
The gulf in top GCSE results between private schools and state schools is vast. This year, almost 50% of the GCSEs taken by private school students were at least a grade 7, while less than 20% of results from students in comprehensives and academies reached the same level. By removing tax exemptions on private schools, we have the opportunity to generate an estimated more than £1.5 billion annually. Those funds will catalyse the transformation needed in our state schools. Imagine recruiting and retaining more talented teachers, modernising ageing buildings, expanding student wraparound support services and ensuring that every child, no matter where they are from, has access to high-quality education. This is not about punishment; it is about fairness. Some will argue that this policy could drive up fees, putting private education out of reach for some families, but let us be clear: private schools are businesses. Many have financial reserves, endowments and donations that they can draw on. They can adapt, just as state schools and school leaders like myself have had to adapt and balance constrained budgets for many years.
This new Government’s record on education will be one of fairness and equity. We are investing in early years education, free breakfast clubs, great-quality apprenticeships and staff recruitment and retention, but we need resources to make those ambitions a reality. Removing charitable tax exemptions is a necessary and responsible step in building an education system in which a child’s potential is not defined by their family’s wealth. I have seen what state schools can achieve when they are given the resources they deserve—when a child who once struggled to find their confidence suddenly excels because they finally have the support that they need. Removing tax exemptions from private schools is not just a policy to me; for the students I have taught, the colleagues I have worked alongside and the countless young people still waiting for their opportunity, this is about fairness, just as they deserve.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In my time as a junior Treasury Minister, one important thing I learned was that there is a really good argument against every tax: VAT is inflationary, corporation tax reduces investment, income tax disincentivises work, excise duties typically fall more heavily on lower-income groups and so on. As a result, the policy tends to be, “We will do a little bit of a large number of taxes.” That is not a bad policy, but business rates are particularly troublesome because of their fixed-cost nature—they do not flex to businesses’ sales or profitability or to the business cycle, so they can exacerbate the effect of downturns in the economy or in individual sectors. Business rates discourage start-ups and scale-ups.
Rates fall disproportionately on property-heavy sectors. With the development of e-commerce and delivery businesses, the hurt to those with costlier premises is relatively greater. Due to the accumulation of those factors, UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium estimate that hospitality, retail and leisure account for more than a third of business rates while accounting for under a tenth of the economy as a whole. That matters to us as parliamentarians because of the role that such businesses play in our town centres, village centres, city centres and high streets. There is both the direct effect that an individual shop, café, restaurant or pub has on footfall into the town, and the indirect impact due to the interdependence of businesses and the network effect.
We often lump hospitality and retail together due to the commonality of pressures that affect both, but there are also differences between them. Hospitality has taken on more of the burden of supporting our town centres over time relative to retail, because there are different levels of opportunity in e-commerce—there is some with retail businesses, but there tends to be little with hospitality businesses, because by definition if someone takes something from a vending machine, that is not hospitality.
I support the concept of fundamentally reforming business rates. The world has changed, with the growth of e-commerce and, thankfully, the growth of wages at the lower end of the wage distribution. We need to make a sharper distinction between shops and distribution sheds, but this Bill does not do that. The distinction that the Bill makes in its reform is between large premises with large rateable values and smaller premises. A quick read of the wording of the “transforming business rates” document, which explains the policy, would almost make one think that the changes are designed to distinguish online businesses from traditional retail, but they are not. The document mentions
“properties with rateable value £500,000 or more,”
which captures
“the majority of large distribution warehouses including those used by online giants”.
That is true, but that will also capture lots of other businesses, such as department stores and hotels, which are clearly part of the retail and hospitality sectors. Conversely, some parts of the distribution network of online businesses will not be captured. One very large, well-known online retailer has already moved to a more distributed hub and spoke network with its regional fulfilment approach. I dare say that those one-hour delivery grocery people have even smaller individual premises.
In reforming business rates, I hope that the Minister will consider that they cannot do all the work. I strongly welcomed the previous Government’s introduction of the digital services tax, which was always put forward as an interim measure pending wider reform of international taxation through the OECD. I do not believe a broader online sales tax is likely to be helpful—definitions would become difficult, and the development of some of the small businesses in our town centres that we value could be impeded—but I welcome the Government talking about more frequent valuations. Any reform of business rates must address the cliff edges that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about, as well as another problem that we as MPs worry a great deal about, which is vacant premises.
Right now, I am most concerned about right now. The Government promised that they would raise
“the same revenue but in a fairer way”.
That is not what is about to happen. Let us be very clear: the amount of money to be raised from business rates is about to go up, and it is about to go up on the back of retail and hospitality businesses. The Government will say—the Minister has already said—“But we are extending a relief that was going to come to an end.” Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, there is even a line in the “transforming business rates” document that says the Government will save the average pub £3,300 a year. They may say that, but that is not how it will feel to that pub or to the typical retail, leisure or hospitality business in any of our constituencies when they discover that the relief on business rates is coming down from 75% to 40%. For many businesses, in real terms, that means a doubling or more of the business rates they pay, and we cannot see that in isolation—it comes on top of many other pressures.
The increase in the national living wage is a good thing. The national living wage has been a very successful policy that, since 2015, has reduced the number of people in work on low pay from one in five to less than one in 10. However, I am afraid that the further increase in the national living wage—which I welcome—comes with things that I do not welcome, particularly the great extra cost pressure on employer’s national insurance contributions. A lot of nonsense has been talked about whether that counts as a tax on working people. Everybody knows that in the end, employer taxes on labour only ever show through in lower employment figures or wages lower than they otherwise would have been. On top of that, there are the French-style labour laws. While higher employer’s national insurance contributions may result in lower employment at any individual institution, the effect of the business rates hike will be that some establishments will close altogether.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word about schools, a topic on which impassioned speeches have been made by Members across the House. Most of what colleagues have said will probably be discussed again on Wednesday, when the Finance Bill has its Second Reading—I can assure the Minister that we will be back for that debate, too. Relatively speaking, the measures in this Bill are small compared with the VAT changes. This Bill is projected to eventually raise £70 million for the Treasury and another £70 million for local authorities, compared with £1.6 billion through the VAT hike. These measures also have a relatively small effect on displacement into state schools, but let us be clear: there is still displacement into state schools. That is a cost to the state, but more importantly, when it comes to individual places, it will be a strain on some of our local school systems, on class sizes and, ultimately, on parents’ prospects of getting the first choice for their child—the school they want to go to.
Although colleagues on both sides of the House have said that we cannot talk about the rates alone, but have to put them together with VAT, there are four things happening this year that will increase the amount of money going out of independent schools into the Exchequer. Business rates is one of them; VAT is the second; the third is the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions, which will have a big effect on this sector; and the fourth is the five-percentage-point increase in employer contributions through the teachers’ pension scheme. I estimate that for most schools, that measure on its own accounts for about 3.5% of total costs. All this matters because of the uneven effect it will have on displacements into state schools. Whether a person is in Salford or in Surrey, in Bristol or in Bury, they may find that great and unexpected strains are put on the schools in their area.
This measure, as well as the VAT measure, will also have a disproportionate effect on low-cost faith schools, many of which rely partly on donations to keep going. Those are not businesses that are in some way well endowed; they are doing something because they believe it serves the needs of their faith, something that they cannot find in the state sector. Some of those schools are charging less than the cost of the average state school place in our country, and it seems bizarre that this Government wish to hammer them. It will also create a two-tier charity system in which some charities can be disfavoured fiscally even while complying with their charitable obligations and serving their communities. It is a new and most unwelcome example of state overreach, and I will be voting against the Bill this evening.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I will base much of my contribution on the latter part of this Bill, which deals with private schools. However, before I go into that, I welcome the changes that the Minister is proposing through this legislation that will massively benefit our high streets. The reality is that the past 14 years saw our high streets devastated by the previous Government. In particular, I welcome the permanent lowering of business rates in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which I think will be a huge boost to our high streets.
On the schools part of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to start by mentioning the 14 years of brutal Tory cuts that have led us to this moment, in which state schools are hanging on by a thread. They were abandoned for 14 years by a Government who brought zero investment to schooling—who simply watched the sector struggle through the covid-19 pandemic and left school buildings laden with asbestos or crumbling concrete. They knew that teachers were paying out of their own pockets for school supplies and food for hungry students, but instead of supporting them, the previous Government chose to attack public workers who were close to breaking point. Teachers have long paid the price, leaving the education system in droves, and can we blame them, given the treatment they have had over the past 14 years? In my constituency of Bradford East alone, 95% of schools have faced cuts to per pupil funding—cuts of £15.6 million since 2010. That is over £680 less per pupil.
As such, it is refreshing to finally see a Government share my values and my commitment to not leave state schools at breaking point, with a clear plan to deliver a much-needed lifeline directly to those schools by ending private schools’ eligibility for business rates charitable rate relief and VAT relief. The Minister was right to note that VAT relief is dealt with in a separate piece of legislation that is yet to come before this House, but both are connected in this debate, so I will also make mention of the VAT relief that private schools currently enjoy.
Frankly, the £1.5 billion that will be raised will go towards improving the education and life outcomes of all children by funding the recruitment of thousands more teachers and much-needed breakfast clubs for children. Many will welcome the Government ending the discount on education that the richest schools and the richest parents currently get, because what kind of Government arrange concessions for the wealthiest while working-class children go hungry as they learn? Despite some of the arguments we have heard and will hear, that is not a society that champions freedom of choice; it is one where the wealth bracket of someone’s parents, their postcode and their school determines the success of their life. If we let this inequality entrench itself any longer, we will never be able to end it.
I fully understand and endorse the spirit of the decision to close the tax loophole on private schools, but I also note the growing fear and concern in my constituency and other constituencies, particularly for the smaller independent and faith schools that, as we should also recognise, provide excellent and often specialised schooling for children. That is why I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that, where private schools are charities that provide education for children with education, health and care plans, they will retain the charitable relief, as they rightly should. My view is that the impact on smaller independent and faith schools should be considered too, and I firmly believe that it is not in the spirit of this legislation to punish them. We should draw a clear distinction.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the impact on small schools, which often have pretty low fees, so is he going to vote against the Bill tonight? The spirit of this legislation is to hit everything in the private sector, as if every institution was Eton, when he knows and we know that they are anything but.
Imran Hussain
The right hon. Gentleman is a brave soul because he often tries to defend the indefensible. He and I have often sparred between these Benches, but I would say to him that the place he comes from and the place I come from are distinctly different. I support the spirit and ethos of this legislation because I do not think it is right to give tax concessions and subsidies to the richest in society while the poorest of our kids go hungry in schools, so we come from different places. If he lets me make the point about where I am coming from about genuinely smaller and faith schools, I think it may at least answer part of his question.
When we talk about these schools, let us be clear that the average fees for some of the smaller schools are about £3,000, which is a great deal less than the average. They are maintained through community support and donations, and they are not in the same league as the Etons of this world. They do not reproduce class inequalities, and in fact they enable some of the most deprived communities to flourish. It would be a travesty if these schools were inadvertently punished by a decision designed to tackle the same inequality that some of them work so hard to break down.
If we do not consider the impact on them, the schools charging the lowest fees, which are often located in extremely deprived communities, will suffer and, sadly, the children whose working-class parents have often saved up for many years to get them into these schools will have to leave. Again, while I of course support children moving from that sector into the state sector, the reality is that 14 years of underfunding and under-investment have left us with serious capacity issues in the state sector, which is something Conservative Members may want to address when they speak.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the massive contributions that faith schools make to society. I have a number of Muslim faith schools that do some excellent work in my constituency, and I want to put on the record my thanks to them for all they do. I must therefore urge Ministers to put in safeguards for smaller independent and faith schools, many of which, sadly, will not survive the policy in its current form. This can be achieved, because I believe the money that would be generated from the smallest of these schools is not at a level that would have an impact on the overall spirit of this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are staring at me in a very telling way—although there is no time limit, I know that look. To conclude, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot keep funding tax breaks for the top end of society while neglecting the rest. This is something I have spoken on and championed my whole life, and I believe this policy is the right one for our state schools. However, I must urge the Government to reconsider, and not let smaller independent and faith schools, which are some of the lowest-charging schools, to pay the price. I must urge Ministers to listen to their concerns, and put in safeguards as this and other relevant Bills progress through to their next stages.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I own a high street café.
I am proud that there are so many independent shops and high streets in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset. Midsomer Norton, in particular, epitomises the traditional British high street, with haberdashery, hardware and craft shops. On the other side of the constituency, people need only take a stroll through Frome to stumble across independent cafés, bookshops and tailors. We know that high streets are the centre of local economies and places for community cohesion. They are idiosyncratic to the needs of the communities they serve, and offer local jobs and training opportunities. They also provide social goods. For example, Denude is a zero waste shop in Frome that helps support the local community to live more sustainably.
Yet for the last nine years, small businesses and local high streets have felt the burden of economic instability and other pressures. The shops and businesses that still exist have fought hard to protect themselves, and they have in many ways defied the odds. They have had to adapt to changing consumer trends, compete with the rise of online retail giants, navigate covid-19, and survive the mini-Budget and the subsequent impact on mortgage rates and disposable income, which is still being felt. While still feeling the impact of all this, some businesses will in the short term have to pay both high business rates and national insurance contributions. Small businesses have proven that they are excellent at adapting, but I really do fear the impact that some of these changes may have on our local high streets and independent shops.
Businesses I have spoken to over the last few months often use the phrase that they are “only one bad month away from closure.” While permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure is a step in the right direction, it is still not enough to help our flourishing high streets thrive again, and we know that many important small businesses fall outside these categories. The Lib Dems want to see a complete overhaul of the business rates system. Instead of targeting small businesses, which are the backbone of our high streets and local communities, we want to replace business rates with a new, fairer levy on commercial property owners rather than their tenants. Small businesses can adapt, but not endlessly, and I fear that at the moment too much is being thrown at them with insufficient support.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
At the general election, businesses in my community were crying out for change. They felt the need for stability and certainty after more than a decade of chaos and incompetence had hit them all hard. One of the things they welcomed was Labour’s pledge to reform business rates and ensure that the online giants, which suck so much out of our local economies, would pay their fair share. Small town high streets such as those in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate desperately need the support that a change in business rates will give them. It is vital that we create a fairer business rates regime to support investment and protect our high streets.
More widely, I heard real anxiety on the doorstep about the need for more teachers in our schools and access to quality education, so often unavailable for the 94% of children who go to state schools. Reforming business rates for private schools, which serve only 6% of the population, makes sense; it is carefully costed and will make a difference to so many children in Thanet and across our country.
I hope, in particular, that this reform is a driver to increase access to the creative disciplines so that children can learn to expand, develop and harness their imaginations, appreciate the arts in all their forms, with good-quality creative education delivered by qualified teachers who love their subject. It should go without saying, but it does need to be said, that children raised with good-quality creative education have the potential to go on to contribute to our local economy through the creative industries, including by starting their own businesses.
Our business rates system has disincentivised investment and created huge burdens on our high streets. The Conservative party created a cliff edge for high street businesses across the country as temporary reliefs were due to end. Providing certainty through a 40% relief rate and the freezing of the small business tax multiplier is very welcome.
I welcome the Chancellor’s intention to permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure; this is crucial for constituencies such as East Thanet, where creative industries and tourism businesses are crying out for help. I have been working with the Ramsgate empty shop campaign to revive the town’s high street. Despite its wonderful heritage, thriving creative community and extraordinary environmental assets, Ramsgate’s local economy is far too seasonal, and that makes running a business all year round harder. That in turn has driven many businesses to the brink and left the high street echoing with the silence of empty shops. Spaces that should be seen as an opportunity for entrepreneurs have become a sign of desolation. That must change.
The importance of business rate changes is also highlighted in the other aspect of this Bill: the removal of private schools rates relief. Every parent wants the best for their children; that impulse is not exclusive to those who choose to send their children to private school. There is nothing wrong with ambition. If we are to enable all families to fulfil their ambitions, we must ensure that they all have access to the very best quality education. It is our duty as a society and a country to ensure that all those children’s talents, aptitudes and interests are nurtured.
Vast swathes of working-class children do not have access to the kind of education that would be genuinely transformative. For example, the last Government cut back radically the amount of arts education in state schools, locking working-class children out of the opportunities to find their talent, tap into their imagination, and learn how to play an instrument, express themselves through dance, wield a paint brush, work with clay or look deeply and critically at the world around them and respond to it. They pursued a curriculum that damaged the prospects of those children.
In contrast, private schools know that creative education is good for children’s wellbeing and academic outcomes. That is why they put so many resources into developing it. That is why they allocate the resources, build the assets and invest in the teaching staff to ensure that their children get that access to the creative arts that contribute to society in every dimension.
Unsurprisingly, 40% of those working in the film, TV and music industries were educated at private schools. Who knows the amount of untapped talent in the 94% of children in state schools that we have lost as a country because of the actions of the last Government. It is estimated that the creative sector in the UK is worth £125 billion and employs 2.3 million people. We are limiting ourselves as a country by not giving every child access to creative education. Imagine how much more we could be producing in economic prosperity as well as greater wellbeing if those children had the same access that the 6% have. So, yes, it is right to find that money from the private schools who serve the 6%. Yes, it is right that we find the money for more and better teachers in state schools with a love of the arts; with an enthusiasm for sharing their appreciation and skills; and with an aptitude for spotting talent, rewarding effort and encouraging creativity.
Those small businesses in my community also want to know that the children in our schools become young adults as fully rounded products of our education system, with their imagination, skills and discipline developed ready for the kind of work in the creative industries that drives our economy locally, nationally and globally. If for nothing else, I urge the House to vote for these changes for our children, our small businesses and our economy.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats would like to see a much more fundamental reform of business rates. Although there are promises of further steps, it is disappointing that our new Government, with such a large majority, are not being more ambitious now.
Our high streets will remain in deep trouble. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector will now have only 40% relief instead of 75%, but sectors such as manufacturing, which is having such a difficult time adjusting to a post-Brexit world, will get zero relief. National insurance contributions will be greatly increased, with taxes having to be paid before a business even makes a profit.
On top of that, we all know that our high streets—such as Witney’s beautiful high street, as seen in The Times today—are being eaten alive by online retail. We need to do much more to level the playing field between online and offline retail, but this adjustment is a very, very blunt instrument for doing so. We need to be much more precise about going after big tech and taxing it appropriately.
There are a few steps that we would like to see. A commercial landowner levy that taxes just the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, has worked very effectively in Australia, Denmark and Estonia. A land value tax is much more effective at capturing the publicly created uplifts in land value, rather than leaving it to landowners to pocket them, sometimes with enormous gains. This is largely how our Victorian forebears built our railway network, and it is how countries around the world, ranging from Japan and Korea to much of northern Europe, fund new transport links—something that we want to do between Oxford and Witney.
Scrapping stamp duties on commercial land would make our market in land simpler and more efficient. Switching the tax to the owner rather than the tenant would spare 500,000 small and medium-sized enterprises the admin burden of property taxation and would save money and time in collecting the tax. Ending the exemptions on empty and derelict premises would incentivise action rather than inaction.
We very much hope that the new Government will follow through on their promises to take further substantial steps. After all, they have the votes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the weekend, I watched my second favourite film. At the end, the main character, or at least the main character in my opinion, utters the immortal line that
“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
When I consider the ending of tax exemption and charitable status for private schools, I often consider that line. We want all children to have the best chance in life to succeed, and 94% of children in the UK attend state school. Like every child, they deserve the highest quality of support and teaching. I also believe that ending the tax break on private schools will help to raise the revenue needed to fund our education priorities for the next year.
But then I realised that the phrase “the needs of the many” does not quite cover it. The Conservative party talks about choice, but there are really only two reasons why parents would choose to pay tens of thousands of pounds each year to send their children to private school rather than state school—maybe three if they go to Eton. Those reasons are longer opening times and boarding facilities, and a lack of faith in local state provision. We want to take away the choice to go to private school, but not in the way that the Conservative party keeps parroting; we want to make state schools so good that no one feels the need to send their children to private school. There should be no necessity for private schools.
I think all Members in the Chamber, even on the Opposition Benches, will acknowledge the issues with SEND funding in schools. It has been underfunded. I was lucky enough to visit Newhall primary school in my constituency on Friday. I saw the work it is doing to support its SEND students, even though it is not a specialist SEND school. However, it could only do that with a small number of students. Imagine what it could do with additional funding opportunities: it could help so many more.
What many people fail to recognise is that these private schools have the choice to absorb some of the tax. We are not here to punish students or parents. Schools can choose to absorb some of the tax, in the same way that the state sector has been asked to do for the past 14 years.
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Many private schools actually charge less than the funding that goes to state schools. Every school is not Eton. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the most vulnerable schools and the children therein? Should the proper design of any policy not be grounded in looking at the most vulnerable rather than the strongest?
Chris Vince
It is very exciting to take my first intervention from an Opposition Member, but I think the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the point that I am trying to make. I am saying that we need to support the state sector to be as good as it possibly can so that parents do not feel the need to send their children to private school.
The Conservatives groan when we mention the £22 billion black hole, but I do not even need to mention the £22 billion black hole—in fact, I will not mention the £22 billion black hole. What I will say, however, is that we have high streets that are already boarded up and school buildings left crumbling. I visit state schools in my constituency all the time and I see children of all ages and abilities full of compassion, intelligence and potential. I had the fantastic opportunity to visit St Mark’s Catholic school in my constituency again last Friday. The students asked fantastic questions. If they are listening now, I emphasise that they can aspire to achieve everything they want in life. However, classrooms are overfilled and underfunded. Paint is peeling off the walls, and some schools—not that particular school—have faulty heating. Despite all those things, the pupils could not be filled with more excitement or more desire to learn and understand.
I can see that you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I had better get on. Labour is making the fair choice to support small business, to give every child the chance to succeed and to protect the public finances. I will finish with a line from my favourite film of all time, “A Matter of Life and Death”. At the beginning, David Niven says:
“Politics: Conservative by nature, Labour by experience.”
I am delighted that on 4 July, plenty of people went to the polls with that view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Curiously, the hon. Member did not explain the movie he referred to in opening his speech.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Carrdus school in my constituency is a small private school—it is not an Eton and it is not a Harrow—but it has already announced that it may be forced to close mid-academic year because of the Budget and this Bill.
I met the headteacher the other day. She is a passionate leader who is absolutely devastated by this. She mentioned many of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made about the four main areas. She explained that 80% of the school’s costs are on staff salaries, so the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions is crippling. The changes to business property relief are challenging, and imposing VAT on school fees means that the uplift in fees is unsustainable for many parents. They simply cannot absorb this tax.
After these consistent hits, the school faces little choice but, potentially, to close. That means that 110 children, including children with EHCPs, will now have to plan to be rehomed into different schools, with all the disruption that that causes. The burden also falls on our local councils, which now have the responsibility to find different state places somewhere that will take those children with EHCPs. This is happening when council budgets are already stretched. Our state schools are at capacity, and this will lead to more harm for many children.
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned the importance of creative opportunities. I entirely agree that the arts are vital, but the Budget also hits opportunities for access to the creative arts. The Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust is a charitable organisation that offers children of all backgrounds access to lessons, but the increases in employers’ national insurance and the business property reliefs make it so much harder to offer those lessons. NMPAT is genuinely struggling. It would be devastating to lose such opportunity for our next generation. Regardless of politics, we must remember that it is our children’s education that is being penalised by these measures.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I want to speak specifically about the removal of charitable tax status from private schools. We know that the total proportion of schoolchildren who are in private school is 6%. That means that 94% of children are not. Does that 6% still matter? Of course those children matter. I believe that every child should have access to a high-quality education; I say that having spent years working on the frontline in state education under the previous Labour Government, where the framework for all children’s services was “Every child matters”.
Forgive me if I feel a little angry about some of the chuntering that is going on, because I worked in frontline education when the coalition Government came in. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were working together—and in the first 18 months, what did they cut? They cut the education maintenance allowance, which supported some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children I was working with to go to sixth form. The disadvantaged subsidy pathfinder project: cut. The National Careers Service: cut. School sport partnerships: cut. Youth services: cut. Sure Start services: cut. Sure Start maternity grants: cut. That was all within the first 18 months. That caused the rot to set in within our education system, and it is the very reason why I am standing here today.
At the school gates in the morning—this is a bit of reality—when I drop off my son, I stand side by side with parents juggling jobs and home life, who have ambitions for their child that know no boundaries. Every parent I have ever worked with wants better for their child. Whether someone is financially able to send their child to private school does not change that, yet there is a huge disparity in choice. State schools are struggling. Department for Education figures released in January this year show that last year 13% of local authority maintained schools were in deficit. That is 4% higher than in 2021-22, and there are reports that 19 of those schools are in Nottinghamshire.
In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, the Stop School Cuts campaign estimates that 69% of schools have faced cuts to pupil funding since 2010. That is having a huge impact on the lives of children in my constituency and on their health, wellbeing and mental health. One area of my constituency has the highest rate of male suicide in the whole country.
I regularly meet schools in my constituency. I see how hard the staff work to ensure that children still get a quality education despite the challenges that they face. One of the main challenges is funding. I want to illustrate what that means in day-to-day life. Leen Mills primary school is a fantastic school serving its community and some of the most disadvantaged children living in my community. It is unable to afford acceptable buildings and classrooms for its children to learn in—ones that facilitate learning and are comfortable for pupils and staff. Pupils have to walk outside between buildings—temporary buildings—to use the toilets in all weather, come rain or shine. That should not be the case, yet it is so hard for the school to meet the most basic requirements without having to put up a fight.
The changes to private schools’ charitable tax status will generate additional funding so that we can improve our public services for all children and young people. With more funding for schools such as Leen Mills primary school, all pupils, no matter where they live or how much their parents have, would have the right to access a safe and comfortable learning environment.
The changes are also about making sure that we have enough teachers, in particular ones who know and understand SEN provision. We know—I have seen it—that if we better invest in our public mainstream schools, that will drastically impact pupils with SEN and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It should not ever be that a parent’s only option is an independent private school. That is an indictment of the previous Government—the rot set in with the coalition Government —whose failed education system continues to fail children.
The truth is that education in the state sector has been neglected. How do I know? I see it as a parent. Today, there is a 20% difference between pupils who have access to free school meals—an indicator of poverty—and those who do not at GCSE. That is not an education system achieving as it should.
I see this every day as a parent, as a governor and as a professional. When we get it right, education changes lives and transforms whole communities. This Government will once again transform education so that every child—including every child in my constituency—matters, because education should be a right, not a privilege.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Since becoming a Member of Parliament earlier this year, I have been heartened every time I have heard Ministers confirm that business rates reform is planned. I know what impact business rates can have on town centres through my work as a council leader and my time owning and operating a high street business for nearly 14 years in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole—I do not any more, so I do not need to declare that as an interest. But that was why I was so disappointed to read the Bill, which simply tinkers around the edges and does nothing to fix the foundations of our town centres or about the inequity of business rates between physical and online businesses.
I welcome the higher rate aimed at large warehouses, but it does not go far enough. Those online businesses have sucked the life out of our high streets, and if what the Bill proposes is the extent of the change, it will not support anyone.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is not just favourable business rates that benefit online businesses; they can use tax loopholes to avoid paying the taxes that small businesses pay as a proportion of their profits. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have other mechanisms for raising such funding?
Vikki Slade
I agree with the hon. Member and thank him for his intervention. I was just about to say that we need a proper tech tax on online businesses, which should be ringfenced to stay in local communities, where councils could use it to support town centres in a way that works for them.
Many councils are not able to keep the business rates accrued in their areas; they are set externally and sent elsewhere to support other communities. That is not understood or even appreciated by local communities. I cannot remember the number of times that, as a local government leader, I was shouted at by people saying, “You’re making all that money as a council.” People think that the councils own the businesses and the properties and that they set the rates. The fact is, they are set elsewhere, and councils do not have the power to provide discounts without having to plug the gap not just for their own areas, but for what they send to Government. That is what real reform would look like.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making some wide-ranging points. I think the Government’s policy in this area is excellent. I remind her that there are a range of other policies that local government can implement. I commend my own local council in Reading, where there has been a lot of work to try to keep local small businesses active in the town centre through planning and a range of other things. It is really important to work with the business community. Would she like to comment on that?
Vikki Slade
Absolutely. We were looking to work with the rental auctions that are coming in. When I was the Lib Dem spokesperson in a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago, I was encouraged to hear that they are coming through. I hope that that happens quickly, and that they do not have the loopholes that I feared they would have.
I will move on to my concerns about this policy. We need to ensure that those who profit from businesses pay. Business rates as described in the Bill are not just related to the rateable value but are explicitly linked to the rental value. They bear no relationship to the type of business, its profitability or its broader benefits to the community or to society. I would like to give an example, which I know is accurate because the figures come from the business that I used to own. It predates the retail, hospitality and leisure discount, but that it is not guaranteed to be continued anyway. I think the numbers will startle you.
We owned a café on a high street in an affluent community with an older population, with competition from several sources, including a Costa franchise and a church café, which of course pays no rates. The rent on our café was £25,000 a year. Our rates bill was £19,000. That meant that I was not eligible for a penny of small business rate relief, so my rent and rates bill was around £4,200 a month. In a ward less than three miles away, a café on that high street was being marketed with a rental of just £12,500, and a rateable value of £11,000. Thanks to small business rate relief—I am sure you will say that is a great thing, and it is—it paid no rates, so its fixed outgoings were £1,900.
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not think that we could charge 2.5 times more for a tuna mayo sandwich and a cup of coffee than the café down the road. That is the problem with the way that business rates work. This inequity, and the pressure it put on my business and all those I represented when I chaired the Broadstone chamber of trade and commerce, is what got me into politics. As sad as that is, that is why I got involved and why I stand here today to say to you that the Lib Dems want you to go further. We want business rates replaced with a proper landowner levy, so that it is not the tenants who pay but those who really benefit from the property—the people who own it. The Bill may be a reasonable start, but it does not go far enough. I would love to see you go further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I say to the hon. Lady that I know she will not have intended to do so, but she said “you” repeatedly, and it was very unclear whether she was addressing me. I suspect that the last time it was to the Minister.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Charitable tax relief is meant to be for organisations that do something for the good of society. They get tax breaks because they are supposed to benefit the public, especially those who need it most. But when we look at private schools, we start to see a problem. These schools are not serving the wider public. They charge eye-watering fees, and the vast majority of people simply cannot afford to send their kids there.
Here is the real issue: private schools are benefiting from a process that should be supporting the whole of society. They get tax breaks worth millions of pounds every year, and what do we get in return? An education system that reinforces and upholds structural inequalities. Meanwhile, state schools—the ones that serve the vast majority of kids—are left to scrape by, struggling with overcrowded classrooms, outdated resources and ever-decreasing funding.
The Bill is redistributive, and it means that the moneys going into private schools will be far better spent improving the chances of all children. I want fairness, as do my constituents, and an equal chance for all our children. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Private schools give scholarships, do charity work and help kids in need.” But let us be honest: that is a drop in the ocean. Here is the kicker: private schools are not even charities in the true sense of the word. They might not make a profit, but many of them are run by private companies that make money off investments and land. We all know that the largest private schools in the country have no shortage of cash, yet they still get subsidies that could be used to fix the mess left by the previous Government in our state schools. They do not provide a benefit for the public good; they just prop up inequality and drain resources from the schools that serve the vast majority of children.
I welcome the fact that we are taking a good, hard look at the way education works, and we are putting our money where it does the most good: raising aspirations and opportunities for all our children, no matter their background. That has to be our focus.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who spoke for the official Opposition—he is no longer in his place—described the Conservative Government’s approach to supporting business. I was going to say that I listened to him with interest, but I think incredulity would be a better word. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who is no longer in his place, was rather harsh on the Conservatives. He said that they never followed up on their commitments on business and did not have a clear policy on business. The Conservatives had a very clear and pithily described policy on business: it began with f, had k in the middle and ended with the word “business”. And believe me, they delivered on that policy with their post-Brexit trade deal. In case the message had not been rammed home hard enough, they confirmed it with a Budget that played helter-skelter chaos with the economy.
I therefore sympathise with the new Government’s approach in terms of the Budget they are trying to set and in terms of establishing stability. That is something I would want to support, but I am disappointed that I will not be able to vote for the Bill because of the effect it will have on towns like Wellington and Taunton, which will be hit by a triple whammy. Those towns support some great independent schools, which are charities: Taunton school, Wellington school, King’s College and Queen’s College. They sustain around 1,000 jobs in the constituency, many of which are now under threat. Many workers at those schools—cleaners and catering staff—are worried about what is going to happen.
There are then the very serious effects of the rise in national insurance contributions on small businesses, particularly the many small businesses whose rateable value is over £51,000. That is quite typical for SMEs in a high street in this country—at the smaller end, I would suggest. The owner of Mr Miles Tea Room, a superb place to go in my constituency, has written to tell me about the combined effects of the Budget on his business:
“Firstly, all my staff will now see a reduction in the hours they will be scheduled. As a result, no doubt, some will leave. Where many of my employees already earn over the current minimum wage, I will not be able to increase their pay rates by as much as I have done in the past. Secondly, any full-time employees who leave our employment will only be replaced by potentially 2 or 3 part-time employees. Thirdly, I will not be investing in any capital equipment in my kitchen or new decor in my restaurant. Fourthly, there is a serious potential for me to operate on shortened trading hours, thus reducing the vibrancy of the Town Centre.”
He goes on:
“I was cautiously optimistic that a new Labour Government couldn’t possibly be worse than the previous Tory one in terms of lack of support for SMEs. Sadly, in the space of 3 short months this Government has already proved my optimism was misplaced and there will be many casualties over the next 12 months as the new measures take effect.”
I urge the Minister to reconsider both the effect on independent schools, and I am a great supporter of the state school system—
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
There is an independent school in my constituency, Kingswood House school, which has around 50% of its pupils with special educational needs. Many of those pupils do not have an education, health and care plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools providing support to so many SEN children should retain their charitable rate relief?
Gideon Amos
I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. I am also concerned about the influx of children going to local authorities to apply for EHCPs because they will now need them to get the discount, and about the massive effect that will have on already overstretched local authorities. I worry about how they are going to cope with those applications, over and above the SEN crisis at the moment.
I am a great supporter of state schools, partly because of the record of the Liberal Democrats, who not only ringfenced the education budget in the first years of the coalition, but injected £1.25 billion by inventing the pupil premium, which now injects £3 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) shakes her head, but these are the facts.
Michelle Welsh
The pupil premium funding was actually disadvantage subsidy pathfinder funding, introduced by the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman’s party just changed the name.
Gideon Amos
The pupil premium was new money, and it went into the state school sector. It was £1.25 billion in the first year, and it is worth £3 billion now. It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and was delivered as part of our priority for state schools—but I do not believe in state schools just because of party policy. All four of my children attended great state schools in my constituency: Parkfield Primary School, Bishop Fox’s School, and the fantastic Richard Huish College. The idea that the only way to improve state schools is to level down independent schools shows a shocking lack of imagination and a very disappointing approach to education, and education should not be taxed.
The Minister said earlier that those of us who were going for a different approach should be willing to make clear where we would raise the money, and he was right to make that point. The Liberal Democrats have made the same point, and they have made tough decisions in the past. In our manifesto was a very clear Budget spending plan to restore the tax on the big banks’ profits. It was slashed and then taken away in 2018, but simply restoring that single tax would raise £4.2 billion for the economy. I urge the Minister to adopt the principle that if the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, that should apply in the business sector as much as anywhere else. The big companies, the big banks, the giant online retailers, should be bearing the burden of this Budget, not the small high street firms like Mr Miles in Taunton High Street and the other businesses we have heard about, so I urge the Minister to think further about this.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
National non-domestic rating multipliers: is there any more interesting topic for nearly 9 o’clock on a Monday night? [Interruption.] Quite right: absolutely not. I am sure that the regular readers of my blog would say much the same.
Our system of taxation and local government is the product of evolution and not of design. It has its roots in Elizabethan forms of taxation that have been inherited and altered during the passage of time to adapt to modern realities, and what we are talking about today is yet again adapting to those modern realities. Like many other Members, I am a former local government leader, and I might well have been one of those who were bending the ear of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in asking for this change, because it is well overdue. We have heard town centres described as the heart of the community. What do we actually mean by that? Without a clear public space where the whole of society interacts, towns lack identity and a common sense of bonds between them. They tend to fall apart, and we see social degradation.
Council leaders such as me have spent the last 14 years trying to adapt to the new realities of our economy, spending a fortune in public money and investing countless hours—including countless officer hours—in trying to reinvigorate our town centres to ensure that they live on for the next generation, not simply because that is what we think best but because, overwhelmingly, it is the response that people say they want for their areas. They want their town centres to be vibrant again, and to be a fundamental part of their communities. The problem is that no matter what we do on the ground, no matter how much effort we put in, we simply cannot overcome the huge cost disparity between online retailing and physical retailing in the high street.
One would expect that, where these challenges exist, the state would use the levers at its disposal to encourage an extra boost for what we consider to be socially beneficial, as opposed to what we consider to be detrimental to society. The proposals under discussion do exactly that. They ensure that the parts of our community that our constituents want, which are fundamental to their identity, survive into the coming decades, while also ensuring that those that no longer have the profit margins they once had—surprise, surprise, in Elizabethan times the most profitable businesses were buildings next to the local church—are given a comparable break.
We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about what parties in government over the last 14 years could, would or should have done given the opportunity, but I am sorry to say that they did not do any of it. As a council leader during that period, I was regularly making the case for changes. We were promised changes at various times, but they never happened. The one thing that we did end up with was full business rate retention. My local authority collects £120 million worth of business rates each year and we get to keep £4 million, which puts paid to the idea that words have any real meaning when they are used in connection with some of these policies.
This is the single biggest change that can be introduced to ensure that our high streets survive in the future. I am very proud that, regardless of whatever idealised form the Opposition may wish to imagine could exist, the policy being delivered in the Bill enables us to support the businesses that our communities desperately want, and will ensure that businesses that can afford to carry a bigger load do so.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise in support of the majority of the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Reducing the high street business rates relief from 75% to 40% will devastate the small businesses on my high streets in Batley and Dewsbury, and many of them will not be able to absorb the costs, resulting in job losses and closures. My primary topic, however, will be the implications of the Bill for private schools that do not draw their students from the richest families in our society.
When I spoke out against the introduction of VAT in previous debates, I was accused of not wanting the best for 94% of students in our country. I absolutely love state schools, and I visited Boothroyd primary academy during UK Parliamentary Week last week. The children were so excited to meet me, but I think I was more excited to meet them and their teachers. I also visited a private faith school that charges, I believe, less than £3,000 per pupil and spoke to the pupils there. There are private schools that serve poor working-class families, and there is a reason why these families have chosen to send their children to such schools. Parents would be penalised if we removed that choice. The other challenge that I have in my constituency is that schools are bursting at the seams, with very few, if any, places available to parents. Many children are going to their second or third-choice schools, away from their catchment area.
Let me come back to the removal of private schools’ charitable status, which is an extra burden on top of charging VAT at 20%. Students at such schools overwhelmingly come from low-income families, and this reality often gets lost in the debate about private schools. We are all very aware of their elitist nature. With average fees of over £15,000, rising to £50,000, they service only the children of the wealthiest. It is not the children of the wealthy, however, who attend independent schools in constituencies such as Dewsbury and Batley, where faith schools are often the only option for families who cannot get their children into local state schools due to demand, or where state schools cannot meet their religious and spiritual needs. Those families are overwhelmingly from low-income backgrounds, and the removal of business rates charitable rate relief from private schools will result in a further increase in their fees, in addition to the proposed VAT. For wealthy families, that might not be a problem. For the families in my constituency, it is a major problem.
In addition, the measures will pose a risk to the future viability of many private schools, which often charge just enough to exist. I ask the Government to consider that class is a reality in the discussion about private schools, but not in the way it is commonly presented. In many communities, faith-based schools are not the preserve of the wealthy; they overwhelmingly educate the children of ordinary working-class families. The Government’s impact assessment of the proposals shows that the average cost, per school, of the removal of charitable status ranges from £27,000 to £179,000 a year for faith schools.
This issue is more complicated than measures to raise tax, and it feels to me that some important subtleties have been lost in the debate. For many of my constituents, faith schools not only provide high-quality education; they also provide children of faith with the relative freedom to express their faith and identity without fear of stigma or recrimination. I feel that none of this reality was properly considered when we discussed VAT on private schools, and now, through abolishing business rates charitable rate relief for private schools, that imbalance continues. The Government have an opportunity now to redress that imbalance, and I request that consideration be given to extending the exclusions for special needs schools to include faith-based schools that draw their students from low-income backgrounds. One easy solution would be to exempt from VAT schools that charge below per-pupil state school allowance, and allow them to retain their charitable status.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Last week I visited Jacqueline, a franchise owner who, through sheer hard work and working her way up through the ranks, now runs a number of restaurant outlets in and around Mansfield. I witnessed at first hand her dedication to her business through the manner in which she motivates her staff as a business leader. For leisure and hospitality businesses such as Jacqueline’s, trading is tough, and has been made harder by the circumstances they were trading in—namely, the uncertainties surrounding business rates under the previous Government.
Locally, I stood on a platform to focus on five specific issues across Mansfield and Warsop, one of which was to help improve our town centre. Many in my local town centre are represented by the Mansfield business improvement district, and when I meet up with them, as I often do—sometimes together with representatives of the Shopkeepers’ Campaign—business rates come up time and again. It is clear that we need a fairer system that does not put an unreasonable burden on the small businesses that power our high streets, and that is why I welcome the reforms to business rates that are being made through the Bill.
The Bill will bring certainty and fairness to the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by the current system. I am further pleased to see that the Bill creates the powers needed to ensure that we can make good on our promise to introduce permanently lower rates for those retail, hospitality and leisure properties that make up the backbone of our high streets, including in my constituency of Mansfield, and to pay for this with a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.
As well as speaking with local businesses every week, I also visit schools across my constituency. Last week I visited a primary school that has not turned on the heating in the main part of its building for over 18 months and is reliant on the benevolence of local businesses to provide an essential breakfast club. It simply should not have to be that way, with schools relying on local businesses, and I am sure that it will not be that way under this Labour Government.
In my Mansfield constituency, more than one in four pupils are eligible for and claiming free school meals, and the schools they are taught in are crying out for additional resources to help those young people. We cannot afford to offer tax breaks to private schools operating as businesses when our children’s state education system, which is relied on by over 95% of the children in my constituency, is crumbling. That is why I will be voting to support this Bill, which will end those tax breaks on private schools and help to raise the revenue needed to fund this Government’s education priorities.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This Bill has several issues, but its glaring failure is the lack of immediate support for the many small and medium-sized businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors that are important to our national economy and our local high streets.
The Government claim that they would like to have a level playing field between the high street and the online giants, but this Bill fails to properly address the issue. Many small businesses fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and will therefore see no benefit from the Bill. These small businesses need their tax burden to be reduced too.
Labour’s plan to increase national insurance contributions and business rates will prove too much for many small businesses, including charities in my constituency that tell me their increased national insurance contributions will seriously affect them and reduce the amount of money they can spend on supporting the residents of Wokingham.
Small businesses in my constituency have seen a huge increase in both rent and costs, and they had to do their best to survive under a Conservative Government who trashed the economy. As a result of Conservative policies over the last few years, a household with a mortgage now has at least £6,000 a year less to spend on our local high streets where our friends and neighbours work. What these small businesses need now is a proper overhaul and reform of the business rates system, not a Bill that meddles around the edges to provide ineffective and short-term solutions, and they do not need an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions.
My constituency has approximately 3,585 businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure industries, which is roughly 70% of the businesses in Wokingham. This make-up is not too dissimilar from the national picture, so the Bill will be ineffective for businesses across the UK.
The Bill fails to offer support to the vast majority of businesses that desperately need their tax burdens to be reduced. It is clear that this Bill does not do enough, and so many businesses and charities that are so important to our high streets will be left to absorb all the extra taxation levied on them by the Government.
This Bill will not fix the broken business rates system, and it will seriously damage the retail and small business sector in our economy.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak on this Bill, which introduces the powers required to reform business rates. The Government are committed to a fairer business rates system that protects the high street and supports investment, and I welcome the fact that, in the Budget, the Chancellor set out her intention to permanently lower rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties that make up the backbone of our high streets, including Queen Street in Morley. Of course, this will be paid for by a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.
However, I want to focus on another aspect of the Bill. I am a teacher, so I will talk about the provision that removes the charitable relief on business rates for many, but not all, private schools. This runs alongside our general election commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which we will be discussing on Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Wednesday. Both measures will, of course, increase funding for state schools.
During the general election campaign in July, and in the years leading up to it, I spoke to many parents in my constituency about the removal of tax breaks for private schools. Whatever their stance was on the policy, it was clear to me that every single parent I spoke to wanted the best for their children. It did not matter whether they considered themselves wealthy or not, whether they earned enough to send their children to a private school or not, or whether they lived in New Farnley or Thorpe. Every single one of them wanted the best education for their children.
Like, I suspect, almost every Member of this House, I want an amazing education for every child, irrespective of where they come from or who they are. That is exactly what Government Members are committed to delivering, using the revenue that this Bill, and the Finance Bill on Wednesday, will raise. We live in a country where 94% of all children attend state schools. I fully accept that the parents of the 6% of children who go to private schools have worked very hard to put them there, but you know who else works hard, Madam Deputy Speaker? The parents of kids who go to state schools. They work just as hard in their jobs and professions, yet some may never be in the financial position to send their children to private schools. Those children deserve the best too, so it falls on the Government to take the decisions necessary to improve our state schools.
State schools were plagued by so many crises under the previous Government. I saw the SEND crisis, the concrete crisis and the recruitment and retention crisis myself. In my previous job as head of maths at an inner-city school, if I put out a job advert I would be lucky if I got one applicant per position, and that was not just because of me. That must change, and we must raise the money to change it. Taken together with our commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which I accept we are not debating today, the extra net revenue raised from this policy will be essential to recruit the 6,500 new teachers we promised the electorate we would recruit in the general election. Every child deserves to be taught by a qualified teacher in every single subject.
Alongside our commitments to roll out free breakfast clubs, invest in SEND provision, rebuild the school estate, and increase per pupil funding in real terms, we are choosing to back our children, back our schools and back our country. Given the crisis in SEND, I welcome that those in private schools mainly concerned with the provision of the education of children with EHCPs will retain their charitable business rates relief. By removing the tax breaks enjoyed by most private schools, however, we can invest in our state schools. I will be able to say to the parents I spoke to in Leeds South West and Morley that we are giving their children the education they deserve. I will be able to say that we took decisive action to break down barriers to opportunity for all, and by voting for today’s Bill and the measures in the Finance Bill, I will be able to say to them that we found the funding to fund our state schools properly.
I know that Opposition Members are opposed to these changes. However, the Leader of the Opposition has also stated that she does not object to the positive parts of the Budget, including our investment in education, so my question to Opposition Members would be: “How are you going to pay for it? What exactly is your plan? We know what you oppose, but what do you support?” I think that the Conservatives have made something like £12 million of uncosted commitments every single hour since they elected their new leader. It is hard not to conclude that we are dealing with the same old Conservative party. It is no longer a serious party of government; however, Labour is.
Education is central to our mission of expanding opportunity, enriching our society and empowering our students to be the best possible versions of themselves. Whether they live in Churwell, Gildersome, East Ardsley or Lofthouse does not matter. This Labour Government are getting on with our mandate of delivering change and ensuring that all our children have the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I grew up helping my mum on the shop floor of small gift shops, and my memories of the wonderful work that she did to build that business and the staff she employed is a real benefit to my life. I also saw how hard she worked and how hard things got. She went down from four shops to one, then came across the classic problem of whether she was able to keep her shop open and battle with online retailers. The costs went up, business rates were too much, and she decided to close and go online.
Frankly, I am tired of us not taking support for small businesses seriously and making a change. This Government had an opportunity to make a difference, but they have squandered opportunity when it comes to business rates reform. I see the impact on businesses in my high streets. I have the privilege of representing several magnificent high streets, in Tring, Berkhamsted, Harpenden, Wheathampstead and Redbourn, but businesses there are struggling yet again. Michelle from Graze Life told me time and again about the impact the cost of business rates had on her business; eventually, she closed her high street shop down. I spoke to Peter from the Oakman Group, a booming business that started in Tring in 2007. The company is a rising star and has received prizes for being one of the best places to work for employees, but Peter now says it is on the edge of extinction. He employs 1,200 people but he says the Budget, including business rates changes, will have an impact of up to £2 million on his business, so he will look to close many of his premises.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions several businesses in her constituency that will be impacted by the changes. I spoke recently to a small restaurant owner in my constituency. They have six restaurants across the south of England and they say that the business rates changes, plus other Budget measures, will cost their business £150,000 just to do what they are doing today. Does she agree with me that that will not encourage such businesses to invest in the UK, open new restaurants and help grow the economy, which we all want?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. That is the message I am hearing again and again. Another business owner in Tring said that they would love to open on the high street but they just cannot afford it. The broken business rates system is affecting our businesses, the people who work there and our communities, which are losing out on fantastic local businesses.
The Minister talked about building a confidence to invest, but business rates directly tax capital investment, rather than taxing profits or fixed stock of land. That needs to change. I reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ call for absolute reform of business rates and the introduction of a commercial landowner levy. That will tax the land value of commercial sites, not productive investments, and boost that productive investment, support our local businesses and help communities and local employers.
Many families have written to me about the changes to charitable rate relief for private schools. I support the calls from the Government Benches to improve all state schools, but parents decide to send their children to private schools for many reasons, including special educational needs, supporting their children’s specialist skills or because of bullying. We have a choice about how we raise that money. Instead of taxing the banks, is it fair to be taxing the education of other children to raise that money?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition highlighted a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget, arising from the recent Budget. Some £3.7 billion of extra spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. And in this Bill we begin to see how this Government propose to fill that gap. First, they came for the pensioners; then they came for the farmers; then they came for the students; then they came for the employers; and now they are coming for our high streets, our pubs and our shops, with another whammy of tax rises.
Let us not pretend that this is an essential step. The choices that were made by the Chancellor and this Government in their Budget are driving up inflation and borrowing costs, with the Government borrowing a record amount last month. They are driving up employment costs and councils will be hit, just as they are hitting the rest of our economy.
I reflect that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said in 2023:
“Pubs are the beating heart or the anchor of many communities, and the place where people can get together to tackle loneliness and isolation.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 238.]
Indeed, those are sentiments that many Labour Members have expressed in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall recently. But all those Members who came here to express their support and champion their local pub are about to vote for a Bill that, on average, will put up its taxes by more than £5,500 a year. All this from a Government who promised to replace business rates! Indeed, Rachel from accounts—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean Rachel from complaints admin—went so far as to promise in 2021 to abolish them.
We all know from personal experience, whether in our own families or in our former lives in local government, the value of the diversity of our education system. We know about the increase in attainment brought about by the huge growth in the number of independent schools, in the form of academies, started under the last Labour Government and developed under the previous Government. But we continue to see this spiteful class war attack on schools, and this Bill continues Labour’s war on education.
Several Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned Britain’s former membership of the European Union, and of course this measure to become the only country in Europe to tax education would be illegal under EU law. The Bill still does not fully consider the needs of our special needs schools. Many have a mix of fully private and EHCP-funded pupils, and the balance will change over time. An example is the Gesher school in my constituency, which provides for a significant number of children on the autistic spectrum. One year nearly 100% may be privately funded, and the next year the vast majority will be EHCP-funded. The Bill simply does not usefully answer the question of how such settings will pay their taxes.
Several Members around the Chamber, including on the Labour Benches, have set out their serious concerns about the impact on small faith schools. The Government face ongoing legal challenges on the subject, which is incredibly important if our country is to have the diverse base of education that many Muslim communities in particular have struggled to find in the established mainstream state sector.
Labour Members have poured scorn on our education system, but I remind them of the transformation in state education standards over the past 14 years. Having been a local authority lead member for education for that whole time, I would be the last person to claim that everything in the state sector was perfect. However, we saw amazing progress on closing the disadvantage attainment gap in England under the previous Government, in the context of our progress in international league tables. When we left office, class sizes were stable at 26, which is less than the statutory limit that the previous Labour Government introduced.
As in any democracy, we must ask whether the harm that the policy does to some families and to some children’s education is outweighed by its benefits. We should reflect that if every single penny raised by these policies finds its way to state school budgets—although we already know that that will not happen, because they will also be funding the big increase in Ofsted bureaucracy that the Secretary of State set out for us a few short weeks ago—it will cover less than half the cost of a single teacher in each of those state schools, at a time when pupil rolls in England are falling. It is quite clear that the motivation for this policy is spite and class war, and that it has nothing whatever to do with standards in our schools.
If that were not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has set out the very serious concerns about this plan that we hear from across business and particularly from the retail sector and licensed trade, from the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents the small corner shops that enable our residents to access the goods they need at all hours of night and day, to the very biggest retailers such as Sainsbury’s, which have set out in detail the damage that this Budget and this Bill are already doing to workers’ pay and to the prospects for investment, for pay growth and for training and employment growth in this country.
In reflecting on what we can be proud of from the past 14 years, I draw the House’s particular attention to the fact that when the Conservatives left office there were 4 million more people in work in this country than when we took office; youth unemployment was half what it was when we took office; and the proportion of people in this country earning their own living had grown exponentially. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have set out very clearly the importance of getting it right for our communities. We need to ask whether what is proposed today will generate the transformation. Under the last Conservative Government’s 14 years in office, we saw a 70% increase in school funding, with 77.9% per-pupil growth alone over the past few years, above inflation. It is clear that we have a decent and honourable record on investment in education.
Our retail sector is the largest part of our private sector employment, with nearly 5 million workers. It is clear that businesses in that sector, from the largest to the smallest, are looking at the impact that the Bill will have on their bottom line and are translating that into lower jobs, lower growth and less investment. They are warning this Government very clearly, as Opposition Members do.
I invite the Minister to intervene. Will he tell me whether he is willing to promise that small business rates relief will be maintained? So far, the Government have refused to answer that question, causing a huge degree of concern among small businesses of all kinds up and down our high streets. As the Government move to introduce higher multipliers on business rates, we have to ask whether that signifies that they will also move—as the Labour Government in Wales have done already—to introduce additional higher council tax bands for our residential properties?
It is very clear that as well as coming for the pensioners, coming for the students, coming for the farmers and coming for the employers, the Government are coming for every council tax payer and business rate payer in this country. That is not to fill a black hole, because as we know, the black hole does not exist—[Hon. Members: “Read the OBR report!”]
David Simmonds
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take the hint. I am sure that Government Members have read the views of the Office for Budget Responsibility as avidly as Opposition Members.
Politics, we know, is about choices. We are proud of the choices that we made, which have enhanced quality of life, wages and the economy in our country. We are deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill, and the wider Budget of which it is a part, will have on our national economy and the prospects of our people. We are concerned about the damage that it will do to the life chances of our children. We are concerned that it continues to leave a black hole in our local government finances. For those reasons, we recognise that this is not really a Budget; it is a bodge-it. That is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this enthusiastic and impassioned debate. Whether they were speaking from the Government or the Opposition Benches, their speeches were genuinely rooted in the communities that people live in and that we represent. In a way, it has brought out the best of Parliament, but we could not quite avoid the party politics and the rewriting of history from the Conservative party.
Shall we really take lessons on saving the high street from the Conservatives, who oversaw mass bank closures and the decimation of retail on the high street, with 6,000 pubs closing in local communities? They are now the farmers’ friends, but when they were in government they oversaw the closure of 7,000 agricultural businesses. Where were they when the energy market and labour supply challenges were decimating farmers? They were nowhere to be seen. Now, though, they come riding on the horse—[Interruption.] Would the shadow Minister like to intervene? Come in, please.
David Simmonds
Because he was here for it, as I was, the Minister will recall the last Government’s massive intervention in the energy market to keep our lights on in this country. Will he tell the House whether the Government will keep the small business rates relief? Will he answer that question?
Jim McMahon
I can answer this question: it is the impact that matters. Whatever Opposition Members say as the farmers’ friends, the truth is different: 7,000 businesses closed on their watch. That is what the evidence says.
Let me move on to the reasoned amendment. This Government are fully committed to protecting and supporting our valuable high streets. The fact is that retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief was due to end in its entirety by the end of March 2025, which would have meant a cliff edge for businesses. At the Budget, we stepped in to prevent that by extending the relief further this year by 40%, with a cash cap of £110,000. We have also frozen the small business rates multiplier for 2025-26. Taken together with the small business rates relief scheme, that means that more than 1 million properties will be protected from any inflationary increases next year. That is 1 million properties protected by this Government.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
By the Minister’s logic, are we to assume that support on business rates for hospitality and retail is to end in April 2026?
Jim McMahon
That really was not worth giving way for. I have literally just said that 1 million properties will be supported against inflationary increases next year. The 40% will continue, with a cap of £110,000. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to do. If the hon. Gentleman supports it, he can join the Government in the Aye Lobby and vote for it.
We know from businesses that the current scheme of discretionary relief does not provide the certainty needed. That is why the Bill will enable a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026-27 through new lower multipliers, ending the year-by-year uncertainty that the previous Government hardwired into the system. That is doing what businesses have been calling for. That rebalancing—from out of town to in town, from online to on street—is exactly what people have called for in communities and in business, and Opposition Members know it. Their frustration is that they did not do it in the 14 years that they had in office. It is down to us to take the steps that are needed in government now, and we are happy to do so.
The reasoned amendment raises concerns about the impact on schools in the state sector. I can assure the House that protecting and improving state education is at the forefront of the Government’s mind. In fact, we estimate that only 2,900 more pupils will enter the state sector as a result of the removal of the business rates relief for private schools. Let us be clear about what that means in reality: that goes down to about 300 a year. In any given year across England, 60,000 pupils will move between schools; this is 300. We need to keep that in context, because we have heard a lot of scaremongering about the transfer, but that is what the evidence says. That evidence is placed in the House of Commons Library, in case Members want to take time after this debate to go and look. There might even be enough time to find the documents before the vote if they want to bring themselves up to speed.
Importantly, this is about providing much-needed investment in the state school sector. Just how many parents say, “We need specialist support for SEND, because the mainstream provision is not adequate”? How many parents—by their own admission, among Opposition Members—choose to pay for private education because they do not have faith in mainstream provision? Despite what Opposition Members have said about the glory years of the past 14 years, the truth that parents and pupils on the ground feel is very different, and they know it. We have to repair mainstream provision so that parents and pupils can go with confidence to their local school, knowing that they will get the support that they need—support for all pupils, not just some.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the impact on faith schools. I want to offer some comfort. Of course we value and understand parental choice, but based on the evidence submitted through the HMT consultation, as well as the analysis undertaken by the Department for Education on removing the charitable rate relief, it is not apparent that private faith schools will be affected by this measure any more than non-faith schools. There is no evidence of disadvantage.
Jim McMahon
I want to make progress in the time that I have, and to wind up within the 10 minutes.
The key point is that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools—and they know this—are required to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 relating to British values and to promote an environment that encourages respect and tolerance towards families of all faiths and none.
A number of Members have rightly mentioned SEND provision—it has been a significant part of the debate, for understandable reasons. We have ensured on the face of the Bill that private schools that are charities and “wholly or mainly” provide education for pupils with education, health and care plans remain eligible for business rates charitable rate relief. Furthermore, private schools that benefit from existing rate exemptions for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. Taken together, we believe those policies mean that most private special educational needs schools will not be affected by these measures at all.
We recognise that some pupils with special educational needs and disabilities will be in private schools, but without local authority funding in place, as it is judged that their child’s needs can be provided for within the state sector. Of course, parents will still be free to choose whether to be in the state sector or to remain in the private sector—that is a very important point to make. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plan applications in time for the start of the next school year, but in special cases, the local authority is able to prepay one term’s fees if the process is not complete. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to receive their education, health and care plan in the future.
Turning to high streets, the Government are wholly committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We want to support the businesses and communities that make our town centres successful. That is why through this Bill, the Government intend to introduce permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from 2026-27, in order to protect the high street. That tax cut will be fully funded and sustained through a higher tax on the most expensive properties—the 1% of properties that have a rateable value of £500,000 or more. The new tax rates will be set out in next year’s Budget to factor in the business rate revaluation outcomes and the broader economic and fiscal context at that time.
We were clear in our manifesto that we would look at the business rates system and support our high streets, and we meant it. We know that our high streets and town centres are the beating heart of our communities, but over the past 14 years, they have struggled to keep their heads above water. Think about all those household names that have gone to the wall—that are a thing of the past, not the future. Think about all the banks and pubs that have closed, and about the shutters that have come down on shop premises that were once the lifeblood of where people live. The previous Government had 14 years to get this right, but they oversaw the decline and decimation of our high streets. People feel that in their hearts, because town centres are more than just a place to do business; they are a place for a community to come together. That is something the Tories never understood when they were in government, but it is something that this Government absolutely understand.
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. This Bill is the first step on the road to transforming the business rates system. The measures within it will provide certainty and support to our vibrant high streets, enabling the delivery of a permanent tax cut that is sustainable and that finally levels the playing field between the high street and online. The Bill will also help break down barriers to opportunity, supporting all parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. We need to bear in mind, of course, that the vast majority of children in this country—over 90%—are in state schools. This investment will see them given the support that they need and deserve, and that, frankly, they have waited a long time for. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Because of a problem with the Division bells in Portcullis House, I am going to allow an additional minute for this Division.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper and then the motions to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate. Date Time Witness Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 9.50 am Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 10.20 am Co-op Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 10.40 am Association of Convenience Stores Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 11 am British Retail Consortium Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 11.25 am Institute for Fiscal Studies Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 2.20 pm Dr Malcolm James Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 3.05 pm UKHospitality; British Institute of Innkeeping; Sacha Lord, Night Economy Adviser, Greater Manchester Combined Authority Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 3.40 pm Independent Schools’ Bursars Association; Independent Schools Council Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 4.00 pm British Property Federation Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 4.20 pm Professor Francis Green, University College London Wednesday 11 December Until no later than 4.40 pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 11 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 11 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December.—(Jim McMahon.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jim McMahon.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Jim McMahon.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? No.
Examination of Witness
Gary Watson gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Gary Watson, chief executive of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.50 am.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Gary Watson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee. As a professional body, we have members in both the private and public sectors, so we look at the bigger picture when it comes to non-domestic rate, and the high street is the key part of non-domestic rate, in particular from a local government perspective.
I think it is fair to say that we welcome the focus on the high street. What I mean by that is the giving of some degree of certainty. One weakness, certainly since the Localism Act 2011, is that we have had temporary support—from one year to another. We now have an element of certainty, which is to be welcomed. As a professional body, our concern about giving that support to the high street is to do with the complexity in the rating system. At the moment, we have two multipliers, and we are going up to five or six multipliers. That is difficult for people to understand.
We have had the temporary support for the high street. It is fair to say that the high street is changing; every weekend I go down to my own high street and there are different types of shops. The high street is still thriving, but it is changing in lots of different ways, and the way that the business rate system works needs to be flexible to meet different challenges.
No one high street is the same as another. You have to recognise that a high street in one area of the country is completely different from a high street in another area, but we have a national non-domestic rate system and we very often apply a national system to local issues. Back in 1990, there were no rateable value limits to reliefs; now we have rateable limits all the time, and that means that different areas of the country get treated in different ways. The high street still needs to be a focal part of any Government measures to reform the business rate system.
David Simmonds
Q
Gary Watson: Different issues come out of that. Business rates are a major source of local government finance, and local government needs to plan its finances ahead. On ensuring that the high street is aware of the changes, the longer the notice you give, the better. Local government always reacts very quickly, and the high street should be given as much notice as possible— I would normally say a year, although you could pick a different time period. From a planning and local authority point of view, the longer you do a proper consultation—consultation is going on now—to engage with the local community, the better. There will be different high streets in different areas, so you may have more than one high street to focus on. One example of good engagement has been local authorities working with business improvement districts.
It is right to have flexibility. Obviously there are limits, with the two lower and one or more higher multipliers, and you could argue that that creates an element of uncertainty—not knowing what one multiplier will be from one year to the next. But at the moment, you really do not know what you will have from one year to the next, and that does not allow the local authority or the high street to prepare.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Q
Gary Watson: As a professional body, we sometimes have quite diverse views, because we have those working in local government, for example, and then we have those working in the private sector, and they can have some quite different views sometimes. Standing back and looking at what our preference would have been, before we saw the Bill, the whole relief system is very complicated at the moment. The reliefs do not interact with each other, and it is confusing for the ratepayer and perhaps for the local authority. We could have looked at the reliefs as a whole and started again. What we have are the multipliers, and that is what we have to work with. If we had the choice at the beginning, we might have looked at some more targeted form of mandatory relief, but we are where we are.
The important thing is that we will make it work, and I think the Bill gives the Government the flexibility to change. What you found with the pandemic, for example, was that the property tax system, to some extent, came to the fore, because it allowed Government very quickly to not only get money out of the door but target it to certain types of business.
The key issue will be that, assuming the Bill gets Royal Assent, the secondary legislation has to be very clear on the types of business that the Government want to support with the different multipliers, and perhaps the exclusions that they want to consider. That also allows the Bill to be flexible, so it is not as if that is all you have to work from. By keeping it in secondary legislation, things will change. Importantly, we have found over the last 10 years that, because it is all under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, it allows Government to bring things in really quickly whether or not there is any new Bill. There is no delay, and local government can get that money and support out of the door really quickly. It also allows local government to plan on the financial side as well.
Jim McMahon
Q
With the current system, aside from it being temporary, short-lived and a cliff edge, the business did not know whether it was going to continue, and if it was going to continue, in what guise. It also had the impact of capping the amount of relief that could be given to any business at £110,000.
How do you and your members perceive the high street? From the Oldham perspective, when I look at the high street, national retailers such as Boots and Specsavers are actually the foundation of many high streets alongside local independent retailers, but previously they were locked out of the temporary scheme. It would be interesting to get your views on that.
Gary Watson: In terms of the high street, the companies that you named are there and they are often the draw, which is a benefit to the smaller ones. When we lose some of the more well-known retailers on the high street, those properties do not stay empty too long—certainly the smaller ones—because people move in very quickly. Sorry, I did not get the other part of the question.
Jim McMahon
Q
Gary Watson: That is one of the criticisms of the rating system. Outside of section 47, it was not flexible and could not adapt very quickly. I think it has to be a good thing to have that flexibility both in the multipliers, including the higher one and the lower one, and in how it allows you to direct the particular relief. It is good for the rating system, including those who pay the rates and local government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Q
Gary Watson: I go back a long time in business rates; I was working in rating up until 1990 when it was very much the local authority that set the rate and collected the rate. That was one of the reasons why they went to a national non-domestic rate in 1990. I think the councils have a key role to play. That is why I am keen for the relief system to give local authorities an element of discretion so that they can direct reliefs to certain types of rate plan. That goes for not just the high street but the wider picture.
In terms of ensuring an element of consistency, it was interesting that when the reliefs were coming in during the pandemic, there were a lot of local authorities turning around and saying, “Can’t you just tell us what it is?” Then central Government were saying, “You wanted the discretions and now you want it controlled. You can’t have it both ways,” so I think it is a balance. It raises so much money: all the strengths of a property tax are there for both central Government and local government, and for the ratepayer as well. It is about getting that balance.
Controlling the central rate is right, but making sure that councils have an element of discretion, whether through variance in the multiplier or a particular relief, is something to be considered. But again you have to be careful, because local government is different in lots of different areas. There are different challenges in lots of local authorities, and you are sometimes trying to have a rating system that fits every part of the country. That is why you need that flexibility there.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Gary Watson: I do not see that particularly. The question of appeals is interesting. To pick up on one point on appeals, the thing that we are going to find, if we focus on retail and hospitality, is that at the moment if someone does not receive one of those reliefs from a local authority, the only way they can challenge it is by way of judicial review, which is a very high barrier to meet. What we are finding is that some councils will interpret it and give it, and some councils will interpret it and not give it.
What you will find once the Bill goes through is that those challenges will move from judicial review into the magistrates court. If a council chooses not to give a relief, the challenge would be against a liability order application. I think what you will find is that you will get more cases being challenged at a liability order hearing, because however you draft a provision that says, “These people will definitely get it, these people won’t, and these people are subject to whatever,” those challenges will move into a magistrates court.
You can argue about whether that is the right place to have those challenges. The institute’s view for a long time has been that having all disputes on business rate, whether it be liability, occupation or mandatory—these reliefs—in the magistrates court is probably not the best place for them. The best place for those is probably in the valuation tribunal where the valuation disputes for business rate goes. All the council tax disputes go to the tribunal, but business rate disputes do not.
The revaluation will obviously be the trigger for how many appeals come in, and my valuers have given me a heads up on the areas that will see big increases at the next revaluation. But when you are looking at appeals and you focus on the retail, hospitality and leisure, those challenges will come into the magistrates court. The weakness of that is also that the only way you can challenge it is to refuse to pay the rate to get a summons to go into court and argue to a magistrate. Case law is good because it builds the rating system, but I feel that that might be something to keep an eye on going forward.
I think that there will be a lot more appeals against the billing authority’s decision, whereas at the moment they are not challenged through judicial review, because it is a very high barrier to change. The ratepayer could turn around to say, “Well, that council is giving it to me, but that one is not—can you really go to judicial review?” and the challenge would probably be sensible. In my understanding, we have not seen any since those discretions came in.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Gary Watson: We have the Bill, but all the time we have the small business rate relief, which sits there. Obviously, the issue with that is that it is again limited on rateable values. In one part of the country, rateable values will be higher or lower than for the same type of property in another part. The area that might want to be looked at when the next revaluation takes place is to look at the ceilings on those rateable values. At the moment, for the small business rate multiplier, we go up to £51,000. There is that small business multiplier, so if you are trying to target, once we know what the outcome of the rateable values will be at the next reval, it may well be that the support that you could give would be through uplifting the values, as I said.
On the Bill itself, we have the flexibility of the two lower multipliers. To go back to an earlier question, I think it is right to have that flexibility, so that we can vary it depending on the circumstances. It does give flexibility, but we also need to think about the small business rate relief, and that is there anyway. That might be something to look at, in terms of targeting, when it comes to the next reval. I think that would need more secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Q
Gary Watson: Yes, I think you could look at the Bill giving a framework. At the moment, you have the standard rate and the small business multiplier, and the flexibility with the two lower ones—one or more, depending on how you want to move those forward. From a local authority point of view, there is that national situation, but you then have to look at each of the individual areas, and no one area is the same as another, as I said. They will not always be the same—things will change—and that is where the local authority comes into play, and where you need to have the relief systems in place.
The one thing you have in the legislation anyway—I am sorry to bore you with legislation—is section 47, which allows the local authority to give relief to any ratepayer that it wants to. The only thing it has to take into account is giving due regard to its taxpayers’ interest—and obviously it is, because the taxpayers are benefiting from having a thriving high street. In a way, that relief system is already there, so I think creating the framework is fine. As I said, yes, there is that concern about the complexities of the whole system itself, but you are trying to direct it to make it more agile—as that term has been used.
There is no reason why the framework can be put together through the Bill, but the relief system cannot then be used, say, in the three towns that you referred to—I am a little familiar with those three towns, because one of my council members is from Thanet, so I know it quite well. As I say, I think the relief system is there. The issue you will have then is whether, when it comes to funding those reliefs, local authorities will have all the funding. That is where I always say that you cannot look at the property tax and local government financing separately. When you talk of reforming council tax or business rate, you also have to consider local government finance—the two always have to be considered together.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee for giving evidence.
Examination of Witness
Paul Gerrard gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Paul Gerrard, director of campaigns, public affairs and board secretariat at Co-op. For this session we have until 10.20 am. Welcome.
David Simmonds
Q
Paul Gerrard: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee. The Co-op Group has about 2,500 stores right across the country. They are predominantly small stores; they are convenience stores on high streets and in local precincts. Our rates are significant: they are the third biggest operational cost we have after people and rent, and in 2024 they are expected to be just north of £100 million. Our stores are overwhelmingly small stores in communities, and the point about those kinds of stores and the high streets they are on—
The Chair
Order. Mr Gerrard, can you speak up a bit? The broadcasters are having trouble picking you up.
Paul Gerrard: That is not something I often get told, but I will try to speak a little bit louder.
Our stores are overwhelmingly in the heart of communities, on high streets or in precincts, and they are anchor institutions for many in the community. We saw during the pandemic, in technicolour, how all those local stores are genuinely the heart of communities. That is still true now—it is just perhaps a bit quieter and over a longer period. Certainly for us, when you look at communities that are facing tough and challenging times, you will see boarded-up shops. In a sense, that is the flip of a vibrant high street.
There are obviously bits of this Bill that we do not yet know: we do not know, as the previous witness said, what the revalorisation exercise will do and we do not know the precise multipliers. However, as far as we are concerned, this will have a positive effect on 92% of our estate—a significant impact. It will also, as far as I can tell from the data I have seen, positively impact about 98% of all retail stores.
This Bill will mean, I would expect, that some of our properties, depots and headquarters will pay more, but we think the value that shops bring to high streets—not just commercially, but socially—is important, and therefore we should rebalance. We have been calling for that for a long time. We very much welcome this Bill; obviously the detail is to be confirmed, but the policy principle behind it, to support small stores in communities, is absolutely right.
David Simmonds
Q
Paul Gerrard: We have about 2,750 properties, of which about 220 are not classed as retail, hospitality or leisure. Those will be depots, our funeral business, care homes, our headquarters and so on. We have about 2,500 stores, and of those about 62% have a rateable value of less than £51,000, and just over one third have a rateable value of between £51,000 and £500,000. They will go into what we are assuming will be the two lower multipliers. We do not know what the levels will be below the standard multiplier but, taking the industry’s working assumptions of 10p and 20p, that will have a significant impact.
The properties we have outside that group, which are either non-retail, hospitality and leisure or are bigger than £500,000, make up 20% of our rates bill. They will not benefit—in fact, we would expect the rates bill for the big properties to go up—so there is a bit of a balance, but for us overall, it will significantly support our stores. In addition to our 2,500 stores, the Co-op also wholesales to another 5,000 or 6,000 independent stores. I have talked to colleagues in those businesses and, again, this new structure of rates will significantly support those independent small stores as well.
Jim McMahon
Q
Paul Gerrard: You are absolutely right; many of our stores are on high streets, but a lot are just local stores that will be the corner shop on a street. The rates bill is significant—as I said, it is one of the top three costs that we have, alongside our people. As you know the Co-op has always paid the Living Wage Foundation’s real living wage, because we think that is the right thing to do, and that is for every colleague, regardless of age or employment status. The other top cost is rent, and then the third one is rates.
I do not think we close stores because of rates, but the current rate system makes it really difficult for some stores to be viable. If we then add to that issues around crime—I have given evidence in this place before on that—there are a lot of costs hitting us. The proposals here are particularly important for those small stores. I think about two thirds of our stores are underneath a £51,000 rateable value, and that rates bill will have a significant impact on the viability and profitability of those stores. You are right that, during the pandemic, when we were all told to stay at home to keep safe, my colleagues and shop workers throughout small stores went in and made sure that the shops were open so that people could get food and water to live.
As I said before, I think we saw in technicolour how important small stores are. The retail sector is multichannel and there are lots of different parts to it, and those different parts play different roles and have different impacts. Small stores are the beating heart of communities. We have done some work, which we are just refreshing, that says that, if you have vibrant high streets, you have better mental health. You have a whole range of better outcomes, and those small stores are at the heart of it.
Jim McMahon
Q
Paul Gerrard: I think it is very welcome. We are a national business of little shops; we have 2,500 little shops all around the country, and those little shops bring different economies of scale from, say, a big box in a huge retail park on the outskirts of town. This is very much looking at the kind of shop, rather than the kind of business, and I think that is important. As I said, we wholesale to 5,000 independent stores, and we see this all the time. It is about the nature of the shop, where it is and the impact it has on communities, not just commercially, but socially. A few years ago, we ran a campaign with the British Red Cross on loneliness, and our colleagues would tell me that very often, for the most vulnerable people in societies, the only people they would speak to were in the local shop, such as my colleagues in the Co-op or staff in a Nisa or a Sainsbury’s Local. They are really important as a kind of shop, and that is what I think this Bill recognises.
Vikki Slade
Q
Paul Gerrard: Your underlying point that businesses like certainty is well made, because we do; we try to plan ahead. If I think back 18 months to the energy crisis, that was unforeseen and caused a real problem. You are absolutely right that certainty is important. Also, though, there is flexibility depending on the economic circumstances at the time—the pandemic allowed a different flexibility—so I think there is a balance there.
What is important is that, in deciding that, there is real transparency and openness. I spent 20 years in government, much of it in the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as it was then. I would say of my time there that perhaps we were not always that open and transparent with business. The more openness there is, and the more that officials can advise Ministers based on what is happening in the business community, the better. I am relatively comfortable about the structure; I think it is the ways of working that are important.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Q
Paul Gerrard: I think I am right in saying that the Co-op has the biggest quick-commerce business in the country. People order through aggregators and their orders are delivered from our stores; that is something that we have within our business model. Clearly, there will be costs going on to some of the depots and distribution centres and, to keep this revenue neutral, that will bring extra costs. I think that is the price of revenue neutrality. In the round, the impact on small stores and local shops will outweigh the potential risk around home delivery. As I said, we have a home delivery business; I think our quick-commerce business is the biggest in the country for small, quick deliveries. You are right to flag the risk, but in balance we would say that it is a positive thing that we are supporting brick and mortar shops as much as we can.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Q
Paul Gerrard: Certainly. I will make a couple of points. The last time I looked, about 95% of retail was microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. From the data I have seen, 98% of retail stores have a rateable value below £500,000. So this helps 92% of the Co-op but, from what I have seen, it helps 98% of the broader retail sector.
In my experience and the Co-op’s experience, high streets and precincts are not made by one business, but you often get one business beginning to drive vibrancy in that place. If one business can make it work, you attract custom and those customers might want to buy other things, so you will get a ripple effect from that. I think this will help communities, because it will make it much more viable for those small stores—either independent traders, or small stores of national businesses like the Co-op—to be in communities. I think the ripple effect will be significant. As I said before, there is a commercial thing there, but, as you alluded to, there is a hugely important social and community perspective as well.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q
Paul Gerrard: As I said before, local stores, of which the Co-op is an example, play a hugely important social role. They are also economic and commercial entities. We employ 55,000 people. The vast majority of my colleagues are either in stores—as in your constituency—or in our funeral care homes or our legal services business, so they are customer facing. What the Bill does is make our business model of small shops more viable, which means that we can continue to employ people.
It also means that we can continue to behave in line with our co-operative values and principles. As I said before, we have always paid the real living wage, with rates set by the Living Wage Foundation, and we have always sought to have a different kind of product in store, in terms of its ethical roots. The Bill will help us to continue to do all those things. On 21 December we will have done it for 180 years. The Bill will play a role in helping us, as will other measures that the Government have taken.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Paul Gerrard: In terms of broader analysis, we supply about 7,500 stores, including our own 2,500 stores. I would not term it deep analysis, but our impression from the conversations that we have is that the Bill will support those kind of shops—not just our own, but shops in local communities. The data I have seen that has been shared across the sector says that about 98% of stores have a rateable value below £500,000. If the limits are set at £500,000 and £51,000, it will significantly support those. The majority of that 98% have a rateable value below £51,000 as well. I cannot remember the first question, I am sorry.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Paul Gerrard: Thank you. We are very much a convenience business, so the average size of our stores is about 3,000 square feet. I can think of a couple of stores that are bigger, but they are very much legacy stores from many years ago. In general, our approach is to open small stores—convenience stores—so the question about how the Bill will affect our decision to open bigger stores does not really apply. We are very much a small store operator.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Q
Paul Gerrard: As I think I said in an answer to an earlier question, it is one of the factors that we will bear in mind. I do not think it would necessarily be the deciding factor to either open or keep open a store. There will be other things that we would take into account, such as crime or a change in demographic and footfall. It is a factor, but I am not sure that it is the determining factor.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Secondly, you said that the Bill may have positive effects for your smaller stores, in that you may be able to employ more people, and I wonder whether you can expand on that. The Co-operative shops in Truro and Falmouth are having issues at the moment with theft and violence against shop workers, which is not good, and the BID is providing support. Would the Bill give you the leeway to employ more people, even security people?
Paul Gerrard: I will start at the beginning, and hopefully cover all the questions. This is good for the Co-op Group as a whole. There are ups and downs, because 8% of our estate would not benefit—indeed, it may cost us—but overall it is a good thing. As well as being a director of the Co-op Group, I am a board member at Co-operatives UK, which is the apex body, and this is good for the co-operative movement. That is the first point.
At present, the rate system does not incentivise improvement or growth. There is a link to your question here: for example, if we put in CCTV to keep our colleagues safe, our rates bill goes up. If we put in air conditioning, not just for food safety but to reduce the ambient temperature and so the amount of refrigeration we need, our rates bill goes up. The rate system should incentivise growth. The structure—the two rates for under £500,000 and under £51,000—does incentivise investment and growth, and for us that would mean more shops and employing more people, but I am not sure the way the reliefs work does that. As I understand it, the improvements relief has to do with the shell of the shop, so putting in CCTV or a coffee machine will result in an increase in rates. So that structure definitely incentivises growth, but there are details about whether the system as a whole does.
The Co-op has been very loud on the issue of crime, and I have been to this place a number of times to give evidence about it. We very much welcome the rates proposals. It is self-evident that the changes the Chancellor made on national insurance contributions will cost us money, but we understand the choices that were made. What got a bit lost was what the Government announced on crime: a £5 million investment in Pegasus, 13,000 officers and the stand-alone offence. That will impact us: crime costs us £120 million a year and costs the sector £3 billion a year, so if we can make any kind of dent in that, we will get the leeway that you talked about.
Seeing these things in the round is important. On crime, it is about colleagues and security—we have doubled the money we spend on security—but it is principally about the way businesses and the police work. If businesses and the police work well, we can begin to tackle crime. The work that Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman, at North Wales police, has done in the past year on behalf of all police forces has been important, and we are beginning to see a much-improved police response.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Q
We have seen the demise over the years of many local stores—not the Co-op, but generally, the store in the middle of the community that knows the local people. When I worked at my local store, I knew that if someone did not turn up for their Sunday paper, there was a problem. Promoting that sort of community feeling crosses all Government Departments, not just those dealing with health and wellbeing. Do you think the Bill will help to ensure that your local stores become more accessible and that you will maintain your connections with your community, and that it will be about working with the Government in all areas that deal with combating poverty and child poverty and improving child health?
Paul Gerrard: The short answer is yes. Fundamentally, the Bill will ease the burden of rates on small retail and leisure premises. That is the bottom line. Two thirds of our estate are below £51,000; they are the sort of shops you just described. The Bill will significantly reduce the burden on them and on shops between £51,000 and £500,000, so I think it will help.
In a number of things we have done, including our loneliness campaign, and in tackling retail crime, we see how shops in general can be anchor institutions for communities. I do not think we always recognise that in policy, but I think the Bill does recognise it in saying that that is, by definition, a good thing. Government could think more about what all sorts of retail can do—not just economically or in terms of jobs, but in terms of the impact they can have in communities. The Bill recognises that as a policy principle, and I think that can be a first step to thinking more about the way shops support and function in communities.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
Order. That is outside the scope of the Bill.
Paul Gerrard: I can write to you after the session to explain the relationship.
David Simmonds
Q
Paul Gerrard: We have looked at the Budget and other measures in the round. It is not an insightful thing to say that the employer NICs changes will certainly cost a significant amount of money. On top of that, we have the real living wage; as I said, we pay the Living Wage Foundation living wage, which has cost us probably £160 million over the last three or four years. So there are headwinds coming toward us. I would not underestimate the impact that tackling retail crime could have. It costs the retail sector £3 billion and the Co-op £120 million, so if you can make a 10% or 20% reduction, it will be significant. As I have said, I think the rates proposals are good for the vast majority of retail.
Looking at it in the round, the headwinds we will have to face and the supporting winds are becoming clearer, which allows us to plan. We have plans to grow our business. The environment is challenging—retail always is—but overall we think we are beginning to get the certainty we need. For a national business consisting of small shops, like the Co-op is, we think the rates proposals are really supportive.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Mr Gerrard for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Edward Woodall gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Edward Woodall, Government relations director at the Association of Convenience Stores. We have until 10.40 am for this session.
David Simmonds
Q
Edward Woodall: Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence. The Association of Convenience Stores represents the UK’s 50,000 convenience retailers, which trade from premises under 280 square metres—very small premises. To give you a sense of scale, the absolute biggest retailer would have a store that is double the size of a tennis court, and most are smaller than that.
The Bill is very helpful, because most of those stores will benefit from the lower retail, hospitality and leisure relief multiplier. Some 71% of our sector are independent retailers, and a large majority will benefit from the lower £51,000 rateable value threshold. In that sense, it is very positive for the sector, but it is also very positive for the places where they trade. We talk a lot about high streets—we use that as the shorthand term—but actually most of our members trade from secondary shopping parades. About 70% are in those secondary areas, servicing a neighbourhood parade—a small block of perhaps five shops—so they support the provision of services very locally, close to where people live and work. In that sense, the Bill is very beneficial. It will also hopefully help to give some more certainty and permanency to the support to the sector in the long run, and certainty about investments that they can make in the future.
I will give you some examples. For a convenience retailer just outside the small rate relief threshold—with, say, a £15,000 or £16,000 rateable value—if the multiplier were set 5p lower, that business would save something like £1,000 a year. If it were set at 20p—the full extent of the flexibility—the business would save something like £3,000 a year. Those are quite reasonable sums and would enable it to consider investing elsewhere. It could be in new software to help it manage shifts or new a CCTV system to help it address the issue of crime. So overall, the Bill is very positive.
On the question about post offices, there are, I think, 11,500 post offices in the UK, and about 8,000 are hosted within convenience stores in a Post Office Local format. There are lots of other services, such as parcel collection and bill payment. Service provision, which is very high volume, low margin, is a big part of the convenience store business. Sustaining them is challenging within the existing environment, so it is important that the support is targeted in that way.
David Simmonds
Q
Edward Woodall: Small business rate relief is incredibly important for our membership as it helps the very smallest businesses to get relief. It also has some very specific features. It is automatically applied, and there are tapers between £12,000 and £15,000 rateable value. It really supports the very smallest businesses in our sector, which trade in rural locations and often serve isolated communities. We are very keen that, with any change in business rates legislation, we get some reassurances that there is a strong commitment to retaining small business rate relief. As much as the multipliers are very helpful to businesses at the larger end of our membership, it is really important that we protect that small bit. The small business rate relief is a great mechanism for doing that.
We have lots of suggestions about how we might improve small business rate relief in the future, to make it work better for more retailers. With the upcoming revaluation, we are likely to see higher retail prices and, as a result, the thresholds need to index up with that higher cost, otherwise businesses are going to start to slip out of the small business rate relief support. Certainly, as much as we welcome this Bill, we would like to hear more about what we can do to improve small business rate relief, to help the smallest businesses in isolated locations.
Jim McMahon
Q
Edward Woodall: Very much the majority of the membership. The breakdown of the membership is that about 71% are independently operated across the convenience sector, and the other third are operated by multiple retailers—they might be a Co-operative, a Sainsbury’s Local or a Tesco Express. The large majority of those premises will sit under the £51,000 rateable value or still use the standard multiplier. Of course, when you take into account hospitality and leisure, we understand that that will be lower as well. So overall, most convenience retailers, as small format retailers trading from spaces under 280 square metres in secondary locations, will benefit from the lower multiplier.
Jim McMahon
Q
Edward Woodall: On the multipliers, we will have to see if the rate of the multipliers is going to have an impact overall. I gave some examples of where you set the multipliers determining how much businesses can invest. What is described in the Bill is well targeted for retail, hospitality and leisure, to support the areas my members trade in and the types of businesses that the communities want in those locations. If we look at our polling about the most desired services on local parades, convenience stores, post offices and pharmacies come top, and all of those trade out of similar premises. Hopefully, it will help our sector, but it will also help the other businesses that trade in those locations as well to continue to deliver those services too.
Vikki Slade
Q
Edward Woodall: If you talk to convenience retailers now about business rates, what is in the front of their minds is the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has gone down from 75% to 40% from April next year. That is a big hit, among a cumulative burden of other measures that were announced in the Budget. That is concerning for them. They talk to us a lot about that, as part of the overall Budget package being challenging—and it was a big challenge, with £660 million costs for the sector.
That said, we knew that the retail, hospitality and leisure relief was introduced as a temporary measure during the covid pandemic, so we welcome the fact that it has not disappeared completely but has been tapered. We also welcome the principle that is set out in the Bill that we are giving a bit more permanency to support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street in the future. There has been a cycle of changes in the policy over time, so hopefully this will give us a bit more of a stable footing to understand that. That does not just help us; it helps the other businesses from the retail industry that are thinking about investing in those locations too, but also those from hospitality and leisure.
Patrick Spencer
Q
Edward Woodall: I certainly think there should be provision of support for rural businesses, particularly those that are the last ones serving a community. They deliver essential services to those communities, and there is a cost to that community if they have to travel elsewhere. Whether it is possible to do that through the legislation is an interesting question. This was picked up in some of the previous evidence that you heard this morning, but there are measures within local authorities’ existing powers to issue discretionary relief to support those locations. That was previously called rural rate relief but it has been taken over by small business rate relief.
The challenge is whether local authorities have the funding to administer that relief. I think it is quite challenging to do that in the Bill, because you get into a space where you start adding more complexity by identifying regions or locations in national legislation. Actually, what we often see is that there are more differences within a region than there are between regions. I agree with the principle of what you are saying, but perhaps the existing powers of local authorities to do that are better, but they probably need support and trust from the Government to allow them to administer it well.
Adam Thompson
Q
Edward Woodall: I tried to give some examples earlier of how businesses might invest. I suppose the first question is: where are the multipliers set? I would encourage the Government to use the flexibility to enable the best possible investment. As the example identified, if you have the multiplier set at a lower rate, the business is starting to save thousands of pounds. That is an opportunity for them to think, “Right, I can update the CCTV system. I might be able to add some new security measures in store.” The Bill can facilitate that investment. I should also say that, with the overall pressures on retailers at the moment, the cumulative burden is very big. They also might have to use that money just to keep operating and managing the costs that go up as well. This Bill can facilitate investment, but the Government have to think about the overall investment environment for retailers, not just through the rates bill by itself.
Harriet Cross
Q
Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.
Mrs Brackenridge
Q
The Chair
I will allow you a brief comment, Mr Woodall, but that is out of scope of the Bill.
Edward Woodall: I was trying to demonstrate earlier that where you put the multiplier depends on how much businesses have to invest as a result. If you are a store but just outside the small business rate relief and the multiplier is put down by 5p, you can save £1,000, or down by 20p and you save somewhere just over £3,000. There are options about the different things you can invest in. The lower that we are able to put the multiplier, the more opportunities there are to invest. One of the investment areas, and £1 billion of what our sector invested last year, is a defensive investment in CCTV to ensure that stores and colleagues are safe. Hopefully, that will help us in future.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Edward Woodall: That is a good observation. Some of them might take that to invest in additional service provision or the things in the Bill that I described. Others might have to say, “Look, the cumulative impact of the costs that we are facing is big, so we have to use that money in the space of continuing to trade.” That is starker with small business rate relief—about a quarter of the retailers say they use small business rate relief to be able to stay trading, with the changing operating environment as well. Different businesses will make different operational decisions about how they use the money. Some will try to address that cumulative burden and others will invest in other locations. I do not have a figure for the entire sector on how they will allocate that.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Edward Woodall: We talk to them all the time about such questions. Perhaps it is something we can address in our written evidence to the Committee.
Mr Sewards
Q
Edward Woodall: On the Bill, I think I have said on a number of occasions that we welcome the fact that it brings more structure and that the overall principle is about long-term support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and the areas in which they trade. In terms of that principle, we very much welcome the Bill; overall, businesses welcome greater certainty about how they invest into the future, so I welcome that in the context of the Bill.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for this witness. I thank Mr Woodall for his evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Helen Dickinson OBE and Tom Ironside gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Helen Dickinson: Hello, everybody. My name is Helen Dickinson. I am the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium. We are the trade body for the retail industry. Our members constitute all sorts of retailers; they sell both online and through shops, right across every category. We have about 200 members. We also have within our membership the various trade associations that represent independent retailers. We are the lead body for the retail industry.
Tom Ironside: Good morning, everyone. I am Tom Ironside, director of business and regulation at the BRC. My team have responsibility for property policy, including business rates.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
That is slightly out of scope of the Bill. Could the witnesses comment on it within the context of the Bill?
Helen Dickinson: Certainly. I will kick off. I have been doing this job for 12 years, I think, and business rates have always been a big issue for retailers of all shapes and sizes. There have been many attempts over many decades to look at how the system could be reformed. That recognition that the business rate system as it stands disincentivises investment in communities up and down the country is very welcome. The starting point is a great recognition that there is a need to reform that system. It is also great to see the importance of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in that context and to be thinking differently about the business rate system and how it applies to those businesses, because for many other industries, business rates are a tiny proportion of their cost base, whereas for retail and hospitality, it is a much more significant part of their costs.
Our headline, in the context of welcoming that and all the potential that it has to stimulate local investment, is that it does not necessarily go quite far enough to be able to deliver the scale of investment and far-reaching change that we need to see up and down the country. The reason for that has to do with the level of £500,000 and above for the threshold. About 4,000 shops currently sit above the £500,000 rateable value threshold. Many of those shops sit on high streets up and down the country. Many of them are what in retail we might call anchor stores: they drive footfall. That is part of the ecosystem where larger businesses and smaller businesses all co-exist, and that is what makes successful high streets.
From a retail point of view, because those 4,000 shops potentially are captured by the threshold, they are, in the way many businesses think about investment, looking at what their customers want in local communities and whether that is an out-of-town shop or a shop in a high street. If you are penalising some shops to support other shops and hospitality businesses, the ability for the ecosystem of investment that we want to drive to reinvigorate high streets is being held back.
I think that is a big question, because of the way the whole Bill is set up. Does that work in the context? Are there enough other properties that are not retail and hospitality businesses to be able to still achieve the parameters of the Bill and the self-funding mechanism that it creates? About 12,000 other properties that are not retail, hospitality or leisure businesses sit above the £500,000 threshold. For those businesses, that business rates change, if there is a higher multiplier, is a tiny proportion of their profits—I think our modelling suggests about 0.2%. For all of the other companies right across the economy, this is a much smaller issue than it is within the retail industry, and the hospitality industry for that matter.
We think that either through the Bill or through some sort of assurance from Government that they will look at it—as I understand it, it does not necessarily have to be done through the Bill and the Government can actually make that decision outside it—we need to really think about how those over-£500,000 properties should be taken out of the upper-level funding elsewhere. The ability to support retail and hospitality businesses in their totality is the way that it should be thought about.
To touch on a bit that may be out of scope, this comes in the context of the significant cost changes that the Budget and particularly the national insurance changes represented. Again, just to put some numbers out there, we looked at this, and the cost of the national insurance change is about £2.3 billion across retail and hospitality. We are talking about a potential benefit of about £1.3 billion if you include all of retail within the scope of the Bill, so it is a lower amount, I suppose, than just the national insurance change. That is another reason why we think it is really important that we include all shops—the context being that nobody ends up paying more, the smaller shops end up paying less, and you just take those larger shops out of the uplift as the way to really drive that investment in local communities.
David Simmonds
Q
Tom Ironside: On the existing system and its fitness, or its ability to actually handle what may arise, I think there are long-standing concerns about the ability of the appeals system to respond effectively, with long backlogs and people reporting that they exit one revaluation not having resolved issues from the previous ones. There are real long-standing issues that need to be tackled.
Inevitably, if you look at the approach that is being taken, the introduction of a new threshold will create additional tension for companies that sit just above that threshold, and that is likely to increase the number of appeals. It may also have an impact on investment decisions as you get close to the threshold, because there is a marginal tax rate impact, which could be very significant if you move from being in receipt of a discount for retail property through to seeing an upward multiplier under the existing proposal.
Jim McMahon
Q
Also, although it can be portrayed—and has been during this evidence session—that the relief is being decreased from 70% to 40%, the truth is that the temporary relief over covid was due to come to an end. That was a cliff edge, but this measure provides a permanent relief in legislation, which gives certainty over the long term. It would be interesting to know the views of your members on that.
Helen Dickinson: I just heard the end of the previous session. Obviously we have got to get to the point of implementation, but once we are there the long-term certainty is going to be really important. I completely understand the context in which the covid support was given and how valuable that was. Painful as it may be for many businesses when transitioning from a higher discount to whatever the new system might be, longer-term certainty outweighs that because we will not be limping from year to year waiting to see what that might look like.
In the context of your point about the proportion of businesses and shops that would benefit from the proposals as they stand, I completely agree that the 4,000 shops I mentioned is less than 5% of the total number of shops. Where it becomes much more difficult is that, if you look at that small proportion of shops, it is about a third of the rateable value of all shops.
If you think about it within a retail context, what we are effectively doing is penalising some shops to support other shops. In the competitive landscape of retail, where businesses are competing for consumer business day in, day out, it is distortive to competition. We completely agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, but we think the line should sit outside retail and hospitality, rather than being drawn within retail—and hospitality, she says, with her retail hat on. Does that answer your question?
Jim McMahon
Q
Is it not also the case that many of your members who will occupy premises above the £500,000 will be the larger footprint occupiers, such as supermarkets and big department stores? If we were to move the centre of the cross-subsidy entirely over to warehousing and distribution, they would pay it on the back-end anyway, because Tesco, Sainsbury’s and the rest have huge warehousing and distribution models in their business.
Helen Dickinson: I am trying to think of the best way to answer that without going into too many details and numbers. Again, I agree that with the cross-subsidy we are not talking about going from one to the other within retail. If you look within retail, the rateable value of all of the small and medium-sized retail properties is about £9.2 billion, and there is an additional £4.6 billion of larger properties. Taken together, that is about £13.8 billion, with one third large and two thirds small. As you say, there are many other properties that sit outside retail, including warehouses and distribution centres, but also offices. In fact, I think the biggest chunk of that is offices. We are not just talking about things that will impact retail, like warehouses, coming into the other side of the equation; we are talking about all those other sectors as well.
Going back to what I said at the beginning, if the objective of this is to stimulate local investment in communities—that has to be the goal, because we all, as consumers and customers, want to see our high streets and town centres flourishing and vibrant with a diversity of offer—then we have to be able to find a way for that funding to come from right across the spectrum of properties, whether it is offices, distribution centres or whatever else sits outside. The modelling we have done shows that that is possible within the context of the framework you have laid out.
Tom Ironside: Just to be clear, are we talking about the exemption of shops above £500,000, not the exemption of other sorts of properties?
Jim McMahon
Let me make a point of clarity for the record. The 7.5% of total rateable value of the overall business rate tax take was just for retail, hospitality and leisure. It does not take into account offices or warehouses. I thought it was important that we set the context correctly in framing the conversation.
Tom Ironside: We can provide you with clarity on the figures, which we can lay out in a subsequent note, if that is helpful.
Vikki Slade
Q
Helen Dickinson: I will start and then hand over. Tom highlighted earlier that whenever you have a threshold of some description, there will be a cliff edge risk. I know it is a goal of the current Government, as it was of the previous Government, to ensure that small and microbusinesses get the support they need to be able to grow. There is recognition right across retail that there is a case for a higher discount for really small businesses as they begin to grow and a next-level discount, for want of a better description, for those above that. The threshold risk is there, but the improvements proposed in the discussion paper, which are not necessarily in the Bill, about transparency from the Valuation Office Agency on data and the processes it goes through should at least give a greater ability to get through the appeals process and give people more clarity and certainty. That will hopefully avoid at least some of the consequences of those thresholds.
That is a long-winded way of saying that there is recognition that there needs to be a greater discount for really small and microbusinesses. You have to set a level at some point. Is £51,000 exactly the right figure? Whether it is £51,000 or £500,000, it is important that it indexes with inflation, because otherwise it will get eroded over time. Whether that needs to be in the scope of the Bill is part of the way to address your question. I do not know if that helps. Tom, do you want to add anything?
Tom Ironside: On that final point, in 2001 there was around £40 billion of rateable value on the list. Now we have about £70 billion of rateable value on the list. It is inevitable that if you do not have some sort of uprating mechanism—we have identified the £500,000 threshold, but I suspect that you could make an equal case for the £51,000 one—you erode the benefit and purpose of what is being set out. We feel quite strongly on that front.
The Chair
We have one minute left and two Members have indicated that they want to speak.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Helen Dickinson: It would not just be supermarkets; it would be larger shops.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Helen Dickinson: There is absolute recognition that there should be other exemptions for larger premises if the goal is about retail, leisure and hospitality.
Jayne Kirkham
Then you are looking at a much bigger thing.
Helen Dickinson: The proportion in retail is much bigger than the proportion in leisure. We will share some data with the Committee, because we looked at retail and hospitality as well. I agree that it should be both.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of our allotted time. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Stuart Adam gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to oral evidence from Stuart Adam, senior economist on tax at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. For this session, we have until 11.25 am.
David Simmonds
Q
Stuart Adam: It basically does not do anything about them. We can argue about the pros and cons of what is in the Bill, but it is largely separate from our concerns about it. The discussion paper raises a couple of potential reforms for the longer term that are more related to it. My view is that there is an issue about possibly more frequent than three-yearly revaluations, and particularly trying to shorten the antecedent valuation date period from the valuation to when it takes effect from two years to one year, which would be good. Actually, my ideal would be to move to a land value tax for commercial property, which does not seem to be on the table. Things such as reliefs for improvements for a certain period have been introduced and there is something in there about whether that is working well and should be extended. I have a set of concerns about business rates, but they do not really have much to do with what is in the Bill.
David Simmonds
Q
Stuart Adam: There are two sections in the Bill, obviously: one about multipliers and one about private schools. We should probably separate those as they are very different issues.
In terms of the changes in multipliers, this gets widely misunderstood. What gets left out of the equation is essentially the economics, and specifically what the consequences will be for rents. Basically, business rates are not what is killing the high streets, and changes to business rates are not what will save it. As a rough first pass—and we can nuance this quite a lot—when business rates go up or down, rents tend to go down or up almost pound for pound in the long run, which means that business rates do not have a big impact on the cost of premises. That is much more about the supply of property.
There are several nuances to that. One is that to some extent business rates affect the supply of property and that will feed through into rents and affordability. You can think about the effects that this would have on the incentive to build bigger or smaller properties, or properties focused on retail, leisure and hospitality versus other sectors; or the incentives to use properties in one sector versus another; or indeed whether properties are used for commercial purposes or housing, and so on. There will be some effect from those things, and that will affect affordability as a knock-on consequence. That is clearly longer term and second order, and things like the planning regime are much more important.
If you take the supply of properties as given, to that extent, changes in business rates get offset by changes in rent. For example, in the case of the rise in business rates for properties with a rateable value of more than £500,000, I would expect rents to fall by a similar amount over the long term. Again, “over the long term” is a caveat. That is therefore a one-off hit to the owners of the land rather than to the occupiers of the property.
With reduced multipliers for retail, leisure and hospitality, the position is a bit more complicated because it depends on the extent to which there can be shifts of use in properties between different purposes. If properties used for retail, leisure and hospitality are stuck for that purpose and cannot be used for anything else, the same applies, but if shops can be converted into offices and vice versa, the situation is more complicated. We expect that, overall, the reduced multipliers would lead to an increase in rents, but a smaller increase in rents for all properties. Retail, leisure and hospitality would therefore become more affordable, but only to the extent that offices, factories and so on become less affordable. It would still wash out overall in terms of rents, and the beneficiaries would be the landlords rather than the businesses occupying and using them, but there can still be a shift between retail, leisure and hospitality and other sectors of the economy.
Jim McMahon
Q
Stuart Adam: I disagree. I think there still would be that shift over the longer term. Again, these things take time as rental contracts adjust as new tenants are found for premises. The theory is reasonably clear and the evidence that we have, which is fairly thin, supports it pretty much completely. I emphasise that in the short run we would absolutely expect respite for retail, hospitality and leisure sectors at the moment, until there is time for rents to adjust. One thing to bear in mind is that we have had more generous reliefs for retail, hospitality and leisure in recent years, and some rents have been renegotiated during that period. It is also possible that if people, firms and the market expect reliefs that are more like 75% to continue, rents may have gone up, and the fact that the relief is less generous than what it replaces means that they will be worse off in the short run than if the reliefs had never been introduced. Obviously, they are still better off than they would be if the relief were removed completely. My expectation is still that that will be reflected in rents over time.
Jim McMahon
Q
Stuart Adam: The short answer is that we have not, and I am not aware of any good empirical study of what that was likely to do. It is slightly interesting and strange the way it evolved, because of course it was introduced as a relief in desperate times during covid. But as covid was coming to an end, it was made more generous rather than less. It moved up from 50% to 75%, if I remember rightly, at that point. Again, I am absolutely not disputing in any way that it did provide and does provide much needed respite, particularly at times of crisis, but as a long-term permanent thing I do not think the effects are the same.
One thing I completely welcome is that whatever you want to do with this—setting it up as a clear, long-term part of the system rather than having year-to-year uncertainty as to what the number will be and whether it will continue and so on—and whatever decision you make, making it a permanent part of the system is a very good thing.
Vikki Slade
Q
Stuart Adam: There are a number of questions. One is how far the rates should be set locally versus centrally. Obviously there was a history there of them being centralised in 1990. There is a question as to how much localism you want. If you are going to have local taxes, property taxes are a pretty good choice—housing more so than business property taxes. But if you wanted to localise more taxes, business rates would not be a bad choice. There might be things you can do along the lines that we have seen already about, for example, having a ballot of local businesses as a requirement and that kind of thing. There is a case for whether it should be local or central—I do not have a strong view either way.
There is a question as to how far the revenues should be redistributed across the country and whether areas that get more business rates revenue should have more funding as a result. That, again, comes into a broader question about the local government finance system. It is not obvious that just happening to have more high value businesses in an area is a good reason for that area to get more revenue. I think there is a better argument for things such as business rates retention, where you want to give local authorities some incentives, some reward, for having more businesses, encouraging them and generating local economic growth and so on.
There is then a question about whether, even if it is set centrally, the rates and thresholds of business rates should be different across the country. It is not obvious to me that there is a good argument for that, but it is not obvious to me that there is a good argument for it being different across different sizes of business or sectors, either. I would not rule out that you could make a case for it. In those other cases in terms of smaller businesses and retail, hospitality and leisure, you can make a case for it. I am not saying that you should never have any variation, but I would want to hear that argument made clearly. In terms of variation across areas, I do not think I have heard that argument made.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Stuart Adam: I think I would disagree. Actually, it is possibly even more true in the cases where properties are owned by big, faceless corporations, because clearly they will want to set the highest rent they can get away with, but the amount of rent they can get away with will depend on the demand for that property, and the demand for the property depends on the level of business rates and rent attached to it.
You would expect rents to adjust in the long run. How long “the long run” is is an interesting question. There is some evidence that it starts to happen in a relatively short period—something like three or four years—but the evidence on that is not great. The rent adjustment probably happens more quickly than it would have 20 or 30 years ago, because commercial rent contracts have become shorter and there is more use of things like commercial voluntary arrangements, which allow rents to adjust more quickly. It can take a fair number of years before rents are renegotiated, contracts come to an end and so on, but I would still very much expect it to happen.
Jim McMahon
Q
Stuart Adam: Yes, I think that is right. There is an interesting question as to why so many properties are left empty for so long, when it would seem to be in the landlord’s interest to have anyone in there paying them something, rather than no one in there paying them anything. There are certainly aspects in which the market does not function well, but on the whole it still looks to me like a market where, basically, prices are determined by supply and demand, and such evidence as we have seems to support that.
Patrick Spencer
Q
Stuart Adam: Broadly speaking, yes. The rule of thumb that, in the long run, rent will change with rates almost pound for pound will apply across different types of property and location. There is a difference where the tax on the premises is not fixed, for example where it depends on what the premises is used for: I do not think it is the case that reliefs for particular sectors get reflected pound for pound, because the use of the property may vary.
Patrick Spencer
Q
Stuart Adam: There are a couple of slightly different things there. The first is that you may have a chain of ownership: possibly a very short-term sub-let, a let, a long-term leaseholder and then the ultimate freeholder. How far and how quickly it gets passed up that chain will partly depend on how long term the contracts are, how easy it is to renegotiate and so on.
The second thing, when talking about what happens as rents adjust, is that a minority of businesses, but a sizeable minority, own their own premises. In the long run, they may not be affected in their capacity as tenants, but they are still affected in their capacity as landlords to themselves, as it were. One way to think about it is that it is almost lump sum redistribution across owners of different properties. If you own the property and your business rates bill goes down—there is no rent. You can imagine charging rent to yourself, but the reality is that you just have a lower bill to pay.
That is a one-off gain in the sense that you could sell that property and get more for it in the same way, so you are just better off if your business rates bill has gone down. Someone else looking to buy it would face a lower business rates bill, but they would have to pay more to buy the property in the first place. So yes, businesses that own their own premises would benefit from a business rate cut—or lose from a business rate increase if we are talking about those above £500,000— in their capacity as owners, essentially, rather than their capacity as the business occupying and using the property.
Ms Billington
Q
Stuart Adam: First of all, I do not want to say that it will do nothing to help. It will certainly do something in the short run, and I am also giving the quite extreme case—the very purest—in the long run. Even in the long run, it will not be quite as simple as I am painting it. There will be some help, but as I say, it is more second order than first order. I also agree, as I emphasised earlier, that the certainty will definitely help.
I also think that we can look at other parts of the business rate system. The treatment of empty properties—empty property relief—is one, which is much more important and more directly targeted at actually getting properties back into use. I know that the Government are concerned, as the discussion paper mentions, about exploitation of empty property relief by people cycling in and out artificially and things like that. I also think that a lot of the struggles of the high street are not caused by business rates. Things such as online competition make a huge difference, and are not driven by business rates.
Ms Billington
Q
Stuart Adam: What I am saying is that there is a big difference in business rates, but if the business rates are not changing the overall cost of the premises—rent plus business rates—they are not making much difference to the competition. The fact that people can easily shop online is fundamentally what is driving it, rather than business rates. The fact that high street retailers have to pay rent and rates in a way online retailers do not, at least not to anything like the same extent, is absolutely a driver of the difference, but I am just saying that the business rate component of the cost of the premises does not have that much impact on the overall cost of premises, because of the adjustment to rents.
There is a broader question as to what can and should be done to protect the high street. That is largely outside my area of expertise, but I know other reviews and studies have been done on that. I am largely going to duck it because it is outside my expertise, but there are things that can be done outside tax.
Adam Thompson
Q
Stuart Adam: I would be interested to see which papers on Google Scholar you have seen—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions, and for this sitting. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting)
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
The Chair
I remind Members that they must declare any relevant interests before asking questions or speaking to amendments. I am the third person, I think, who Members have had in the Chair for this Bill Committee. We continue with our witnesses.
Examination of Witness
Dr Malcolm James gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 2.20 pm for this segment. Dr Malcolm James is a tax and accountancy specialist and a former senior lecturer in taxation and accountancy at Cardiff Metropolitan University. Before I call the first question, I remind Members that they must remain within the scope of the Bill, which is tightly defined, and that we have to stick to the timings. I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Dr James: With reference to the private schools?
David Simmonds
In this sitting, the evidence has so far covered both private schools and high streets. You are a tax and accountancy specialist, so you have a broad overview. Is that correct?
Dr James: Yes. The vast majority of private schools are charitable institutions; as such, they have no owners. Therefore the effect of tax will have to be borne in one of two ways: the institutions will need to bear the cost through a reduced surplus, or they will need to pass it on, in whole or in part, to the families of the pupils, by raising fees.
It is clearly no coincidence that the Bill follows hard on the heels of the imposition of VAT, which will come into effect, I believe, at the beginning of next month. There has been an awful lot of coverage, of one sort or another, of the effect of that change. We are looking at the removal of the discount, which is something like 80%, on non-domestic rates. That will increase their property taxes. Although it will doubtless not be as significant as the imposition of VAT, it will have an effect. They will have either to absorb it or to pass it on to the families of the pupils.
David Simmonds
Q
Dr James: I have every sympathy with the families of children who have a variety of special needs, and I do not want to see them suffer in any way, but I want to address one of the points that private schools make, which is that the parents are virtuous and self-sacrificing because they pay again for education and thereby relieve the state of a burden.
In this country, unlike countries in the eurozone, we have a sovereign Bank of England, which creates the pound sterling. It is not revenue constrained, even though the Government usually tend to behave as if it were by convention. There are real economic factors that restrict the amount that it is wise for the Bank of England to produce, or to allow the Government to spend into circulation, but the availability of money is not a limiting factor. There is therefore no inherent reason why the state cannot provide education for children with special educational needs; it is just that various Governments of various complexions have chosen not to do so.
The question is always about the transition, because whatever we do, things are not going to change overnight. You do not want to disadvantage pupils who are currently in the system or will shortly go into the system, but there are workarounds. I do not know whether you remember this, but the parent of a child with special needs was going to be one of the people put forward to front a judicial review to challenge this proposal, and she pulled out when significant funding was found, so there are workarounds if the will is there. In the longer term, there is no inherent reason why it has to be done by the private sector.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Q
Dr James: I am sorry; I am having a bit of difficulty hearing what you are saying distinctly.
Jim McMahon
I think that rather than hearing a case from the evidence sessions that asserts that this does not need to happen, which we have just spent five minutes doing, it would be helpful to get a sense from you, given that the decision has been made to do this, of your assessment of the impact and the mitigations you would propose, within the scope of what is being proposed, to counter that.
Dr James: For schools providing for special educational needs, you can always amend the Bill to exempt certain types of school, or certain situations with certain pupils. There is a bigger question of social justice: it is well known that the alumni of private schools are disproportionately represented in all sorts of professions, including Parliament. I have a quote here from a paper that that says that parents know that what they are paying for is lifelong membership of an exclusive and superior club. Talk about saying the quiet bit out loud! We can provide scholarships and exemptions for special educational needs, but—
Jim McMahon
Q
Dr James: That indicates how far there is a problem with this and how far this is being used as a stalking horse to try to frustrate the bigger objective of reducing social inequalities.
Jim McMahon
Q
Dr James: I am sorry; I am having difficulty hearing what you are saying.
Jim McMahon
These are evidence sessions where we try to glean insights that we have not previously had to inform the Bill and any potential changes. But I am struggling to get from the evidence so far a real sense of the impact. If there is a pound for pound impact with this measure—the business rate treatment for private schools—it amounts to, on average, just over £300 per pupil if it is passed on in its entirety, which is less than £1 a day. On that basis, what assessment has been made on the impact of that from your perspective?
Dr James: I have not actually looked at the impact of this particular measure in detail. I have looked at the impact of the taxation in general, but—
The Chair
If we speak closer to the mike, it will pick us up—the witness is not hearing.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dr James: If they are retaining their relief, hopefully they should not have to. It would be very detrimental for people with children with certain types of SENs to have to move schools—not just to the state sector: move schools full stop.
The Chair
Any more questions for Dr James? No. In that case, we can move on to our next witnesses. Thank you, Dr James.
Examination of Witnesses
Kate Nicholls OBE, Steve Alton and Sacha Lord gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from UKHospitality, the British Institute of Innkeeping and the Greater Manchester combined authority. We have until five past 3 for this session. We are reliably informed that Sacha Lord, night time economy adviser for Greater Manchester, is on his way. In the meantime, will our two witnesses introduce themselves?
Kate Nicholls: Good afternoon. I am Kate Nicholls. I am chief executive at UKHospitality, which is the national trade body that represents hospitality businesses. We have 750 member companies. Between them, they operate 150,000 outlets across all parts of the UK—single-site, independent pubs, bars, cafés, restaurants, nightclubs and hotels, all the way through to the largest national and international chains.
Steve Alton: Good afternoon. I am Steve Alton. I am the chief exec of the British Institute of Innkeeping. We are a professional membership organisation for individuals in the licensed trade, with 13,000 members across the whole of the UK. The vast majority of our members run single pubs, independently. We provide a suite of services, from supporting members with the professional advice that they may need to providing platforms to celebrate what great pubs do in communities, to qualifications and apprenticeships.
The Chair
We have until five past 3 for this block of questions. We start with the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
Q
Kate Nicholls: Looking specifically at this Bill, in particular, and just at those measures, I think hospitality is overtaxed when it comes to business rates. It has been for some time. If you look at the system without reliefs, hospitality pays around 12% to 13% of all business rates, but represents 5% of GDP. If you look at the system with rate relief, the high street businesses—hospitality and retail—even with those reliefs, pay 34% of all business taxes.
There is a disproportionate burden, and it has grown over time. That is particularly because there has been a move towards there being more online businesses, whereas ours are bricks and mortar, and they are in prime locations. You cannot provide our services online, so we are in high street locations, where the businesses are heavily invested. Hotels and pubs are taxed for business rates on the basis of their turnover. They can be high-turnover but low-margin businesses, therefore they bear a disproportionate burden of tax.
Reliefs have been in place for a considerable time. Through the covid pandemic, they were a vital lifeline. However, reliefs are annual discounts and they are sticking plasters. They show that the system as a whole is failing, and a systemic failure needs a systemic solution. The Bill is a systematic solution to the problem because it seeks to permanently rebalance the online and the offline—bricks and mortar, and clicks and mortar—so that there can be a permanent discount. The fact that it is permanent means that those businesses can have the certainty and stability to be able to invest over a three to five-year rental period and over the period of a revaluation.
That permanent rebalancing is undoubtedly welcome. It is a change for which we have been pushing for a considerable time, and it will materially impact and benefit the businesses that we are looking to support—the high street businesses so vital to employment across our communities—for a longer period of time.
Steve Alton: I would agree with my colleague on the core points. Pubs are uniquely disadvantaged for two reasons: first, they have to occupy those buildings at the heart of communities and high streets; and secondly, they employ huge numbers of people, many in their first job, and many part-time workers. That is why—contextually; I appreciate this is outside the scope of the Bill—the impact of the national insurance contributions is hitting employees incredibly hard. That is because of the large proportion of part-timers we support in our industry.
Business rates are business critical—they have been in terms of relief levels. Last time, when we achieved the 75% relief, that saved a huge number of pubs. That said, because of the compound impact of energy—that is still ever-present: we are paying double the rates that we were paying pre-pandemic—there is still a structural issue in the market. In addition, food and drink inflation has had compound inflation within it. We have been running at 20% a year for the past couple of years.
Then, obviously, there are labour costs. While we pride ourselves on paying above the minimum wage in many scenarios, we have many stepping-on points in our trade for the start of careers, be that front of house or back of house. We pride ourselves on accelerating those people forward. However, we obviously need a large number of those individuals within the business.
The business rate relief that we received was key, but even with that, things have been pretty perilous. We check in with our membership on a regular basis. Even before the Budget, only one in four of our members was making a clear profit, and half would at best break even. That is before the measures announced by the Government, so the compound impact of those announcements has driven our membership to believe that 80% of them will be unprofitable. Some 75% are cutting paid hours, one in three are making redundancies, and one in four fear that they will be untenable, and that they will fail as a business, when those costs come in. Bearing in mind that most pubs have, on average, 15 to 20 employees, that would have a huge impact on communities, and particularly on disadvantaged individuals who start their careers not with any great secondary education but with capability and character. We can give them that professional development.
Having certainty and a long-term reduction in business rates is critical for planning, because right now investment is being held back—in property and in the evolution of the pub. The pub is a very different vehicle from 20 years ago. If you are a non-drinker, you have a particular food that you wish to eat, or you just want to go to an event and connect with a community, safeguarding against loneliness and isolation, which are real, present issues, we provide that community service, for many reasons, and have evolved the model. As I say, the pub is no longer a drinks-led venue. Do not get me wrong: we are still very proud of what we do around great beers from the locality, but we offer so much more.
The commitment to the relief has been a lifeline. It would be great, alongside the Bill, to see the full level of relief continued, because it will drop off on 1 April, which will effectively double the rate costs being paid by small operators. When 80% are unprofitable, that might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Unfortunately, we will lose some long-term viable businesses, through no fault of their own. Market dynamics have put them in a very difficult position. We welcome the Bill, the two tiers, and the permanence and surety of reduced business rates, but Kate alluded to the fact that we need to reduce the overall tax burden. For every £3 that goes across the bar, £1 is coming to the Government in taxation. That is too much. Rebalancing that, which the Bill is a key part of, will unleash investment in people, in property and in providing that community service on an ongoing basis. The pub is probably the last true place that is accessible for all people in a community to come together.
David Simmonds
Q
Steve Alton: Building on that point from a pub perspective, it is about rebalancing taxation overall for pubs, and making it fair. We have always consulted with Ministers and officials across Government on solutions. Our members will always argue for VAT to be reduced on pub sales, because they saw that support in the pandemic and it was an instant injection of cash into their business. It was not about profiteering. Kate alluded to the fact that a pub is a low-margin business. It needs to be profitable because pubs need to continue to evolve the model and invest in what they are doing. We all want to go to great pubs, which do exist. Some of them, despite all these challenges, are doing very well, but they are the outliers. It is the mid-pack operators, who have been doing this for decades and have had long-term viable businesses, who now, frankly, face some very tough decisions.
We are incredibly concerned. At the moment, pubs are all busy looking after customers, which is great; you will see pubs at their best. In January, when it gets quiet and they reconcile the numbers, and there is a head-over-heart moment, I fear that we will lose a lot. If it is one in four, that could mean that we lose up to 15,000 pubs. They will not recover, because they will get boarded up. You see them in all the communities that you represent. They do not come back. When that happens, you have a whole rack of associated issues involving social deprivation and disorder. We work closely as an industry with schemes such as Best Bar None, which is all about creating safe spaces for socialising and, through that, seize the positive impact of hospitality—increased footfall, lower crime, lower social disorder and people feeling safe, because people are out and about in those communities and high streets. That is absolutely key.
Kate Nicholls: Some elements are there. This is a really welcome first step, but the pledge is for root-and-branch reform of business rates, and that is what high street businesses have been calling out for, for 20 years, really. I think that there is need for further reform of the system—you asked particularly about the business rate system—where support could be provided.
Three key elements are included within the wider package of reforms in the consultation paper that was published with the Budget. First, we in the hospitality sector often get penalised for investing in our premises. That delivers higher turnover, but then you get taxed—it is a tax on success and it happens frequently. The suggestion is for a longer period after a significant investment is made before the Valuation Office Agency can come to do a revaluation and look at taking an additional chunk in business rates. That would be incredibly welcome. We suggest that that should be at least as long as the first revaluation period post an investment being made, so that you do not get that significant change.
The second element is the interrelation between business rates and other tax factors for investment in the premises. Again, that is about the penalisation. At the moment, that is around capital allowances, but capital allowances do not extend to leased property. Only about a third of the products that are invested in when upgrading a pub or hotel are capable of being covered by capital allowances. As Steve said eloquently, you only pay corporation tax when you make a profit, and if you are not making a profit, capital allowances do not really help you. We need to look at other ways—perhaps research and development tax credits or discounts off the business rates for investment in green technology, but things that help to incentivise rather than penalise people for making an investment in their premises.
The third element is not in the scope of the consultation, but it does need to be taken forward. There is a very delicate balance between rent and rates, and they are supposed to be self-correcting. In our sector they are not, because rental and lease periods are long, and there are upward-only rent review clauses in most high street and city centre premises. That means that your rent and rates bills cannot reset themselves when there are changes in the market, in the same way as with retail in the high street. There was an outstanding consultation on commercial leases, which was looking at a ban on upward-only rent review clauses. It would be significantly helpful if the Department took that forward separately, as part of a high street strategy.
Jim McMahon
Q
There will always be limitations on just how far any Government action can go, but we believe that this is a comprehensive package that gets the right balance between the online retailers and large distribution warehouses, and those on the street and in communities. On the quite stark warning that was issued about the potential for one in four pubs—15,000, potentially—to close, how would that compare with the past 10 years, say, so that we can put it into the context of the number of pubs that have closed in that period?
Steve Alton: It would be a huge acceleration. The smoking ban was a huge intervention that drove habits and change. In essence, our operators would accept now that it had a silver lining, in a sense, because they had to modernise and make pubs far more open and accessible to all, but this would be an acceleration in the magnitude of failure. We are currently losing about 50 a month. You have seen that in the figures and in the insolvency numbers. You will also see that in your local communities. It is clearly a significant acceleration if you annualise that rate. It will be a cliff edge. Certainty is important.
I will give you an example of—Kate is spot-on about this—penalising success. There is a great operator who runs a brilliant bar in the centre of Manchester. He has tripled his turnover in the past few years from £350,000 to £1 million. He employs 30 people, including a lot of part-time staff and students. He has seen business rates rise in line with that, and that has not given him a breathing space. He currently makes about £60,000 to the bottom line on a £1 million-turnover business. The Budget change will wipe all that out. People will come to a decision about whether running a pub is the right thing to be doing. As you articulated, many of our operators have a social purpose. They want to be in their communities, adding value. For them, it is not an overt commercial play. If it were, the head-over-heart decision would already have driven some of them out. They just need certainty and a little bit of hope.
We are encouraged by the direction of travel. Having the two multipliers specifically for hospitality is fantastic. I encourage applying the maximum in the Bill because it is needed now. We have got a revaluation coming up. As Kate intimated, it probably will not reflect the reality of rents because it will not take into account what happened in the Budget, how that drives the market and the pretty rapid impact that will have. By the time the revaluation comes round, it will not reflect that. There is a consideration about the underlying multiplier, from which the 20p is applied, being dropped, and that being kept under continuous review.
We do not want to penalise operators who invest money and put their heart and soul into these businesses. They want to do many things and they can do them very quickly. One of our platforms is the Sustainability Champion award. We write to all you guys about it—hopefully you will have had some letters from our organisation—applauding the efforts of operators in your localities. They do amazing things rapidly, but some of that is capital restricted. They want to move to fully electric kitchens, and they want self-generation systems and recharging points in their car parks. Some have made that leap, but they are the outliers who can afford to do it. Access to capital is a huge issue in our marketplace. A mid-tier operator cannot get it right now. Banks are just saying no. If we look at the profit and loss, we can perhaps understand why they are saying that, but it creates a negative corkscrew.
We see the direction of travel positively, but I implore the Committee to apply the maximum on the two lower thresholds and keep the overriding multiplier firmly in your sights and make sure it goes down. We want to reduce the tax our pubs pay, not because the money will go into their bank accounts but because it will unlock investment and surety. On tenure, you will know publicans who have been there for 10 or 20 years—they want to commit to those ventures long term. It is not a short-term money-making exercise. It is far more purposeful than that.
Kate Nicholls: May I answer your question about the number of closures most recently? Last year, there were 3,000 closures in total across hospitality as a whole. Since covid, there has been a reduction of about 20% in neighbourhood independent restaurants and 30% in neighbourhood independent nightclubs and late-night music venues. Closures are not just a pub issue. It is hitting across the board. It has also hit a large number of guest houses, bed and breakfasts and independent hotels.
One driver is investment in openings. Unfortunately, a small number of closures will happen every year. It is a devastating human tragedy for those involved, but business failures happen. What drives the numbers is the lack of new openings and investment coming through to reopen premises and get businesses moving again. Business rates are a significant factor in that. I have so many discussions with people about investment in the sector, whether that is foreign direct investment, major private equity or small-scale bank investment. Corporation tax never comes up. Business rates are always an inhibiting factor for investment, so this is really significant.
I echo Steve’s point about the importance of using the maximum for the two rates—the standard rate and the lower rate. There is often a misapprehension that the lower rate is small business and the standard rate is large business. That is not the case. We have many independent, single-site businesses that will be in the upper rate. Applying the 20p discount to both is therefore important. About 30% of hospitality businesses that pay business rates are in the standard multiplier tier, and they account for 60% of employment and 60% turnover.
Let us not kid ourselves, either, that the super-rate charged at £500,000-plus will not have an impact. A small but significant number of hospitality venues are caught within that multiplier. I am not sure that that was always intended, given that—as you rightly say, Minister—it was designed to capture online businesses, so we could look again at some of those higher rates. The Bill gives scope for different businesses to be treated differently in that £500,000-plus tier, and we urge you to make use of that, as well as of the maximum 20p discounts below.
Jim McMahon
Q
Kate Nicholls: We have done an annual benchmarking survey across the hospitality sector as a whole over the past 15 years. We look at the common site operating costs. In the past 15 years, business rates across hospitality as a whole have gone from around 4% to 5% of turnover towards 7% to 8%, so they are creeping up. That is important. They are a relatively small cost—by far and away the biggest is labour costs, which are the engine of our business—but they are creeping up. The issue is that business rates are a fixed cost: you have to be able to cover them before you can open your doors; if you cannot, you are not a going concern.
Rent depends on the part of the sector. Across the sector as a whole, it is on average around 11% of turnover, but it is lower than that in the leased and tenanted pub estate. That will largely be part of the regulated estate and covered by the pubs code. There, you have a ban on upward-only rent reviews, and therefore you can get the adjustment that we were talking about. In the rest of the sector, where you need to have long leases to get the refit costs, you do not; rents may change in the market, but they only go one way once you are in. That area needs to be looked at as part of the Department’s ongoing review of commercial leasing and the high street strategy.
Jim McMahon
Q
Kate Nicholls: The overwhelming majority of my members will benefit from the measures being taken, if they are taken to the maximum, but I reiterate exactly what Steve said: in the current circumstances, it needs to be 20p. It cannot be “up to”; it needs to be 20p for both tiers. A number of hospitality businesses across the UK—about 700—fall into the super-rate. That might sound like a very small number, but it is a large proportion when it comes to employment: those businesses account for about 7% of employment. That will be particularly impactful. Those will tend to be larger hotels, pubs, bars and restaurants, either in city centres—around 400 of them are in London—or in coastal communities, where we have our large hotels. Those will be very large premises.
You asked about margins. Over the period since covid, margins in the sector have eroded by 40%, and many of our businesses are now operating at a net profit margin of between 4% and 6%. In Cornwall, Devon and deprived coastal areas, the big hotels will be the biggest employers by far: 20% of employment in those coastal areas is in the hospitality and tourism sector. If we hit those businesses and apply a super-rate at £500,000-plus, that will have a material impact on them, particularly when combined with the NICs increase.
My final point on those 700 businesses is that we are going through the revaluation process at the moment, and we estimate that there are a further 300 in the band of £400,000 to £500,000 rateable value. Given that the revaluation is looking at 100% to 200% increases in their rateable value as covid support falls away, you could bring a further 300 business premises into that super-rate.
As we read the Bill, there will be different rates above £500,000 for different types of premises. We urge you to keep that at zero for hospitality businesses, if you choose not to exempt them totally. There are two options: you can exempt them on the face of the Bill or you can apply a zero rate so they just pay the standard rate. Otherwise, you will further exacerbate closures across the big hospitality businesses in city centres and coastal tourism communities.
Steve Alton: From a pubs perspective, a small number of those it will affect are subject to the small business rate relief, and we are obviously keen for that to stay in place, because they are small, essential community pubs. It will have a material impact.
I also ask the Committee to look at the real impact numbers that the proposal will generate. It comes down to our objective of getting fairer taxation and a reduction in what those businesses pay. The maximum application—the 20p—is key, but you should also look at the multiplier alongside the revaluation. If that rises, which is highly likely, we need to think about the overall impact, and ultimately what the bill will be. We have a profitability issue right now. To come back to the Minister’s comment, rates are part of an unfair tax burden that we need to equalise.
Jim McMahon
That was not my point. I did not use those words.
Steve Alton: But having that assurance is a key part of it. Uncertainty has been impactful on business rates. It has stopped small operators from taking another site. If they take another site, you are talking about £300,000 to £400,000 of capital investment to build a new team of 40 employees, and there is a compound impact on the supply chain locally. A lot of people have held a station and have the ability to do it, but it is just not viable with the business rates bill as it is now. You could unlock some significant investment and growth, and, as we have shown previously, you could do so rapidly.
David Simmonds
Q
Is it your view that there should be discretion on the part of the billing authority so that if they need a sustainable hotel sector in order to meet temporary emergency housing need, or to accommodate significant numbers of refugees arriving, pending onward placement elsewhere, they are able to negotiate? If those businesses go to the wall because of a lack of profit margin, the taxpayer will have to be billed significantly more because those people will have to be placed in accommodation at a higher cost elsewhere.
Kate Nicholls: May I just say that the overwhelming majority of hotels are used by visitors for leisure and business purposes? Our hotel sector is a vital component of our tourism industry and is our second-largest service export earner, in the form of tourism. That is just to put your question in context.
As I understand it, local authorities will have discretionary powers to apply additional relief to those premises, but not to change the multiplier, which is set nationally. It is important that that is retained so that there is a national multiplier. You get distortions if you have different rates. There is discretion if a local authority wants to support a particular business—if it is impacted by flooding, for example, or the authority wants to maintain the provision of a service. The local authority can apply additional discretionary relief over and above the nationally mandated relief. That obviously comes out of its own funding. That is a better way of doing it than changing the multiplier. There is a question about whether local authorities should retain an element of the business rates so they have the discretion to fund, but that is a bigger discussion and is not within the scope of the Bill.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Q
Kate Nicholls: I think the line of sight and the longer change going forward is really helpful to have set out at this Budget. The rates, we understand, will have to be set when you know what the multiplier is going forward. If you had the maximum 20p discount from the current multiplier, that is broadly equivalent to 40%. That is if the multiplier stays the same; it could actually reduce. It remains to be seen, however, what happens when we come to the end of 2025-26 towards ’26-27 and the longer term. It could look as though it is broadly the same.
Regarding the 40% now, any relief is better than nothing at this point in time—we were facing a major cliff edge. We should, however, be in no doubt that those businesses eligible for relief—given there was a cap, it is the smaller businesses—are facing a significant increase in their business rates bills from April. For the sector as a whole, it is an extra £0.5 billion of tax. If you look at the Budget measures as a whole, we are facing £3.4 billion as a sector: the cumulative impact of the reduction in relief and an increase in bills. On top of everything else, they will have a big chunk of money to pay out additionally going forward. Although 40% is better than nothing, as Steve said, it is less than 75%.
I would just say that when Wales reduced relief to 40% last year, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England. Scotland reduced it to zero and failures in Scotland were significantly higher in the hospitality sector as a result. It does have real-world impacts. You cannot take it away from the overall context of the tax situation we are facing as a result of the Budget coming into effect in April, and there is the combined effect of all that happening at the same time.
It should, however, smooth out after that. There is longer-term certainty and, crucially, the new multipliers will apply to each and every premises—there is no state aid threshold or cap. Previously, that has been limited, where the effects of the relief were effectively limited to businesses that had two or three sites. Multi-site businesses and those with larger premises will now benefit going forward, so the industry as a whole will be on a much more sustainable footing, longer term.
The Chair
Q
Sacha Lord: My name is Sacha Lord. I am the night time economy adviser for Greater Manchester. Apologies for being late—it was a combination of Avanti West and farmers.
The Chair
We can hear them from here. The first Back Bencher who caught my eye was Polly Billington.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Q
Steve Alton: I think there are a number of factors. We have seen a real evolution of the pub model. Inevitably, in any market, those that do not evolve and keep that connection and relevancy with their customers do, unfortunately, fall by the wayside. There is a natural evolution within the industry. The cost base has fundamentally changed. The profit and loss has changed for new pubs. It is a tight-margin business—tighter than it has ever been.
The two outliers of our model are property and people. We need a place to operate in the communities we serve, and we needs lots and lots of people. Both those have been subject to cost increases during that period. Yes, consumer tastes have changed. We know that, and we have some fabulous pubs that have completely embraced it and are full every day of the week because they are creating events. In fact, we have a major platform with our licensee of the year award, which we do every year, and we have a very proud winner who runs a high street pub in Burnley. Every day of the week—this is a grassroots, wet-led pub in the community—there is a reason for people to go in. She has a real cross-section of the community and would consider that she has got 150 locals; she knows them by name and their family background, and they go in to connect in the community. That is their hub.
Ms Billington
Q
Steve Alton: As we know, employment costs have been rising disproportionately, as have the employer’s costs of living, so there is the legislation around that. We are subject not only to licensing but a number of other compound issues that we have to deal with locally with lots of different local stakeholders. All these need to be implemented with costs as well. It is the complexity, accountability and safeguarding. All those elements add layers of cost and complexity to the business. It is no longer what it was 20 years ago, when it was a far simpler model to execute, and the cost base has fundamentally changed.
During that period, tax has risen. Look at VAT as a start point. You have to control pricing with your cost base. We cannot just pass through compound inflation running at 20% a year. There is a dynamic issue at play—trade will fall off a cliff. We have seen it on certain high streets: they have just pushed that pricing too far, and consumers, who are subject to their own challenges, have fallen away. They have held that back to make it affordable, which in itself has eroded the margin and ultimately the profitability. It is a compound of all those things in play.
It is a tough business. Running a modern pub, you are full-in. It is a seven-day-a-week business. These guys are not taking minimum wage for themselves right now. You talk about protecting workers: they are workers in their own pubs, and they are not getting the rewards that they absolutely deserve for their efforts. They are willing to invest and look forward, but they need certainty. That is why the Bill is an integral part of a set of measures that need to provide that certainty, so that we do not lose fabulous publicans, licensees and families who know their communities so well and, as you know there are some fabulous pubs in East Thanet.
The Chair
Do any other witnesses have anything to add?
Kate Nicholls: Over the last five or six years, you cannot escape the closures due to covid and covid-related debt. That is the backdrop against which these businesses are trying to recover. You have not really had a break from covid to be able to build back resilience in the businesses. It is not just pubs; the broader hospitality sector is also facing the same challenges.
You have had high levels of covid debt, which was Government-issued, to be able to remain afloat during that period. You had two years where you were operating at or below break-even, and one in three of our businesses have no cash reserves because they have not had the ability to rebuild those cash reserves. The resilience in the independent sector in particular is just lacking. Couple that to the significantly increased tax burden—pre-profit taxes in particular—that has been borne over the last six to seven years by our sector; that further erodes the margin.
If we were going into covid in 2019, the tax burden overall was 32% of turnover. It is now 38% of turnover coming out of that. If you do it as a percentage of profit, 77% of our profits go back in one form or another of taxation. I know that taxation funds vital public services, but we are the highest-taxed sector of the economy overall. As a percentage of profit, nobody else pays as much tax as we do, and you cannot get away from that when you are looking at it.
Added to that, factors outside anybody’s control have driven closures over the last six to seven years: there have been 400% increases in energy bills on the back of the war in Ukraine and 20% food price inflation, which again is on the back of the war in Ukraine and tariffs that have come through. Those are significant additional costs that you are bearing in the business that go through to erode the margin and, at the same time, there has been a cost of living crisis, which means that you cannot pass that on to your customers.
You are caught between a rock and a hard place as an operator. The bigger operators just cut their investment fully; that is £7 billion not being invested in our high streets this year to cope with the cost pressures coming through. Those businesses will remain afloat, but the independents do not have that cushion to be able to manage the situation. They run out of road, in essence.
Steve Alton: To give one illustration, small pubs are still handling their covid debt. It can be up to £1,000 a month that these guys are still paying to pay that off, of which the Government debt is obviously a core part. When you are unprofitable, and you are still paying that out, you can imagine the quandary and why we are going to hit a tipping point pretty quickly. That will mean that we lose not only the taxation they generate but the repayment of that outstanding debt as well.
Sacha Lord: Apologies if this was said before I arrived, but my concern is that a pub is not just a place that serves a pint; it is the heart of the community. We know that 64% of people said that a pub is one of the main places that they congregate and that 86% said that when a pub closes, the community suffers. We are anticipating up to 9,000 closures next year with a double whammy in April of the national insurance increase and the business rate increase. I am more concerned about closures in quarter 1 next year than I was during covid.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Steve Alton: Some of that is already happening. Some people are already trimming their staff numbers down anyway to try to get ahead of this, so they have some degree of resilience. The real frustration is the reverse of what you just said: we pride ourselves on being the place that takes people in. We have some amazing charities in our sector that bring in people who are facing homelessness. We have placed over 600 of those individuals into hospitality, put our arms around them and given them a platform. They have already progressed to phenomenal levels of achievement within our sector. That is what is at risk.
Equally, the part-timers are under scrutiny right now, because they are triggering a premium payment for the employer. Some of those individuals absolutely depend on that fixed-hours role, because it is the only thing that they can fit in versus their demands, whether childcare or others. It is heartbreaking to see some of those individuals already starting to lose hours and ultimately jobs, but that will come, in a way.
That is just direct employment; we have to think about the supply chain as well. When you are looking at the multipliers and the real impact, I ask you to consider that foundational economic place that pubs prop up. Where are all the tendrils that go out into the community—all those connected jobs, from the butchers to the cleaners, the window cleaners and everything in between, that are sometimes hidden? Every job lost in a pub will be connected to multiple jobs in that community that are dependent on the demand that that pub drives.
Again, the situation is deeply frustrating, because we know that the Government passionately want to get people back into work, and we are the answer to that. Right now, however, they are unfortunately limiting the potential of our sector to help with that issue.
Kate Nicholls: When you look at the job losses in our sector, it is very difficult to strip out and identify the difference between the business rate changes that we are talking about versus the changes in NI. Steve is absolutely right that, for somebody on the minimum wage or just above at 20 hours a week, the effective increase in the employer’s tax on those jobs is 75%. That is where you will see hours cut and jobs reduced as a result of that change. You cannot just dissociate the two. That is why it is very difficult to model this and answer your question specifically about where we will see business failures versus job losses. Clearly, we are looking at—
The Chair
Order. The Minister may have been just about to say this, but we have only five minutes left, at least two more Members wish to ask a question, and this is steering a little out of the scope of the specific contents of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
It is almost the opposite, really. Given the context that has been outlined, this is the respite that the industry has been calling for. If we can keep to the scope of the Bill, and what it provides for, that would be helpful.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Sacha Lord: Nightclubs will certainly be impacted. Obviously, a nightclub is a much larger space than a pub, so sadly they will suffer under this legislation.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Kate Nicholls: If you look at hospitality venues, which would include nightclubs and the larger hotels—it would not include theme parks necessarily, but it would include campsites and holiday parks—you are looking at around 700 premises. Of those that pay business rates, that is around 1% of total businesses, but it accounts for 7% of employment and close to 11% of turnover, so they are quite big. They are a disproportionate proportion of our tourist infrastructure in terms of employment. In certain locations, they will be up to 20% of local employment, so it is quite significant.
My understanding is that the Bill could provide respite for them, because there is an opportunity to apply different rates of a super charge for different types of businesses. We can differentiate on business use above the £500,000 threshold. We urge the Government to do that, and will work with them as the Bill and the consultation go forward, to ensure that they take advantage of that, so that we do not treat a large distribution centre or fulfilment centre the same as a hotel or nightclub.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q
Kate Nicholls: If the deduction is applied to the maximum, it will result in a significant reduction in bills for all small hospitality businesses in suburban, neighbourhood and community locations such as your constituency, not just those subject to a cap and getting up to £100,000. Every single hospitality business in your constituency below £500,000—forgive me; I did not double-check, but I do not think you have any over that—will benefit from a permanent reduction in their business rates bills, which will help to redress the balance of their overall tax burden.
Sacha Lord: I would say that this really is a substantial lifeline for all those businesses. My concern is the period between April and when this legislation comes into force.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Q
Kate Nicholls: I chair the Mayor of London’s tourism recovery taskforce, to get London tourism going, and as part of that we look at foreign direct investment and real estate coming in. More broadly, the top 20 restaurant, pub and hotel chains are all private-equity backed, and most of that is FDI. The subject of business rates always comes up. Every single time you talk about inward investment into the UK, into property-based businesses, and about whether they should come here or go to mainland Europe or America, business rates are an inhibiting factor.
The Chair
Order. I am told that I have to cut you off. Sorry about that. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for this set of witnesses, so we will do a changeover. I thank the witnesses from this panel, and we will move on to the next one.
Examination of Witnesses
David Woodgate, Don Beattie, Barnaby Lenon CBE and Simon Nathan gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Barnaby Lenon: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Barnaby Lenon, a chairman of the Independent Schools Council, which represents 600,000 pupils—about 80% of independent school pupils—in the United Kingdom. It is also worth knowing that I set up a state school in east London—the London Academy of Excellence—and I am currently a governor of 11 state schools in Birmingham.
David Woodgate: Good afternoon. I am David Woodgate, chief executive of the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association, which has 1,300 member schools, and we support those schools in all business aspects of the running of an independent school.
Simon Nathan: Good afternoon. My name is Simon Nathan, the deputy chief executive and head of policy at the Independent Schools Council.
Don Beattie: I am Don Beattie, a private-practice chartered surveyor specialising in rating. I am a technical adviser to the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association and I am here in case anything technical should arise.
David Simmonds
Q
There are a number of proposals on the nature of business rates and how they are applied. A lot of schools are not merely involved in education but have things such as nurseries and other ancillary facilities on site. Could you give us an indication of how your members would be impacted by what is proposed in the Bill? Do you consider that improvements could be made to take account of the fact that, for example, if a nursery is in a separate building on a separate site, it is not within scope, but if it is on the same site, it is within scope?
Barnaby Lenon: We are trying to make two points today. One is that the Bill is inadvertently creating a two-tier charity system—we may come back to that. The other point, which I think relates to your question, is about the impacts on our schools, including faith schools, but more particularly on our pupils and parents. David, you are probably best placed to answer the question on the finances.
David Woodgate: The impact on finances is material. I accept that we are talking about business rates today, but we cannot do that in isolation in respect of the other three financial shocks impacting on independent schools within the past 12 months. The first was the increase in teacher’s pension contributions from April last year, going from 23.6% to 28.68%. Secondly, in common with every other business, the national insurance increases and the lowering of the threshold have a material impact on our schools. Some 70% of the cost base of a typical independent school is staff costs, so clearly that will have an impact, and schools have just not had the time to prepare for that—to build it into their budgets, and indeed their fees, for the remainder of the current academic year. We also have a 20% VAT rate from 1 January, with just two months in which to have prepared for that. There was a reasonable expectation that that would not happen at least until next September.
Alongside those three financial factors, business rate relief is—dare I say it—the icing on the cake. It is the fourth leg of a quadruple whammy that will impact extremely negatively on our schools. They are considering closure. Probably the only lever that a lot of our schools have to face up to some of these challenges is redundancies. I have schools that are now looking at redundancies. Most teachers are on one term’s notice, so it has not worked through yet, but, over the course of the rest of this academic year, I think that will inevitably be the response of many of our schools. They just cannot afford those four elements all together.
If I were to make a plea, it would be to give us some grace on the implementation of the business rate relief, as a way of helping schools to get through an unprecedented number of financial shocks. If it could at least be deferred until April 2026, or perhaps phased in, with a 20% reduction over each year up to five years, that would be of tremendous assistance to schools labouring under a real financial burden that is not impacting on any other section of the economy. No other section of the economy has those four shocks simultaneously.
David Simmonds
Q
May I ask about one of the things we will consider tomorrow? I think most of us will have been contacted by constituents who have been displaced from the independent sector but are unable to secure places in the state sector. What about supporting state schools that have to deal with that in-year impact, whereby they will not be funded through the normal autumn-winter pupil count, because that has already taken place, and therefore will have to wait a long time before they see any additional funding? We could consider ringfencing the proceeds locally, so at least that would mitigate some of the impact of that displacement at a local level. I am interested in whether you have a view of what mitigations—by way of local discretion, ringfencing of the proceeds, or otherwise—we could put in place, in particular to help those families who have been pushed out of the independent sector but are unable to secure a funded state school place for their child at this point.
Simon Nathan: There is a number of areas. In terms of mitigations of the Bill and relieving pressure on the state sector, one area where we have concerns, for example, is the treatment of children with special educational needs. I say at the outset that we wholly recognise the measures in the Bill to exempt those schools with more than 50% of their pupils on education, health and care plans, but the independent sector as a whole educates 130,000 children with special educational needs—100,000 do not have EHCPs and 30,000 do. Those pupils will be scattered across different schools in the sector. Often, they will be in smaller schools with small class sizes, and not all those schools will get the protection of that EHCP threshold. Those schools will be faced with paying the business rates bill or parents seeing some of that passed on to their fees.
We know it is not the best time for there to be more SEND pupils going into the state sector. Only yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies put out a report saying that high needs budgets were £3 billion in deficit. One of the mitigations we would like to see is an expansion of the exemptions given to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, perhaps exempting schools having 50% or more of pupils with SEN but not necessarily always on an EHCP, so that they can also benefit from that type of exemption to mitigate the additional pressures on local authorities’ SEND provision.
Don Beattie: May I add to what Simon is saying? Currently, the provision is written such that that EHCP is the determinant for excluding the school from the definition of “private school”. However, in schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, you will find an adequate definition of “disability”, which references the Equality Act 2010.
David Simmonds
Q
Simon Nathan: We recognise that there has to be some sort of boundary, and obviously it would not be possible to draw up an exemption based on a tax on property that exempted every pupil with SEN. Our suggestion is that schools where more than 50% of pupils get SEN support would benefit from that exemption. We looked at the numbers, and that would bring in perhaps an extra 100 schools and an extra 4,500 pupils. Clearly, if you are a pupil in a school that has more than 50% SEN, you are going to have a certain level of need, and perhaps the needs cannot always be catered for in a mainstream school.
Jim McMahon
Q
Barnaby Lenon: We have a huge range of types of school. At one end, there are quite expensive boarding schools. Their fees are often quoted, but it is very expensive to run a boarding school. They are not typical, because the average independent school in our sector has 280 pupils—so it is pretty small—and half are smaller than that. I have been a governor of schools with 120 pupils, but the special needs schools we are talking about often have 50 pupils. There are plenty of faith schools, about which Simon will talk in a moment, that also have very small numbers, yet are quite important in their particular faith community.
The average fee for a day school is about £18,000, but half are less than that, and there are some with incredibly small fees—just a couple of thousand a year, which is less than would normally be spent on a pupil in a state school. There is a massive range in terms of fee and size of school. We are particularly concerned about the low-cost and small schools, because those are the most vulnerable. They are already closing. Through our surveys, they have told us that they are going to close if the situation continues as, so far as one can see, it is going to continue.
Simon Nathan: As Barnaby said, there is a range: 1,000 schools, or 40% of the schools in our sector, have fewer than 100 pupils, so they are not always very big schools.
To touch briefly on faith schools, 20,000 children attend Muslim faith schools in our sector, and those schools charge an average of £3,000 per year in fees. There are Orthodox Jewish Haredi schools in our sector—65 schools that educate 20,000 children. On average, those schools ask for about £100 a week or less, and those schools are modelled in such a way that if a family comes in that cannot afford the fees, the school will accept them anyway. It is the community that steps in and fundraises to make up that financial difference.
To give an example, those types of Orthodox Jewish Haredi schools run on a low-fee model, and quite a lot of them are in London where there are high property prices. As Haredi Jewish families tend to have more children on average, a lot of those schools will have pupil numbers of around 800, so they will be in quite large buildings and will have quite large rates bills when this change comes into effect. I have spoken to representatives of those communities who are extremely concerned by the impact that this will have. They use a low-fee model, so they do not get huge amounts of money in fees, but the rates bill could be tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. The only way that those schools can bridge that gap is through fundraising from the synagogues in the community. If that money cannot come forward, those schools just do not have the money to pay the bill, so they are very concerned.
Jim McMahon
Q
The second point I would make is about the quantum if it was followed through. There will be an assumption that, as a business, schools will look to absorb as much of the additional pressures as possible—I will be honest—in the way that state schools have had to over the last decade. These are the choices that every business has to make to try to make the numbers work at the end of the day. Even if every pound was passed on with these measures, by our assessment, it is about £300 per pupil per year, which clearly is less than a pound a day. I understand that you have given a wider context, but within the scope of the Bill, what assessment has been made of the impact of that average of £300 per pupil per year—if it was passed on in its entirety—on people potentially leaving the sector? Also, what headroom might schools have to absorb it within existing budgets?
Simon Nathan: I think your first point was about SEN. I want to say at the outset that we support increased investment in SEN in state schools, and we support a well-funded state sector. At the moment, the situation in which many parents find themselves is that, to cater for the specific needs of their child, they find that they have to go to an independent school to have that need met, and that is the choice currently open to them. I said that, at the moment, we see our sector as providing that additional capacity to support state SEN services, and it is over 100,000 children. Our sector will be there to pick up that need, and often those who come to independent schools have more complex needs, but we wholeheartedly support more investment in state SEN.
David Woodgate: I think the £308 per pupil translates into about £147,000 per school for the business rate relief alone. Our schools have been working very hard to manage their cost bases. Since covid, a lot of our schools dropped their fees by up to 50%, they provided hardship funding, and they educated and looked after children of key workers with no state support. Since then, we have been rebuilding. But I think the sector acknowledges that it cannot just keep putting this on to fees. Many of the parents who choose our education are aspirational parents—two-income families, with the second income going very much on providing independent education—so you cannot load the fees.
It is about looking at the cost base. Costs are being cut back to the bone, and subjects are being dropped. Inevitably, this will result now in redundancies. I was speaking to a school just yesterday that said that the impact of NI and the business rate relief is over £500,000 a year. They will be making eight teachers redundant over the next two terms. That is indicative of what a lot of schools will have to do, which in turn impacts on all the other things a school offers.
Jim McMahon
Q
But I do not want the conversation to be about that; I want it to be about making sure that we fully appreciate the Bill’s impact. A lot has been made of the potential displacement of pupils from the private and independent sector into the state sector. It would be helpful to get your assessment of that. Our assessment, based on May 2023 data, says that, in terms of the capacity to receive children, there are around 1 million unfilled vacancies in primary and secondary schools in the state sector. Of that 1 million, how many could come in from the private sector as a result of this measure?
Simon Nathan: We did a pupil numbers survey this September that asked schools what their pupil numbers were in September 2024, compared to September 2023. That showed that pupil numbers were already down by 10,000. If you translated that into the additional costs to the state sector, it would cost the state sector around £80 million to educate those 10,000 pupils.
Jim McMahon
Q
Simon Nathan: I appreciate that. The point I was making was that some of the money that would be raised to support greater investment in state education will get eaten up by pupils moving over.
In terms of hotspots, it would depend very much on the part of the country—obviously, our schools are predominantly in the south and in certain parts of London, in particular. We fully appreciate that, on a macro level, there is a certain level of vacancy, but our concern is that there will be particular parts of the country where there might be more hotspots.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Q
Barnaby Lenon: Before I ask David to answer that, can I just say that there are not a lot of independent schools that have a lot of property. There are a small number that definitely have a lot of property, but if you had visited as many independent schools as I have, you would see that a lot of them are in converted houses, with no other property. Many, many of our schools have far less property than a normal state primary school would have. Nevertheless, your point is taken.
Vikki Slade
Q
David Woodgate: It is not typical for a school to carry a lot of excess land, although we have seen prep schools moving on to the sites of senior schools, and disposing of the prep. That is an obvious thing to do, and they then put that money into bursary funding or wherever. We are seeing mergers of schools, which might result in one site being surplus to requirements, and then that money can again be recycled into providing the educational product.
I do not think that schools are blind to the fact that they have some levers that they can pull, but they can only sell off the family silver once. It is not necessarily a longer-term solution. It is about what they do with that money and how they use it. Barnaby is absolutely right: I have been to four prep schools in the last two weeks, and they are just converted Victorian villas with no extra space. There is not even anywhere to put a minibus—it is that tight.
The Chair
We have until 3.40 pm, and I have seen six Members indicate they have questions.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Q
Barnaby Lenon: Personally, I do not think they are particularly unprepared. As you say, we have had plenty of notice.
Navendu Mishra
Q
Barnaby Lenon: Well, they should not be surprised, because the Independent Schools Council and the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association—three of us on the panel—have been talking to schools for the past year and a bit. Schools have been receiving advice about how to prepare for it, particularly from David’s organisation. I do not think it is true to say that they have been taken by surprise. It is worth saying that they are charities—mostly small charities—which are operating on tight margins. They are not extravagant in the way they operate. They have found it difficult to know how to face 20% VAT. They have had plenty of notice, and the governing bodies of those schools are individually responsible for taking the actions that the sensible ones will be taking.
Harriet Cross
Q
David Woodgate: The benchmark is 10% net surplus on gross fees. We had many schools drop down to 5% to break even, and they are now going into deficit in order to meet the quadruple whammy—if I can put it that way.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Q
I spent a long time working with special educational needs in the state sector at every key stage, in both specialised and mainstream state schools. There was not a single case that I saw that was not able to be dealt with in a state school in one way or another. With the further investment this Government are talking about, I think that will change again. I would like some clarity, because if there are such cases, they should be taken up with the local authorities and Members of Parliament—it should not be the case.
Simon Nathan: I am happy to follow up with the Committee on that, because I do not have the specific cases in front of me, but I can obviously go and find that information. I do not think it is an issue on a national scale, but there will be local areas where the independent school is filling the need that perhaps cannot be wholly fulfilled otherwise. I am not saying that the expertise is not there in the state sector; I am saying that the capacity might not always be there.
Ms Billington
Q
Barnaby Lenon: I have been on a number of governing bodies, and have been a headteacher of schools where the fees went up quite significantly. It happened particularly in the period between 2003 and 2008, when the fees were driven by increases in state school teachers’ pay, in national insurance and in pension contributions. We did not suddenly all want to build new buildings; it was more or less forced upon us, but you are right that they were quite big increases, and the impact has been that fewer parents have been able to afford our schools.
Ms Billington
Q
Barnaby Lenon: I cannot answer that. We do not know, but I am quite confident that plenty of parents will have found it too difficult.
Simon Nathan: If you look at the number of pupils in independent schools over the last 10 years according to Department for Education data, on the face of it you could say, “Well, there’s 12,000 more,” but that is during a period when the overall school population went up by 800,000. The proportion of pupils educated in independent schools went down from 7% to 6.5%. There has been a proportionate decrease.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Q
David Woodgate: Pupil-teacher ratios are increasing anyway. Many schools are much beyond that. That is not a typical pupil-teacher ratio in one of our schools. Many are going up towards 20—the same kind of number that you are talking about in the state sector. Inevitably, if there are redundancies, there will be fewer teachers to go around and they will be teaching more pupils.
Deirdre Costigan
Q
David Woodgate: Inevitably, if pupil-teacher numbers change, that will have a negative impact.
Mr Sewards
Q
David Woodgate: On your second point, we estimate that somewhere between 200 and 250 of our 1,300 schools are vulnerable to closure. They may look at mergers or other options—some might academise, for instance—but that is the kind of figure that we are looking at. I take your point about aspirational parents. We have to ensure that this does not impact on the bursary funding that is available for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds to get a place at one of our schools if they wish to go there. We have to ensure that, as far as possible, given these threats to our income, the funds available for bursaries are maintained.
Mrs Brackenridge
Q
The Chair
Order. I hate to do this, but I have to. Thank you, gentlemen—you will vacate your seats, and we will move on to our ninth panel.
Examination of Witness
Rachel Kelly gave evidence.
The Chair
Rachel Kelly is assistant director of tax and finance policy at the British Property Federation. This is a one-man panel until 4 pm.
David Simmonds
Q
Rachel Kelly: Thank you for having me. I am Rachel Kelly, assistant director of tax and finance policy at the British Property Federation. We represent members who invest in property across the UK. Our investors are typically long-term institutional investors in all sorts of commercial property—not only the traditional asset classes of retail, logistics and offices, but newer asset classes of datacentres, lab space, GP surgeries and so on. That is just to give you some background.
We have lobbied about business rates for a very long time. We are big stakeholders in property and we want to see a functional, fair and responsive tax system, so our two fundamental and long-standing asks of business rate reform are these. First, the tax burden is very high, and the property tax burden in the UK is over double the OECD average, so we have a very high tax burden on property and we would like to see that come down. The Bill does not achieve that; it does the opposite, because the temporary relief for retail, hospitality and leisure had been funded by central Government and it proposes to bring that funding within the business rate system, so that the tax burden to fund the relief for some sectors will fall on all business.
Our second fundamental ask for reform of business rates is to have a more responsive tax system, which responds more quickly to changes in the economy and in rent. It is difficult to say, but the Bill is relatively radical—it introduces new tax rates for different asset classes, and different valuation points—so it will add a bit more complexity into the system. It will also introduce new cliff edges into the system, which arguably could create more contention on valuation. I know you have already heard from people giving evidence about the huge backlogs in the valuation system in appeals. Potentially, with the new cliff-edge points, we could create yet more appeals. All that, coupled with the additional complexity, will probably make it even harder to automate, digitalise and reach more frequent evaluations, which we think should be the ultimate goal of the business rate system.
David Simmonds
Q
Rachel Kelly: One positive, which we have heard from other people today, is that having stability, certainty and predictability around tax is important to occupiers and investors alike. Recognising the benefits of those temporary retail and hospitality reliefs to such businesses, and making them permanent, is a good thing, but Government could go a lot further. At the moment, we have a tax system where the tax rate fluctuates at every valuation, so, depending on the relative change in property values, the tax rate will change at each evaluation, and it goes up by inflation every year. That is unlike any other business tax rate. Therefore, if the Government really want to provide certainty, stability and predictability, which is good for business and good for investors, probably the best thing they could do would be to fix the tax rate so that businesses know, year on year, that really the only thing that will change their tax bill is whether their property has gone up or down in value.
Then I would reiterate my other point: we have a property tax burden in the UK that is more than double the OECD average. We are pretty much at the top in terms of the tax we levy on property in the UK. That, in and of itself, is not very competitive.
Similarly, I would come back to the point around more frequent revaluations. If you have a responsive tax system that reflects those property values more quickly, you are more able to support those businesses or sectors that are struggling more quickly, because their valuations will reflect that more quickly. That is actually better for the Exchequer as well because, as different sectors grow and improve, the Exchequer can generate revenues from those sectors more quickly.
Jim McMahon
Q
We have heard from other witnesses today about the relationship between business rates and rent levels, and in the end that is a self-correcting system when it works well. It would be useful to get your insight, from your perspective and from the industry’s, about what headroom exists, certainly for institutional landlords. There are a number of us, I think, who reflect on our own local economies and see very high rent levels being quoted for properties that have been empty for many years and have no prospects of getting tenants anytime soon. It would be helpful for us to get a feel of how the system is working as an industry.
Rachel Kelly: Sure. I did listen in to the sessions this morning, so I heard some of the discussion around the relationship between rent and rates. I will try to pick up and respond to a few of those points. There clearly is a relationship between rent and rates but, as one witness said this morning, the evidence is very thin. We conducted some research about a decade ago that showed that there was a relationship between rent and rates, but that relationship was not as strong in certain asset classes and in certain geographies, and it certainly is not as strong in retail.
We know that, for many of our high streets, where you might have 20% vacancy rates, ultimately the occupiers have much more negotiating power in those environments. So, actually, until the significant supply-demand imbalance rectifies on those high streets, we would expect the benefits of a business rate discount to predominantly fall to the occupiers. That is until such time as that supply-demand imbalance—or the vacancy rate—improves, at which point, arguably, the policy might have worked.
To the point around empty properties with artificially high rents, we represent long-term investors in property—institutional investors in property—and a lot of our investors in property are our pension funds, our insurance companies and so on. They want long-term income returns for their pension holders, unit-holders and ultimate investors, and the only rational decision for an investor is to try to seek those rental-income returns.
Perhaps, at the margins, people do keep their properties empty, but it seems wholly irrational. If I was an investor or a pension fund holder, I would not want somebody managing those assets to be keeping properties empty and not generating rental income from them. I do not think it is a pervasive issue; all I can say is that it is not something we see in our members.
Jim McMahon
Q
Rachel Kelly: I think having more predictability and certainty around the tax bill is important for both occupiers and investors, which goes to my point that the best thing you could do is go further and fix the tax rate. But yes, the greater predictability and stability is good for investors and occupiers alike. Does that answer your question?
Jim McMahon
Q
Rachel Kelly: I think they will go some way to helping. If the ultimate goal of the Bill is to support high streets, there are probably areas where we would suggest that it is not as targeted as it could be. If you think of a really thriving high street in your area, retail and leisure will form a large part of it. However, a thriving high street also has offices and other businesses that provide footfall to those retail units. It has big anchor stores that might not benefit from this smaller relief but provide really important footfall for the other retail and leisure occupiers. It has car parks that are really vital to bring in customer bases for those high streets. It often has lots of asset classes, such as GP surgeries, libraries and some forms of education—you get my point. A thriving high street has a huge mix of different businesses all supporting each other. It is a really important—and maybe fragile—ecosystem. Yes, this measure will support some of those units, such as the smaller retail and leisure ones, but I am not sure whether that is enough to support the whole high street ecosystem.
Vikki Slade
Q
Rachel Kelly: Whether that can be included in the Bill, I do not know. But yes, the issue of an uncompetitive property tax system is relevant for lots of industries, and manufacturing is the one that you raised. Ultimately, that comes back to the higher rate of tax across the board. If you are alluding to the higher tax rate for the rateable values above £500,000—yes, it strikes me as an arbitrary threshold, and it will capture lots of different businesses and sectors. Maybe there will be some adverse consequences of that, which might be counter to the policy aims, but I am not sure.
It is a tricky one to balance. Ultimately, if this relief for retail, hospitality and leisure will be funded within the business rate system, our instinct is that it would be better to fund that across as broad a spectrum of the economy as possible, rather than narrow down that tax base even further. For context, the proportion of properties with a rateable value above £500,000 is 1% of commercial property in the UK. If we condense that down even further, it is a very narrow tax base to fund these other changes, so I am not sure that is sustainable. I am not sure we can address the issue of competitiveness for other sectors without addressing the elephant in the room, which is the huge tax rate that we have for everyone else—55%, or 50% for smaller businesses. They are very high tax rates compared with any other business tax.
Ms Billington
Q
Rachel Kelly: The reason why we have a huge amount of vacancy on our high streets must be multifaceted. Obviously, we have gone through a huge transition in our retail sector over the last 10 or 15 years, which has had an impact on some of our high streets. The supply of property is relatively fixed, so once there is an oversupply it is difficult to rectify in the short term. Our planning system will play a big role in ensuring that we can reuse those assets for the most appropriate purpose in our current economy.
As far as I am aware, the causational relationship is between vacancy and the disposable income of the residents in a local area. Where there is high disposable income there tends to be lower vacancy; where there is relatively low disposable income there tends to be quite high vacancy. To the point about whether there are, at the margins, people who keep their shops empty, that is not something that a rational investor would do.
The Chair
The Clerk is telling me that we are steering away from the scope of the Bill, so I am being told off for allowing it to continue.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Q
Rachel Kelly: Our whole economy is interconnected. Those large logistics and distribution warehouses that you talk about will be servicing parts of our retail sector as well. I am sure there will be loads of impacts of this measure that are impossible to predict at this point, but ultimately, increasing the tax rate further makes investment in property harder, and it will make the occupation of property more expensive. Other than that, it is good that the whole economy is shouldering the burden of the higher tax rate, and we would not want that to be intensified further so that individual sectors are solely bearing that burden; I do not think that would be right or sustainable. Ultimately, the higher tax rate will make the tax system less competitive and the occupation of property more expensive.
Deirdre Costigan
Q
Rachel Kelly: Yes and no. Ultimately, if you take a step back, business rates are a tax on the occupation of property, and they are levied on the basis of the value of that property. If you occupy a more valuable property, you will pay more tax. The business rate system is working as the policy intended in that respect.
In terms of making it fairer, the best thing you can do is value property more frequently. Retail rents have been falling for the last 10 or 15 years. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, rents came down 30%, but business rates did not for that sector. Rents are negotiable—rents do respond—but it is business rates that do not. If valuations had kept up with rents, retail would have been paying much less, much earlier, and other sectors that had been growing would have been paying more much more quickly. To my mind, the best way to introduce fairness into the system is to value properties more frequently.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I wanted to check the timings for today’s Committee. The invitations sent out to secure Members’ time had this Committee concluding at 4 pm today and tomorrow.
The Chair
We are going on until 4.40 pm, although there may be votes. The decisions were made by the Programming Sub-Committee all those days ago.
David Simmonds
I am referring to the diary invitations that were sent out. Separate information is sent to Members’ diaries electronically from what is on the agreed programme. I want to make sure that we confirm the time with Members. I am more than happy to stay here to conclude today’s business, but we need to ensure that Members know what time they need to book out in their diary.
The Chair
It sounds like a mismatch in communications. The Clerks will follow up on that.
Examination of Witness
Professor Francis Green gave evidence.
The Chair
We have our next witness, Professor Francis Green, professor of work and education economics at UCL. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Professor Green: Yes, I am exactly that: professor of education economics at UCL, and I have done research on private schools.
The Chair
Theoretically we have until 4.20 pm, but we are expecting to be interrupted. I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
Q
Professor Green: In one word: marginal, because the sums are not enormous. I made an estimate, now a couple of years out of date, which suggested that the amount of tax subsidy was in the order of £142 million across England as a whole. In today’s money that is probably about £150 million, which you will appreciate is not enormous in the big scheme of things. None the less, it is probably a fairly fair policy. I think of my own town of Canterbury, which has quite a few private schools, including the oldest private school in the country, King’s school, which owns a lot of property around the town but pays only one fifth of the local taxes it would otherwise pay. It seems to me that by subsidising them we are mainly subsidising rich people.
David Simmonds
Q
Professor Green: I do not think it will have a great deal of effect. I offer you a small piece of evidence for that, which is the case of Scotland, which took an equivalent measure to this two and a half years ago. There was much protest beforehand from the sector that this would reduce not only the numbers attending the schools but schools’ ability to finance bursaries, which make a small difference, as you know, to making the schools a little bit less exclusive. The evidence to date, however, shows no noticeable difference whatever. It is perhaps too soon to tell, but we have seen no collapse or catastrophes as was predicted beforehand. That is one small piece of evidence that I offer you. I really do not think that it will make a great deal of difference.
Jim McMahon
Q
Professor Green: I have made no direct assessment of this particular measure, but I have made estimates using econometric studies of the impact of the imposition of VAT—which is not under discussion today, but, in terms of the magnitude of the sums involved, this measure involves much less. The best estimates of the econometric studies suggest that somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 children might, over the course of time, be switched away from the private sector. If we take that, let us say about one tenth, in terms of the sums, you can see that the figure is relatively small.
I will admit to a certain degree of uncertainty in those estimates. We do not know enough to be precise, but I would be prepared to put my money on it that it will not be a vast number. Probably it could not be tested, because with the small changes that occur, it will be difficult to say, “That is because of this,” rather than because of the many other changes that happen—the circumstances of the particular market.
Jim McMahon
Q
Professor Green: I understand that private schools that mainly or wholly provide for children who have had an assessment are excluded from this. They will continue to receive relief, as before. There may be some children who are not quite over the threshold for an EHC assessment—I do not think that a large number will be affected, but it is hard to tell exactly how many. I do not expect a large impact.
Vikki Slade
Q
Professor Green: That is an interesting thought. I do not have a specialist estimate to give you on that. It is a conceivable response. I am not sure that it is a necessarily a bad response if it does happen that way. But, again, I repeat: I do not think there will be a large number in those circumstances.
Inevitably, whenever you make a change like this, there is always someone at the margin who is just kind of tipped over the edge, saying, “I really can’t afford this any more.” I happen to know somebody in that particular position in my area. I am fairly sure that a large number of those people will have to deal with the situation; there may be a 1% or 2% rise in the prices, which might not otherwise have happened, but, of course, prices rise all the time. Prices have gone up many times since the turn of the century, and they continue to go up, so it would be very hard to distinguish the rises associated with this measure from the regular fee rises that go on anyway.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Professor Green: Well, I think that is part of the indirect evidence of the fact that there will not be a great deal of impact, because, broadly speaking, the same proportion of the population is attending private schools as 10, 20 or 30 years ago, so it is one of those constants. That is slightly down, but, to be honest, it depends on the fortunes of the top echelons of our income and wealth spectrum—how much they can afford and choose to send their children to private schools. That is the nature of the market.
Patrick Spencer
Q
Professor Green: Somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000, and that would be over a five-year period.
Patrick Spencer
Okay, so we will go midway, which, at 20,000, would be a 3.5% reduction in the total independent school population.
Professor Green: Yes, I think that is right.
Patrick Spencer
Is that as a consequence of everything that is going on in this context, or just the business rate changes? Do the parameters of that analysis include VAT?
Professor Green: That is the VAT estimate, so I am saying that, if that is the VAT estimate, the business rate relief change is one tenth of that.
Patrick Spencer
I just want to clarify that that analysis was based on the total changes that the sector is undergoing, not just specifically the context of the Bill.
Professor Green: Correct.
The Chair
Is that the end of all of our questions for this witness? Thank you, Professor Green.
Examination of Witness
Jim McMahon OBE MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We will move on to our next panel—the 11th panel—and hear oral evidence from Jim McMahon, Minister for Local Government and English Devolution in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We have until 4.40 pm, unless we are interrupted by the vote, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. The Minister probably needs no introduction, and there are probably loads of Members who want to ask questions, but we will start with the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
Q
Jim McMahon: Thank you. It is important to say that we are determined to create a fairer business rate system that protects the high streets, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. To deliver that pledge we have outlined these measures, which have been well rehearsed in evidence, and we will explore them further in Committee tomorrow. We have been clear in targeting the interventions, because it is about delivering a manifesto commitment to ensure that we better reflect the changing nature of the high street. In every community, you will hear about local businesses at their wits’ end and feeling as though the Government have not been present, with the online world growing at a rate of knots and the high street getting more and more difficult. We all see that across the board.
There was particular pressure on retail, hospitality and leisure during the covid period, which saw many businesses go to the wall, but that reflects the fact that the support on offer managed to get a number of them through a very difficult period. But they knew that that 75% relief was coming to an end. It was a cliff edge. There was no accounting or provision for it going forward. Everybody in the room must have heard businesses say, “We do not know what is coming and we are nervous about the future.” These measures are about providing that permanent relief—the 40% relief will make a huge difference to high streets, town centres and communities across the country—but also about giving certainty so that businesses can plan ahead.
We are confident that these are the measures that businesses have been asking for, but they have to be self-financing. If we have learned anything, it is that there is no magic money tree. If we give in one part of the economy, it has to come from another part, so where is it best to take from to provide that rebalancing? The fairest way is to target those higher-value properties—1% of the system. We need them to give a bit more, because the high streets and communities need that back support. By and large, that will be warehousing, distribution and the large sheds on the side of motorways, and quite rightly, too, because they are doing well. Their turnover is high, and it can be used to support local businesses on the high street and in town centres.
Every piece of evidence we have heard today, whether from the pub industry, retail or even property investors, has said that the clarity and certainty of investment on business rates is important and welcome. The reach that it has across a range of different sectors will definitely have an impact. Also, the fairness in the system—those with the broadest shoulders, with the highest-value properties over £500,000—is absolutely what is needed. We are very clear about the impact.
Clearly, this is only one part of the process. The actual rates will come later and they will be subject to a separate process, but we are clear that this is the right thing to do and it has been noted in the evidence we have heard today.
Vikki Slade
Q
Jim McMahon: It will. We need to stay in scope of the Bill, but the Bill does not sit in isolation. This is a wider package of reform and intervention, reflecting the fact that businesses do not operate in isolation; they are part of an ecosystem in many places. Think about the impact of, say, an anchor department store closing, or a bank branch, a post office or an office block. What that does to the footfall in a place has a huge impact, so we need to take a range of measures. We absolutely understand the importance of town centres and high streets not just to the economy but for identity, pride and confidence in the future. I will be careful not to stray too far out of scope here, but communities often feel they lack the power to take control of their high streets. There are cases where a unit has been left vacant and there is a local business that would take it on, but the landlord is not interested, either because they are absent and missing in action, or because they are an investor where the bulk value is more important than the actual rent that can be collected.
That is why things such as the community right to buy, which gives the community the right to have assets, and a community asset register, which gives protection to assets of community value, are important. It is also important to provide more time for communities to self-organise and maybe take over some of these assets. This is an important step that will go some way to achieving that, but in isolation, it would not be enough, which is why the other steps we are taking will make a difference. Where this will make an absolute difference is that once we have dealt with the empty property, the businesses that occupy it onwards can be that bit more viable, because the business rates will be lessened on their operating costs.
Adam Thompson
Q
I want to focus on pubs, because we had a little less focus on that than other areas earlier. I know that like many other colleagues, I would not be here, sitting in this room, if it were not for the emotional and social support of pubs during the election campaign—in my case, the White Lion and the Dew Drop Inn. What opportunities do you feel will be opened up for the pub sector by the Bill?
Jim McMahon: We heard earlier about community pubs. A lot is said about the last pub in a village, and they are lifelines. If everything else is gone—the shop is closed and maybe the post office too—then having a convenient space where the community can come together is important for a number of reasons, not just for social isolation, but for living a decent, fulfilled life where those relationships and experiences matter.
Quite a lot less is said about the last pub on the estate. In the same way that many rural villages feel isolated and disconnected, lots of estates feel completely disconnected from a lot else, such as the convenience stores and things that used to be there, including the local church, the church hall or the scout hall. We need to do far more to make sure that the convenience store and the local pub can survive and thrive. We heard earlier that, given where the thresholds are being set, those are exactly the types of places that will be the biggest beneficiaries of some of the measures in the Bill.
The high street, which is obviously a bit more expensive to operate on because of the nature of rateable values, will also be a beneficiary of the Bill. It is so targeted on retail, hospitality and leisure that those types of uses, which are the backbone of high streets and town centres, will benefit. The same is true for pubs: community pubs and village pubs, but also pubs on the high streets and in town centres, will be in scope to benefit from the Bill.
We heard earlier about the mounting pressure of food costs and energy costs. The cost of carbon dioxide supply for carbonated drinks is extremely high, as is the cost of staffing. The scope of this Bill is narrow and targeted, so there are limitations to what it can do. It cannot fix absolutely everything in the system, but it can play its part. I think we heard today in the evidence sessions that it is absolutely welcomed as part of the answer.
Patrick Spencer
Q
Why did the Government not go further in looking at alternatives, whether it be a sales tax or a land value tax? I am not a fan of land value taxes—they are another form of capital tax—but why did the Government not look at being more ambitious, instead of retaining a system that may be better in the future but still not ideal?
Jim McMahon: Which taxes are fair is always in the eye of the beholder. People have very different views about the fairness of different taxes in the system. In terms of property tax, I am here as the local tax Minister covering business rates and council tax. They are established taxes and they are understood. There are definitely views about whether they are up to date and fit for purpose, and whether they should be reformed, but however clunky the system is, very few people have an alternative that holds water, is fair, and produces the same level of income to support local public services.
There is always that balance to be struck. With business rates, you are getting a balance between the inherent value of a property, the rent that it can achieve, and the link to capital. We have heard that there are contradictions in some places where the economy is more suppressed, but it is not entirely intended to do that anyway; it is about reflecting the activity that takes place within a property as much as the bricks and mortar. On that basis, it is probably as good as you are going to get.
The question for the Government is how we build in a safety net for those uses that we want to maintain because they are positive for the local community and the economy, but that may be marginal commercially, which is exactly what the Bill is intended to do. But in a self-financing system, as the business rate system is, how do you then draw from other parts of the system in the fairest possible way? I think we have achieved that.
Why? Because a £500,000 rateable value is 1% of the business rate system, and it targets the warehouses and distribution centres for companies that are by and large doing well. Most retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street, such as restaurants, fashion retailers and pubs, are saying, “We are only just keeping our head above water.” In a system that anybody would say is quite clunky, I think this Bill is as good as you will get for rebalancing it fairly, while being targeted enough to get the outcome that you want, which is thriving high streets and local communities who can begin to be proud of the places where they live because they are seeing activity, not windows boarded up and roller shutters pulled down.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Jim McMahon: At the moment, any property over £500,000 would be subject to the higher value. We are not looking at the moment at sectoral exemptions, but clearly we will take into account the evidence sessions and the discussions that will happen tomorrow. However, it would be fair to say that if you are a retailer with such a square footage that the value is over £500,000, you are likely to be a very big department store, a big out-of-town shed or a supermarket. The assumption in the system is that if you can afford to occupy and run a space of that size, there is room to pay additional business rates on that basis. In the end, it is about giving it to that ultimate use, which is the smaller retail, hospitality and leisure uses that are the backbone of many communities.
Harriet Cross
Q
Jim McMahon: I think, within the scope of the Bill, which is very narrow, the impact is only a positive one. That is in the context of the temporary relief that was provided during the covid pandemic, which, being temporary, was coming to an end—the cliff edge was coming. There was absolutely no finance provided for it beyond the current year, so the question then is: what do Government do about it? We either grow even further the £22 billion funding gap that was here when we came into office—that is, we continue it—or we say that—
Harriet Cross
Ten minutes ago, you said that we have to look at those changes within the scope of all the other changes, so I think it is not unreasonable to look at it as a whole.
Jim McMahon: As in, the interventions that the Government are taking?
Harriet Cross
Yes.
Jim McMahon: In the scope of the Bill, this is the much-needed relief that retail, hospitality and leisure need. Every one of the witnesses who came to talk about the impact of it, within the scope of the Bill, were—
Harriet Cross
Q
Jim McMahon: Those witnesses were very positive about its impact. Lots of other changes will be coming through the system. We still have to do the revaluation. We still have, through the next fiscal programme, to talk about the rates. That type of analysis will be done at a later stage. To be clear, although there was a lot of context about the operating environment being challenging—there is only so much you can do within months of coming into office—on the small business rate issue and on retail, hospitality and leisure, every witness said that the Bill will play a part in supporting local businesses to be more sustainable in the future. The other issues are well outside of the scope of the Bill.
Harriet Cross
Q
Jim McMahon: If we are giving a tax relief to retail, hospitality and leisure for almost all community operators, convenience stores, pubs and other businesses, and we are doing the same for town centres, city centres and high streets, then the answer is self-evident: it will be a positive outcome.
Harriet Cross
Q
Jim McMahon: That will be considered in the round. To be clear, however, it was a manifesto commitment to rebalance the on-street with the online, to get back to supporting the high street, and to give sustained support to the businesses that are the backbone of our community. The Bill is delivering that manifesto commitment. We do not shy away from that. We are proud that within the first six months, the legislation is coming and businesses will feel it in every community in the country.
The Chair
We have eight minutes left, five people still to speak, and a vote is due any second now.
Deirdre Costigan
Q
Jim McMahon: Again, there is a wider context. It is about ending the cap-in-hand bidding process, through which the previous Government aligned councils, one by one, getting them to compete with each other for a very restricted pot of money to support local high street improvements. In the end, we must provide a fairer way of funding local councils, which has to be based on need. I will be careful again not to get ahead of next week’s provisional settlement, but measures will be very clear in there about the intent and the direction of travel. In the end, it is about making sure that councils have the resources they need to ensure that wherever a council is—outside of the bidding war that we saw previously—they have the resources to intervene on the high street.
Resource is part of that, but the powers are also important. The community right to buy, the asset register and having a proper period to be able to self-organise are part of that. The measure is about making sure that when businesses are open and they are operating, they are sustainable businesses because their tax burden from business rates is fair and equitable.
Martin Wrigley
Q
Forgive me if it is a naive question, but I do not see anywhere in the Bill, other than it starting in April 2026, any commitment to forward notice of changes or the forward ability to see changes. One presumes they come once a year in the Budget, but I am not sure it is actually mandated that that is the case. Is there a mechanism in the Bill that prevents future Governments from changing these rates more frequently, or is there anything that we can put in it that gives local authorities sufficient time to implement such things?
You say that the provisional settlement is due next week. I say once again, as a former council leader, that that is very late. You are forgiven—it is the first year, so there are extenuating circumstances—but councils need time to set their budgets, set their systems and do all that. I am looking for lead times, implementation times and guarantees of multiple years’ rates for consistency.
Jim McMahon: That is precisely why we have phased the approach. The permanent relief will come in at 40% in 2026-27, but we have included a transition period. That will continue the £110,000 cap, but it will bring in the 40% relief. The relief will be out the door immediately, but it will give time for a number of things in the system to catch up, the revaluation being a very important part of that.
This is a part of the wider issue of local funding. There are measures in the Bill that will see additional business rate funding to councils, because some of that is retained business rates in the system. We are going a long way and, without getting ahead of next week’s provisional settlement, it is a good settlement. There is £4 billion to £5 billion of new, clean money going into local government for all the issues that you as a former council leader will know are the absolute pressure points: social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation. All those issues are being addressed through the Budget and the provisional settlement. Importantly, deprivation is being brought back as a key indicator of demand in driving many of those services in local communities.
We are going a long way towards that, and we are making sure that councils are given the certainty and capacity. We accept that the settlement this year is coming down to the wire, and it would have been nice to get it sooner, but getting it right is important. Our intention is, as we move further, to go to multi-year settlements so that councils have long-term stability and that certainty is built into the business rate system.
Michelle Welsh
Q
Jim McMahon: That is entirely the point, although perhaps it did not come out in the evidence sessions. A lot of the debate can be quite polarised—whether you are for or against private schools and the rest of it. When I was on the other side of the table, I was clear that I wanted to pull away from that and say, “Well, let’s just have a conversation based on the evidence.” What the evidence says is that there has been provision to ensure that those schools that are mainly or wholly for pupils with special educational needs will not be affected by these measures at all. Why? It is because we recognise that, within the wider school ecosystem, that provision is important in many communities and that many local authorities will support it. That is being provided in the Bill.
In the end, though, I would say that we need to rebuild mainstream provision. We all have constituents at their wits’ end because, after 14 years, mainstream provision has been allowed to erode to such a point that, in some places, it barely exists. We need to rebuild it, and the investment through the autumn statement begins that rebuilding work. It will take time. There is no button to press that resets 14 years in six months, but in terms of a statement of intent, £1 billion through the local government finance settlement for SEND provision is the start of that rebuilding process.
Mr Sewards
Q
Jim McMahon: I definitely cannot guarantee that the landlord did not have a view about the tenants in that situation, but I think we all know of examples in which businesses have been frustrated when they have tried to get hold of the landlord of prime retail properties on the high street, sometimes in fantastic historical buildings. When they eventually get a response—if they get one at all—it is like the one my hon. Friend got: it does not bear truth, as the building is still empty six months down the line.
There is a wider issue here about the powers that the community has to take over assets and turn them into something for the public interest, not just distant investor interest. Measures in the Bill will go a long way to ensure that, when those premises are occupied, the occupant gets the support they need to be sustainable in the long term.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the sitting. I thank all the witnesses for their evidence and all the members of the Committee for their patience.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the Parliament website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a clause stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw or to seek a decision on the amendment or new clause. If any Member wishes to press another amendment, new clause or schedule in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I hope that explanation is helpful. It was to me, at least. If any Member wishes to make a declaration of interest, they can do so now.
Clause 1
Determination of additional multipliers
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”
David Simmonds
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. We have tabled a number of amendments to this legislation, but I want to be clear from the outset that we are not proposing to press them to a vote. We hope to have a response from the Minister; in many cases, that will follow up on the evidence that we heard in yesterday’s evidence sessions.
The purpose of amendment 13 is to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier; the significance of local flexibility and discretion in that was highlighted in yesterday’s oral evidence and in written evidence to the Committee. The amendment would ensure that a billing authority, which is the local authority for the area, has discretion to apply a different figure, where the authority considers that it would benefit the local economy or its residents by doing so. That flexibility has been reflected in the business rate system that has been in operation in England since the 1990s.
As we heard yesterday in evidence, the impact of the Bill is considered by most sectors and by most of the witnesses to be moderate. Therefore, the level of flexibility in the Bill does not allow for a hugely different figure from one type of business rate payer to another. However, local authorities are sometimes keen, for example, to support a local business for the purposes of sustaining employment for a period of time or because the local authority believes that the business provides an important local facility. In such an instance, the local authority may see it to be in the interests of local taxpayers to vary the application of the higher multiplier.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Amendment 13 seeks to give local authorities discretion over where the higher multiplier enabled by the Bill should apply. In England, there are currently two non-domestic rating multipliers: the non-domestic rating multiplier for properties with a rateable value of £51,000 and above, and the small business non-domestic rating multiplier for lower value properties. The Bill will enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more.
Narrowing the scope of the higher multiplier would inevitably reduce the funding available to support the lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties. Ratepayers in England may, however, be eligible for a range of different reliefs from business rates. Some reliefs are mandatory and provided for in legislation, whereas others are given at the discretion of the billing authority.
The Bill will not affect the very wide powers local authorities have to award this discretionary rate relief, as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Those powers already allow local authorities to devise and deliver their own relief schemes without the intervention of central Government, where the authority is satisfied that that would be in the interest of its council tax payers. Once the Bill has come into force, local authorities will be able to use their discretionary powers to provide relief, should they so choose, to offset any impact of the new, higher multiplier. I hope that gives enough assurance to the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment. Local authorities will still have the powers they have always had, with the flexibility to respond to local concern.
Clause 1 adds into the business rate system new additional multipliers, or tax rates. Currently, there are two multipliers, as I set out before: the non-domestic rating multiplier and the small business non-domestic rating multiplier. The legislation for those is found in part A1 of schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Clause 1 adds a new chapter 3A to part A1 for the new additional multipliers.
As set out by the Exchequer Secretary on Second Reading last month, the introduction of the new additional multipliers that this clause enables is the Government’s first step towards creating a fairer business rate system. The intention of these new multipliers is to first, once set at autumn Budget 2025, provide a permanent tax cut to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, ending the uncertainty of annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief. Secondly, it will ensure that the tax cut is funded sustainably through the introduction of higher multipliers levied on the most valuable properties. The new chapter 3A gives the Treasury new powers to set these additional multipliers.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members that we are providing for new taxation through powers in a Bill, but we face a challenge in business rates in setting the multipliers, because demand notices are issued by individual local authorities, and these must be ready to go out several weeks before the start of the financial year. We must confirm and give notice of the multipliers to local authorities before they prepare those demand notices, and that simply does not allow time for us to return to Parliament with a Bill each time we want to change the multipliers.
In recognition of hon. Members’ concerns about providing new taxation through powers in a Bill, clause 1 includes some important safeguards over the use of the powers. First, paragraph A6A(1)(a) of the new chapter 3A ensures that the Treasury cannot set a multiplier that is more than 0.1 higher than the non-domestic rating multiplier. We often, in practice, refer to multipliers as being so many pence in the pound. For example, the current non-domestic rating multiplier is 54.6 pence in the pound. In those terms, this clause ensures that the multiplier cannot be more than 10p higher than the non-domestic rating multiplier.
Secondly, paragraph A6A(1)(b) of the new chapter 3A ensures, in a similar way, that the Treasury cannot set the lower multipliers more than 0.2—20p in the pound—below the small business non-domestic rating multiplier. Thirdly, clause 1(5) ensures that where the Treasury is using those powers to set a higher multiplier, it will need to bring a statutory instrument before the House of Commons in draft for approval before that multiplier can be confirmed. To be clear, those values are the maximum parameters at which the new additional multipliers may be set. They do not represent the changes that the Government intend to implement. The parameters are guardrails that offer sensible limits with proportionate flexibility.
The decision on the level at which the new multipliers will be set will be taken at the autumn Budget 2025, factoring in the impacts of the 2026 revaluation on the tax base, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context. The clause also ensures, in new paragraph A6A(2)(a), that the Treasury cannot set more than two lower multipliers. That reflects our intention to have two multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure: one for properties below £51,000 rateable value, and one for properties between £51,000 and less than £500,000. However, the new paragraph A6A(2)(b) ensures that we can still make adjustments to those two new multipliers if the hereditament is unoccupied or on the central rating list—although our current intention is for the same multipliers to apply across all occupied, unoccupied and central list properties.
Finally, clause 1(4) ensures that the existing arrangements in chapter 4 of part 1A of schedule 7, which concern the making and giving of notices of the multipliers, will also apply to the new multipliers. It will ensure, for example, that we must give notice of the multipliers as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been calculated, and that they are rounded to three decimal places.
David Simmonds
The Minister and I had the joy of parallel careers in local government for many years. I cannot imagine he spent a great deal of that time looking forward to the opportunity to explain non-domestic business rate multipliers in a Bill Committee. However, as he acknowledged, it is important to ensure that there is a sufficient degree of local scrutiny and flexibility so that those local authorities that are billing authorities are able to exercise their discretion in order to support their local economy. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s intentions in that respect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Special authority multipliers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 2 concerns additional multipliers in special authorities. The meaning of a special authority is already defined in section 144(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as one which on 1 April 1986 had a population of less than 10,000 and a total rateable value per population number of more than £10,000. The City of London Corporation is the only authority that meets that test. The City of London has powers to set its own non-domestic rating multipliers. For example, for the current year the non-domestic rating multiplier in the City of London is 56.4p, compared to the same multiplier in the rest of England of 54.6p. Those existing powers are in part 2 of schedule 7 of the 1988 Act.
Clause 2 inserts new paragraph 9B into part 2 of schedule 7, giving the Treasury powers to make provision for the additional multipliers in the City of London. The Treasury may only do that where it has exercised those equivalent powers in clause 1 for the rest of England. The unique powers of The City of London reflect its special circumstances, notably its very small resident population. The clause reflects the Government’s intention for the new multipliers to apply across England. In clause 2, we have replicated the same safeguards for setting the additional multipliers as apply in clause 1.
Proposed new paragraph 9B(1)(a)(i) of schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will ensure the higher multipliers in the City of London cannot be more than 0.1, or 10p in the pound, higher than the City’s non-domestic rating multiplier, and proposed new paragraph 9B(1)(a)(ii) will ensure the lower multipliers in the City of London cannot be more than 0.2, or 20p in the pound, lower than the City’s small business non-domestic rating multiplier.
David Simmonds
I have no objection to these measures. Could the Minister confirm, in writing if that is more convenient, that there has been a degree of consultation with the corporation to establish what, if any, impact it would expect on its budget?
Jim McMahon
I can confirm in writing the exact consultation that has taken place. Conversations will certainly take place. I return to the point that, if we do not take these measures to include the City of London, there will be many high-value properties that we can use to support retail, hospitality and leisure in the rest of England to which these measures would not be applied. It is an important measure. I will certainly confirm in writing via my officials the consultation that has taken place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Application of multipliers
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 15 and 16.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 22 and 24.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 14 and 16.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 17 and 19.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 20 and 24.
Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 14 and 15.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 20 and 22.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 36, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
David Simmonds
This group revolves around amendments 14, 17 and 20 and includes consequential amendments on relevant language in further paragraphs. They aim to address an issue that has been raised extensively in public evidence sessions, written evidence submitted to the Committee and the wider debate about measures in the Bill. That is, the circumstances of certain types of businesses, for example those that are unusual in that they are open for very long hours because they may be the only retailer in a location and are therefore of particular significance to that community, or those that are host to a post office. We all hear examples of local post offices co-locating with shops. We are very keen to ensure that those businesses are sustainable for the wider benefit of that community and access, particularly for vulnerable residents, to those services is maintained.
Progress has been made in developing banking hubs, often in premises that are co-located, sometimes with post offices. We know that has been important in ensuring access to cash in communities where it might otherwise be lost, as well as access to more general banking services, for both small businesses and vulnerable residents. These types of business can be absolutely critical, especially in rural locations, but sometimes also in suburban areas where elderly residents in particular may struggle to access those types of shops and services if we do not ensure their continued support.
The purpose of the amendments is to introduce specific exemptions or provisions to ensure that the measures are enacted in a way that continues to support retailers with long opening hours that provide services that might otherwise not be available, access to a post office or access to a banking hub.
Jim McMahon
Amendments 14 to 25, tabled by the shadow Minister, would exclude certain properties from the higher multiplier. Properties that are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day, properties that are shared with a post office and properties that are shared with a banking hub would be excluded from the higher multiplier.
These are very important sectors. The Post Office delivers essential services that are hugely valuable to both individuals and small or medium-sized enterprises in urban and rural areas across the country. Those services include mail, parcels, cash, basic banking, utility bill payments and Government and public services. That is why post offices are eligible for the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which gives eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties 40% relief on their business rates bills, up to a cash cap of £110,000 per person, in the 2024-25 financial year.
With regard to banking hubs, the Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking to communities and high streets, and we are committed to championing sufficient access across the country as a priority. That is why the Government are working closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK. The UK banking sector has committed to deliver those hubs by the end of the Parliament. Over 90 banking hubs are open to the public, and the Government continue to work closely with high street banks to ensure communities and local businesses have access to the banking services they need.
To provide certainty and permanent support for the retail sector and the high street, through the Bill we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000. The existing RHL relief has been repeatedly extended year on year as a temporary stopgap, creating cliff edges for businesses and significant financial pressures. The Government are currently developing with the sector the definition of “qualifying RHL properties”, which will be introduced through secondary legislation in 2025. The sector definitions will broadly follow those already defined in the current retail, hospitality and leisure relief system.
To ensure that this tax cut is sustainably funded, we intend also to introduce a higher rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable values of more than £500,000. To be clear, that only applies to the highest value properties, and less than 1% of all non-domestic properties across England. I understand that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner wants to exclude some properties from the higher charge. However, the Government want to take a fair approach, which is why we intend to ask all properties with rateable values of £500,000 and above to contribute more to support the high street. The Government do not intend to exclude any properties with a higher value, applying the approach in the fairest possible way.
There are practical implications that make it difficult to apply different multipliers to retailers based on their opening hours. Local authorities require certainty about which multiplier will be applied to which property ahead of the billing year. That cannot be determined based on opening hours, which businesses can rightly change at their own discretion, subject to legal requirements. For the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot accept the amendment, which would carve out certain premises from the higher tax rate. However, I hope the Committee is reassured of the Government’s commitment to post offices, banking hubs and the retail sector.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for talking us through the complex set of reliefs that are available. It is an issue that colleagues who represent rural areas have been concerned about, because there are often multi-use sites in those areas—a petrol station and a post office, or a banking hub and a small supermarket. Those are potentially larger premises that are critical to the operation of the local community. I am grateful that the Minister has set out how existing reliefs may operate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
In the absence of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, I call Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 13, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 31, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 35, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Martin Wrigley
We have tabled this amendment to explore the possibility of including manufacturing businesses. Manufacturing is important, and we know that it is struggling. By adding manufacturing businesses, we might be able to help them in the same way as we intend to help hospitality, retail and leisure. Manufacturing is a vital area that we have lost too much of in the past however many years. This relief would be a small help to enable manufacturing businesses to recover. That is why we would like to add the category of manufacturing to the provision.
Jim McMahon
Amendments 1 to 6 deal with eligibility for the new lower multipliers. Under the amendments qualifying manufacturing properties would be eligible for the two new lower multipliers the Bill introduces for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27.
Let me start by highlighting that the Government recognise the importance of the manufacturing sector, and we have identified advanced manufacturing as one of the eight growth-driving sectors as part of our industrial strategy, recognising the contribution it makes to our economy. However, the provisions in the Bill are about delivering our manifesto pledge to protect the high street. To that end, we aim to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. To ensure that this tax cut is sustainably funded, we intend also to introduce a higher rate on the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. As I said before, this represents just 1% of the ratings system; the context is important here.
The measures in the Bill will provide certainty and support for RHL businesses, which are the backbone of the high street. The existing RHL relief has been repeatedly extended year on year as a temporary stopgap. It has created a cliff edge for businesses, and those sectors have repeatedly demanded clarity and certainty. We have been clear that the eligibility for the new lower RHL multipliers will broadly follow those already defined in the current retail, hospitality and leisure relief system. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole spoke about her experience of owning a café and the need for Government support for such businesses. That is precisely why we are enabling the introduction of these new multipliers for those types of property through the Bill.
The amendments in the hon. Lady’s name would expand the scope of this support to include manufacturing properties, but that does not match our intended goal of supporting the high street in a targeted way through the Bill. Against the current fiscal backdrop, extending eligibility to other sectors may dilute the support that the Government can offer to retail, hospitality and leisure properties. It may even require a higher rate on properties with rateable values of £500,000 or more to fund the new lower multipliers sustainably.
I reiterate that the Government are committed to supporting the manufacturing sector. At the Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for a new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that the Committee is assured of the Government’s continued commitment to the manufacturing sector.
Martin Wrigley
I am a little reassured by the Government’s intentions to support the manufacturing industry and look forward to their efforts to do so. I am certainly reassured by the support for the high street, which is very important to all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 6, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the new higher multiplier will have on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
New clause 2—Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier—
“(1) The condition in this section is that the actions set out in subsections (2) to (5) have been completed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out a review assessing the impact that the new higher multiplier will have on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
(3) After the review, the independent person must—
(a) prepare a report of the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) A report prepared under subsection (3)(a) must be submitted to the Secretary of State within twelve months of the appointment of the independent person under subsection (2).
(5) On receiving the report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(6) In this section, references to an ‘independent person’ are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of the Government.”
This new clause requires the Government to hold an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
New clause 4—Review of impact of new multipliers—
“(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections (1) to (4) of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.
(2) The review must consider —
(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,
(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.
(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—
(a) businesses,
(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and
(c) Billing Authorities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.
Jim McMahon
For this grouping, I will first speak to clause 3, then return, after other contributions, to amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4.
We have previously discussed clause 1, which allows the Treasury to introduce new additional multipliers. Clause 3 deals with how we will determine which properties those multipliers should apply to. The clause is split into three main parts, dealing with occupied hereditaments in subsection (2), unoccupied hereditaments in subsection (3), and hereditaments on the central list in subsection (4). Properties on the central list are typically utility networks spanning many local authority areas, such as gas, electricity and water networks. Each of those subsections is essentially identical, so, to save the Committee from much repetition, I will explain the provisions on occupied hereditaments in clause 3(2) only.
The most important part of subsection (2) is the small amendment made by paragraph (a) to existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under those powers, the Treasury already has the ability to determine in regulations which multiplier applies to which property. Those powers, in respect of occupied properties, are in paragraphs 10(9) and 10(10) of schedule 42A to the 1988 Act. Clause 3(2)(a) amends that part of the 1988 Act to extend those powers to cover all the additional multipliers. This means that the Treasury will be able to determine, by regulations, which properties pay on which multiplier. Actually, Dame Siobhain, may I just correct the record? I think that I referred to “schedule 42A”, but it is actually schedule 4ZA.
As in clause 1, we have included in clause 3 safeguards on to how the Treasury may use these powers. First, clause 3(2)(b) amends paragraph 10 of schedule 4ZA to ensure, through proposed new sub-paragraph (9B)(b), that the Treasury cannot apply the higher multipliers to any hereditaments with a rateable value of less than £500,000. This will ensure, based on the current rating list, that 99% of hereditaments are unaffected by the higher multiplier.
Secondly, proposed new sub-paragraph (9B)(c) will ensure that the Treasury, when setting new lower multipliers, can apply them only to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments. The precise meaning of qualifying RHL properties will be set out in regulations, but we have been clear that we intend to broadly follow the existing definition that applies to the current relief scheme for those sectors.
Thirdly, the Treasury, when using the existing powers to determine who pays on which multiplier, will need to bring that statutory instrument in draft to both Houses of Parliament for approval before that can be confirmed. This requirement is not on the face of the Bill because the powers already exist, but if hon. Members wish to be reassured on this point, it can be found in section 143(7B) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
The power to define qualifying RHL properties—in proposed new paragraph 10(9C) of schedule 4ZA to the 1998 Act—follows the negative resolution procedure, given that this power only allows us to reduce the rates for certain ratepayers.
Finally on clause 3, the existing powers for determining the application of the multiplier allows the Treasury to do that by reference to a list of factors found in paragraph 10(10) of schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. This is a non-exhaustive list that includes factors such as its rateable value, its location or its use.
For the introduction of the lower multipliers in 2026, we intend to replicate the process and the broad eligibility in the current RHL relief. As with the current system, local authorities will determine eligibility, but rather than that being against guidance, we will lay down criteria in regulations. Clause 3(2)(c) gives the Treasury the scope also to determine the application of the multipliers by reference to the description that the Valuation Office Agency will put in the rating list.
As I have said, the remaining parts of clause 3 make the same provisions that I have described, but in relation to unoccupied properties and those on the central rating list. It is usual for powers applying multipliers across occupied, unoccupied and central rating list properties to align.
David Simmonds
I will speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4, which stand in my name. They are designed to address concerns raised in evidence which there was some debate about yesterday: the objective of setting out, as far as we can in advance, the impact these measures would have on affected businesses; providing for a review and scrutiny process to follow up to confirm that the assessment had been correct or otherwise; and seeing what lessons can be learned from it. I appreciate that the Government are very keen to press ahead on this and will be reluctant to accept amendments that have that effect.
None the less, I am sure Members will recognise that when making decisions it is important to have a sense of what the impact is likely to be, in particular when we know that the impact of some of the measures will affect businesses that may be marginal. In many communities the loss of a large supermarket or warehouse or logistics centre that may be affected will have a major impact on the availability of services and local employment. That is the thinking behind bringing these measures forward. With your leave, Dame Siobhan, I will move them for debate.
The Chair
We will come on to whether you wish to withdraw those amendments later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—
(a) businesses,
(b) high streets, and
(c) economic growth.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses,
(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets,
(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of those sections coming into effect.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.
Jim McMahon
Chair, can I just confirm that we are discussing amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4? Or have we moved on to clause 4?
The Chair
If you wished to speak to those amendments, it should have been in the previous debate.
Jim McMahon
I thought I was going to come back at the end of that debate, but it is fine.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dame Siobhan, having moved those amendments, I did indicate that subsequent to the debate I would be minded to withdraw them. I have moved them, but I am not aware that we have made a decision on withdrawal.
The Chair
It has been suggested that the decisions on those amendments come later, and there is no further point to debate them. Is that okay?
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhan. I will not press the amendments to a vote.
Jim McMahon
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the introduction of new multipliers. Let me first set out that I understand full well why the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has been pressing this point, and I agree with it in principle. Chair, can I just check that I am speaking to the right provisions?
Jim McMahon
I will speak to both now. Clause 4 makes two small consequential amendments to the existing legislation to reflect the addition of the new multipliers. There are other amendments we will need to make to regulations to reflect the changes in the Bill, but we will do that using existing powers once the Bill has passed. We have not taken any further powers to make consequential changes.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill provides the basis for how the two new retail multipliers and the higher multiplier will be set. In doing so we are deliberately constraining the maximum levels of the new tax rates by reference to the existing business rate multipliers. Those guard rails prescribed in the legislation provide that the basis for how the new rates will be set will be at the next Budget. For the two retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers, the Bill ensures that the rate may not be more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business rate multiplier. For the higher multiplier, it cannot be more than 10p above the standard multiplier.
I have outlined how the new multipliers will be set at the next Budget, but I trust that hon. Members will also be reassured that when the new multipliers are set, the Treasury intends to publish analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements, taking into account the effects of other changes in the 2026 Budget. The impact assessment that has been referred to in this debate and in the evidence session will be picked up later on in the process. That work will not stop with the next revaluation. As with all taxes, the Government will keep the policy and its effects under review. It is therefore not necessary to impose that requirement in legislation.
With that explanation of the Bill provisions, the process for setting the tax rates, and HMT’s intention to provide analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements, I hope I have provided the necessary assurances for new clause 1 to be withdrawn.
Martin Wrigley
I rise to speak to new clause 1. I thank the Minister for his words. It is, as we are discovering, an incredibly complex and arcane way of creating taxes that will have an impact on many high street businesses. While the Treasury analysis will tell us how the multipliers have hit, and the numbers that are done from a taxation point of view, it will not answer whether the Bill has achieved what it set out to do, which is to provide the necessary relief.
New clause 1 looks more at the impact on the businesses and whether the provisions had a measurable impact on economic growth. That is not the same as an analysis from the Treasury of the changes in the bills that are being presented to people; it is looking at the effect and impact, to see whether the Bill is achieving the desired outcome. That is why we would like to see the measurement included.
As an engineer and a scientist, I believe in a feedback mechanism: something that measures what has been achieved against what has been required. We believe that was missing in the Bill, and we would like to see it, which is why we have asked for new clause 1 to be considered. The work is there and will be beneficial to one and all. I do not see it as a significant barrier to the Bill progressing, but as a positive feedback mechanism that will enable us to determine the effectiveness of the support on the desired areas and businesses, including high streets, which are so important.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from “persons” to the end of line 38 and insert
“who have special educational needs.
(5A) In subsection (5) ‘special educational needs’ has the same meaning as in section 20 (when a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.
We are moving on to a different area. This amendment is designed to address concerns raised in evidence, and by many across the House in debates, about the impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. We recognise that the Government have introduced measures to address some of those concerns, but there have been many changes to the SEND system over the years. In particular, the provision about wholly or mainly providing education to children who are in receipt of an education, health and care plan specifically addresses those at the most significant end of special educational needs and disabilities.
The previous Labour Government introduced a system, in the days of statementing, that included measures called school action and school action plus. If a child had a form of special educational needs that was not so severe that they required the statementing process, but needed additional resources in the classroom, that classification triggered additional resources for the school. In the 2014 reforms, that was morphed into SEN support. Beneath the education, health and care plan, for the most significant levels of need, there is an SEN support set-up whereby local authorities direct additional funding towards schools because children are classified at those levels.
One of our concerns is that some children who have found their way to an independent school—for example, because it has a reputation for providing a good level of support to children with SEN—have not been through a process whereby they have been formally categorised. Gesher in my constituency is an independent special educational needs and disability school that charges fees. A proportion of its students are there because their parents have made the choice, and have not been through a local authority process. Others are there because they have an education, health and care plan and it is the named school paid for by the local authority. All children attending that school have some form of special educational need or disability and are therefore attending private school.
The rationale behind this amendment is that we do not want independent schools that provide education to large numbers of children with SEND but are below the education, health and care plan threshold to be put in a very difficult financial position. Potentially, the Government do not intend to go down that route. Most of us are aware that the extent of SEND provision in the independent sector is very large. Indeed, the amount of money that local authorities have to pay in fees to place significant numbers of children in sometimes very specialist provision is a major concern to them. We also hear from constituents who have identified that a moderate level of special educational needs may be met in the independent sector without the child’s having gone through the process of an education, health and care plan.
We are seeking to ensure that schools that educate children with special educational needs, in a broader sense, are not missed. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I am sure the Minister will have more comments to make, further to what he said in the evidence sessions.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 26 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if they wholly or mainly cater to pupils with special educational needs, whether or not those pupils also have an education, health and care plan, as defined in section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised about pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief because they are not wholly or mainly composed of pupils with EHCPs. We have carefully considered our approach to minimise the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs will remain eligible for charitable rates relief. For business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means more than 50%. In practice, that will ensure that most special schools are not affected by the measure. We expect any special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; the number may even be in the single figures.
Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met in mainstream, state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds that child’s place. Any changes to fees as a result of this measure will not impact on the parents or families of those pupils.
In private schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, and they are predominantly in private special schools. Some 97% of pupils with an EHCP in private schools already have their place funded by a local authority. Where an EHCP has not named a private school in its assessment of the child, the parent or carers may choose to place the child in a private school. That is a choice made by the parent, and does not detract from an assessment that a pupil’s needs can be catered for in a mainstream, state-funded school. There may be instances where a child’s parent disagrees with the local authority’s assessment that their child’s needs can be met in the state sector, and the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel for resolving such disagreements. Amendment 26, which would amend the basis on which fee-paying schools can retain charitable rates relief, would undermine the Government’s intention of removing tax breaks from private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state schools.
The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited. That is ensured by exempting schools that wholly or mainly cater to pupils with EHCPs from the measure. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, already have their needs catered for in the state-funded sector. The Government support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for all children of compulsory school age who need one, and work to provide additional appropriate support for pupils with SEN requirements at state-funded schools.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that the vast majority of the children that we are talking about will have their needs provided for in the state sector. I think we are all very much aware of that, and generally consider it something of which we can be proud. However, a significant number of children find their way into the independent sector because their parents did not pursue the process of statementing, or of seeking SEN support with an attached budget. Conservative Members are concerned that there is a risk that a significant proportion of those children will find themselves displaced into the state sector by a range of measures that the Government have taken—a sector that is not especially well geared to cope with their needs at the moment. In particular, the restriction of the relief solely to those who have an education, health and care plan will mean it is available solely to those with needs that are at the most significant end of the range, so a large number of children will be at risk of losing out. However, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert
“, or
(b) a local authority makes a determination that they wish to apply discretion to the application of rate relief for the institution within the meaning of section 47 (Discretionary relief) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”
This amendment would provide that a school is not a private school for the purposes of exempting it from charitable rate relief if a determination is made to that effect by the billing authority.
The amendment is on a related subject to one that we have already debated, so I will not speak about it at great length. We are very much aware that the independent sector is critical to our catering for special education needs and disability. Its coverage across the UK is variable, especially when it comes to provision for children with very significant special needs that a wide range of SEND provision cannot easily address. A local authority that hosts a small school providing for a very small number of children may wish to exercise discretion.
There are charities of many types that are service providers that charge people fees for the provision of such services. That can include anything from adoption placement to fostering and safeguarding in the children’s sector. A large variety of charities charge to provide services such as home care, and care for adults with disabilities. The point was made yesterday in evidence that there is a risk of creating a two-tier charity sector; a school that charges for providing for children with significant needs might not be considered a charity for the purposes of business rates relief, whereas a charity providing, for a fee, residential care for adults with a learning disability would be eligible for relief. That remains a concern for Opposition Members. We need to make sure that we sustain our network of provision—particularly provision at the complex end of need—in the UK. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the amendment.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 7 seeks to preserve the discretion of local authorities to award relief to private schools. Currently, any charity that uses its property wholly or mainly for charitable purposes is entitled to a mandatory 80% relief. The local authority must award that 80% relief when the conditions are met. The Bill will remove private schools’ entitlement to that mandatory 80% relief. However, it will not disturb the very wide power that local authorities have to award discretionary rate relief above and beyond that.
That power is found in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It already allows local authorities to top up the mandatory 80% charity relief with a further 20% discretionary relief. When the Bill is in force, local authorities can still use section 47 to grant discretionary relief to private schools, if they wish. They can grant relief of 80%, or any other level of relief that they consider to be appropriate. That is a matter for local discretion, and for local authorities to decide. With the assurance that that will still be in place, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
I am pleased to hear the Minister once again championing the value of local discretion in decision making; I think we mutually acknowledge that it is incredibly important. I am aware that concern remains, particularly in the SEND sector and especially for residential special schools, about how the change will play out. Local authorities may face a Hobson’s choice between being expected to raise a certain amount of revenue by applying the maximum possible business rate to a setting, and doing what they need to do to support the needs and interests of children in their community—and of schools that may be the only centre nationally that can provide for very special needs. However, again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert
“, or
(b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school.
(5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)—
(a) ‘religious character’ has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
(b) ‘other special character’ has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation,
(c) ‘specified distance’ is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.
(5B) Regulations under this section (5B) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school.
On Second Reading, we heard representations from a number of Members about access to faith schools, but those are not the only schools with a special character; there are a number of types of education of a special character. Some schools offer particular sporting opportunities. Organisations such as Montessori provide a particular method of education, and parents may wish to exercise their discretion to access that for their children. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that where the only school that has a particular special or religious character in a given location is an independent school, it is not subject to the measures in the Bill. That will support access to those schools of special character for mums and dads, and for the children who need those schools, across the country.
The amendment relates to legislation on the distance travelled to school. There are regulations designed to ensure, in the interests of health, the environment and the community, that children can access sustainable transport—can walk, cycle, or use public transport where possible. We are very conscious, however, that in many parts of the country there is limited access to certain types of faith school and schools of special character. Clearly, it would therefore inhibit parental choice if those schools could not be accessed, if that were the only way for those families to access the type of education that they wished to access.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 8 would require a private faith school to maintain its eligibility for charitable relief if there is no maintained or academy school of the same faith within the statutory walking distance, as set out in the Education Act 1996. The amendment would also provide that schools with a currently undefined special character be exempted from the Bill measure when defined in regulations. The Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in schools of a particular faith, but all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. State education is suitable for children of all faiths, and all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which means fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and none.
We have already made provision to ensure that private schools “wholly or mainly” concerned with providing full-time education to pupils with an education, health and care plan remain eligible for business rate relief. The Government are not considering any further exemptions to the policy, so there is no need to give the Secretary of State the power to establish and define new designations of school character to then exempt schools of that character from the measure in future, as the amendment would provide for.
The Government have listened carefully to arguments on this matter, and have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or similar schools cannot be justified. It is the Government’s position that state-funded education is suitable for all children of compulsory school age. For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment.
David Simmonds
I need to be clear that I am not here to act as an advocate for faith education; I am not personally a fan of it. I recognise the Minister’s point, but we need to acknowledge that many Members on both sides of the House, and many of our constituents, believe very strongly that they should be able to access a school of a particular character.
There will be some children in the state sector who may be able to access, for example, a specialist sports academy with particular facilities to develop and nurture their talent, but such a school may not be available in all parts of the country. An independent school may be the only one able to foster and nurture that talent, and we would not wish to see any measures taken that would deprive anybody of that opportunity. Once again, however, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a private school offers nursery provision, that school must be considered to be comprised of two separate hereditaments, one of which would be a nursery school.”
The question of hereditaments is certainly not one that I remember from English classes when I was at school, but it is quite significant in the context of business rates. The way in which business rate legislation operates is that it designates a given property, which clearly makes it easier to tax, because the ownership or possession of a property is very hard to move or disguise.
In respect of schools where, for example, there is a nursery on site as part of the overall premises that are considered to be the hereditament for the purposes of business rate legislation, the Opposition are concerned that such premises that would be exempt from business rates or eligible for relief if they were physically separate from the school to which they are connected will not be eligible for that relief because they are on the same site. We know that the Government are very keen, as we were in government, to see an expansion of access to high-quality childcare, a very large proportion of which is in the private sector. The Government—commendably, in my view—have set out a policy of expecting maintained state schools that have nurseries on site to significantly increase the childcare offer to support local parents, which is a very good thing.
In many locations, a nursery connected to a private school may be chosen by parents using tax-free childcare, and there are measures in legislation to support all parents, but primarily lower-income parents, to access that provision. If business rates apply to such premises, however, that would load an extra cost on to them because they are, in effect, co-located and part of a single hereditament.
The purpose of the amendment is to separate those premises out. Where there are premises on a site that become subject to business rates as a result of the Bill, but would not otherwise be subject to them because of their purpose, use and location, they should be considered as separate institutions, so we do not apply the measures to those institutions that we seek through other parts of legislation to support and encourage.
Jim McMahon
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling the amendment. It may assist the Committee if I briefly explain how the Bill will apply to nurseries and nursery classes within the setting of private schools.
The Bill will ensure that nursery schools, where they have their own hereditament and therefore their own rates bill, will be excluded from the provisions and, where they are charities, will retain their charitable rate relief. That is the effect of proposed new sub-paragraph (4)(a)(iii) to schedule 4ZA of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, at line 23 of page 5, in clause 5.
A nursery school is likely to have its own hereditament and therefore its own rates bill when it is run and occupied by a separate body from the private school. An example would be where a separate charity from the private school runs the nursery. A nursery school may also have its own hereditament if it has its own dedicated buildings site that is located away from the rest of the school. Where the same charity runs the private school with some nursery provision, however, and does so from the same site, it is likely to have one hereditament and one rates bill.
I want to make it clear that private schools that include some nursery classes in the way I have described will still be considered as private schools and will lose their relief entirely. The Government have decided that where private schools that mainly provide education for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of a minority of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rate measure. That approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.
For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to attempt, as the amendment would do, to create new artificial hereditaments for nursery classes at private schools merely to preserve some of the charity relief for that private school. I hope the Committee will recognise the steps we have taken to protect nurseries with their own hereditaments, and it will, of course, continue to be the case that nurseries that are run and occupied by separate charities with their own hereditaments will continue to receive relief.
David Simmonds
Once again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers to do as they wish, but I am concerned by what the Minister has outlined. This is not simply an amendment about nursery schools, which are a specific thing. It is about nurseries, which provide childcare. For younger children we have the early years foundation stage, which is not compulsory but is provided and followed by the vast majority of childcare settings, and which aims to ensure a level of educational progression that can be measured from the very youngest children to those who are ready to start school. That is provided in a different way from what is provided by nursery schools, which are specific institutions of which there are several hundred in the country.
In London constituencies such as the one that I represent, it is quite common to find nursery providers that are run as part of private school institutions in the same location, but that are used by parents who have no intention of sending their child on to that private school. Because the fees charged are in line with the local childcare market, and those fees are significantly supported by measures such as tax-free childcare, those nurseries are an affordable means of securing good-quality childcare. Those children will go on to a range of local provision.
I remain concerned about the Bill insisting that a nursery located on a premises shared by a private school within the scope of these measures should be subject to a significantly higher rates bill than if it were located in a physically separate building just down the road. I suspect that that will remain an issue of contention during the passage of the Bill. Clearly, although an impact assessment or a review will not be specifically proposed in the legislation, there will be an opportunity to see its impact in due course. For those reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 5 removes charitable rate relief from private schools. Under the current law, all charities are entitled to 80% charitable relief on any properties that they occupy and use wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. That rule is found in paragraph 2 of schedule 4ZA to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and clause 5(2) amends it to exclude private schools from that rule. Proposed new sub-paragraph (3) removes from charitable relief hereditaments wholly or mainly used to carry on a private school. That will ensure that ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.
The policy to remove the eligibility of private schools that are charities from charitable rate relief is a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help to deliver the Government’s commitment to education and to young people.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Yesterday, we heard plenty of evidence from lots of witnesses, specifically about private schools. We also heard from Professor Francis Green, who stated that the measure would have a negligible impact on private schools. At the same time, as the Minister stated, it will raise much-needed funds to support the policies that we promised in the build-up to the general election. Does he agree that although this is a tough choice, since the Bill’s impact on private schools is relatively negligible, it is a necessary measure to raise the funds that we need to deliver our policies?
Jim McMahon
That is an important point. There is political intent behind this measure: to deliver on the manifesto commitment. At a time when, let us be honest, trust in politics is tested, delivering on an election manifesto is important. More than that, the vast majority of young people attend state schools.
In every community across the country over the past decade, all of us have seen the impact of reduced support, with many schools struggling. In some cases, that has created demand for private schools, because parents with children who have SEND or other conditions, who do not believe that their needs are being met by the state sector, feel that they have no choice but to look to the private sector. We are determined to rebuild the state sector so that every parent can have confidence that children who need additional support will get it in a mainstream setting.
David Simmonds
Clearly, the Government have set out their direction of travel and they are determined to proceed. It is important to acknowledge, given the rationale around diverting funds to the state sector, that our state schools, by all significant measures, are now the highest performing that they have ever been. Although I would be the last to claim that everything in the state sector is perfect—there are significant issues that need to be addressed, as there always are—there has been enormous progress in the last decade or so both in the educational outcomes for children in our state schools and in the opportunities for those young people. That is reflected in that fact that youth unemployment today is half what it was in 2010.
I suspect that there will be a degree of disappointment among many state school heads who heard that a tidal wave of money was coming in their direction, because it must be acknowledged that even if all the funds raised by the changes to business rates, VAT and so on were diverted to them, it would amount to less than one third of the cost of a single classroom teacher. We have already seen announcements, however, that that money will also fund a wide range of other activities.
Clearly, the purpose to which the Government seek to put the funds is outside the scope of the Bill, but many people will look at the clause and recognise that the significant harm that it does to part of our education sector is simply not justified by the benefit to anybody else. For that reason, I am sure that we will oppose the measure when it finally comes back to the House. I recognise that the Government have the numbers in Committee, however, so I look to them to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Commencement
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 6, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments on provisions of this Act] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the effect of the 2026 revaluation on those provisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments on provisions of this Act] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clause 5 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the effect of the 2026 revaluation on those provisions.
Clause stand part.
New clause 3—Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments—
“(1) The condition in this section is that the actions set out in subsections (2) to (5) have been completed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out a review assessing the potential impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments for the purposes of non-domestic rates on the operation of the amendments made to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by this Act.
(3) After the review, the independent person must—
(a) prepare a report of the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) A report prepared under subsection (3)(a) must be submitted to the Secretary of State within twelve months of the appointment of the independent person under subsection (2).
(5) On receiving the Report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.
(6) In this section, references to an ‘independent person’ are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of the Government.”
This new clause requires the Government to hold an independent review that will consider the effect of the 2026 revaluation on the provisions of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I will be brief, because we touched on this matter in the evidence sessions yesterday. The amendment and new clause both seek to ensure that the measures contained in the Bill have a review mechanism and impact assessments. The Minister said earlier that he was minded to proceed, regardless of the outcome, but there will no doubt be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the impacts in due course. It is my intention, subject to the Minister’s response, to withdraw the amendment and new clause.
Jim McMahon
Clause 6 provides for when the provisions in the Bill will commence. The provisions in clauses 1 to 4 provide for the new additional multipliers to take effect from 1 April 2026. As hon. Members will have heard, the Chancellor will set out the new multipliers at the Budget in autumn 2025, and those multipliers will take effect from 1 April 2026. Clause 5, which removes charitable relief from private schools, will take effect from 1 April 2025.
As hon. Members will be aware, this Government are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their child. It is right that, in pursuing that aim, we focus on the more than 90% of school-age children who attend state schools. The clause will raise approximately £140 million per year by 2029-30. By introducing the clause and the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, the Government will raise around £1.8 billion by 2029-30, which will help to deliver our commitments to education and young people.
Ahead of 1 April 2025, my Department will work with local government to explain the Bill’s provisions so that private schools that should not receive relief can be identified. As we have shown in the impact note published alongside the Bill, we expect around 1,000 private schools across England to be affected by the measures, so we are confident that the relief can be removed from 1 April 2025.
David Simmonds
I am sure that most mums and dads will be glad that excellent education is already available in England’s schools, given the transformation that has taken place in standards. However, we are here to concentrate on finances. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 7 merely states the short title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—
(a) businesses,
(b) high streets, and
(c) economic growth.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses,
(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets,
(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of those sections coming into effect.”—(Martin Wrigley.)
This new clause would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 5
Local retention of additional receipts
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 7B (Local Retention of Non-Domestic Rates), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) In the case of any billing authority to which 100% local retention does not apply, as far as practicable, the local and central shares are set so that any additional receipts arising from changes made to this Act by the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024 are locally retained.’”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would provide that local authorities could retain any additional funds raised by the provisions of the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
David Simmonds
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
You will be relieved, Dame Siobhain, to hear that these are the last of the amendments and new clauses that I will move for debate.
The purpose of the new clause is to bring in a measure to support the local retention of additional receipts that come from the measures in the Bill. We know that we have been on a journey with local government finance over many years to ensure a greater degree of local retention of business rate proceeds, something that has had cross-party support. It has been done for a variety of reasons, and partly to encourage local authorities to promote growth in their local business community by growing their business rate base and retaining a greater share of the proceeds.
On this specific Bill, the aim is to ensure that the additional revenue derived from the measures is retained by the billing authority, rather than going to another pool elsewhere. The rationale for that is manifold. In respect of the additional proceeds that may come from private schools that are subject to the measures, we know that local authorities may find it challenging, particularly given the timing of the introduction of this legislation, to ensure that there is a place available for any child who is displaced from the independent sector into the state sector—particularly so if that child has significant special educational needs or disabilities. Therefore, ensuring that those resources are retained locally will give some additional element of resource to local authorities seeking to meet that challenge.
We know that one particular dynamic is that the areas where the private schools are fullest are often also the areas where the state schools are fullest; although there is overall a declining population of children in our state schools in England as a whole—I know that my own constituency and local boroughs are a particular example of that, having seen a very large drop and a significant vacancy rate—that is not the case at all phases of education or in all year groups. Therefore, there is already a significant challenge for those parents who have to seek an alternative place for their child, where the retention of the resource locally would give some additional support.
Further, in respect of the additional revenue that may be raised from a variety of different types of businesses, the retention of that support locally would further enable the local authority to use that money to support its local economy, for example to invest in measures to support employment or the development of new businesses. That would be in line with the agenda being set out by the Government, who wish to see growth as a major priority, and it would create a direct link between the local decisions of the billing authority and the financial outcomes that would follow. For all those reasons, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his new clause. As we have explained, where, as a result of the introduction of additional multipliers from 2026-27, local authorities collect additional business rate income, new clause 5 would allow them to keep that income in its entirety. It would do so by requiring the Government to alter the percentage share of business rates to be retained by local government and the share to be sent to central Government.
In practice, of course, any additional income from the new multipliers introduced by clauses 1 to 4 will vary from local authority to local authority and change from year to year. Those local authorities with fewer large properties may well collect less income as a result of the new multipliers and will therefore be worse off as a result of this amendment. Furthermore, accurate data on that will not be available until some time after the end of the year, whereas the central and local percentage shares need to be set before the start of the year. In practice, we do not think this new clause would effectively achieve the intended outcome. Instead, the Government will work to ensure, as far as is practicable, that local government income from business rates is unaffected by the introduction of new multipliers. That will result in a much fairer and more stable outcome for local government than the one suggested by the new clause.
More generally, the Government have announced their commitment to reform the way in which local government is funded, to return the sector to a sustainable position. That includes the already announced reset to the business rate retention system, as intended when the previous Government established the system. We will use the reset to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding business rate growth, and we will work in partnership with local government to ensure that the new local government finance system takes into account the impact of the new multipliers on the business rates collected by local government.
I hope I have given the Committee some assurances about how local government income will be protected from the changes in the Bill. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that the Minister is a localist at heart and will generally support measures that increase autonomy and decision making at local level. I recognise that the Government have the numbers to reject the measure. I think the point that it is hard to model the outcome was addressed in previous amendments that the Government chose not to accept, and undertaking a forward-looking impact assessment would enable us to understand better the impact of some of the measures. Given the Minister’s observations and the numbers in Committee, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
The Chair
I understand that at this point, you all have to be nice to each other. Does anybody want to do that, or are you ready to get on with it?
Jim McMahon
I was going to go on an errand to Tesco to buy some mince pies. This process has been a very useful one. The time that both Opposition parties have given to the preparation of the amendments has really helped the scrutiny of the Bill. That has helped the Government to ensure that the Bill does what is intended, and to provide safeguards to ensure that it does nothing unintended. We have set out our position on the Bill clearly. The spirit in which the Opposition have approached the amendments, by withdrawing them and not pressing them to a vote, and the constructive nature of our exchanges today are to the credit of the Committee.
David Simmonds
As always, it has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. In that Christmas spirit, I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement. It is characteristic of several of the Ministers in the Department, and it has been enormously helpful. I put on record my thanks to the Whips; I appreciate that the scheduling of this relatively short piece of legislation meant that it could have taken up a great deal of time. We have recognised the point, which was made impactfully yesterday, that its overall impact is limited and moderate, so we have sought to approach it in the light of that.
We may have a fairly significant disagreement with the Government about the intent behind the Bill, in the way that it approaches both local government funding and the situation with independent schooling, but we have to recognise the numbers. I thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for the way in which they have addressed this.
Martin Wrigley
This has been my first Bill Committee experience, and it has been interesting and delightfully short. I am delighted to see it executed so effectively and efficiently. I thank the Minister for all his thoughtful and thorough explanations of the different bits and pieces, and I really hope that the legislation will provide good support to our high streets, which desperately need surety about their situation. I thank everybody involved, and I particularly thank the Clerks for their help in explaining to me how the process would work and helping us through it.
The Chair
I think the niceness is complete.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Wednesday 15th January 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
17:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 342 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 341 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 341 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of impact of new multipliers—
“(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,
(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.
(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—
(a) businesses,
(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and
(c) Billing Authorities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.
New clause 3—Sections 1 to 4: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, conduct an assessment of the expected impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on relevant businesses.
(2) The assessment must compare the amount of non-domestic rates expected to be paid by relevant businesses once sections 1 to 4 come into force with the amount paid in each financial year between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2026.
(3) The assessment must consider how the impact is expected to differ depending on the number of hereditaments a business occupies.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the assessment.
(5) In this section, a “relevant business” is a business occupying a qualifying retail, hospitality or leisure hereditament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site compared with those occupying multiple sites.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 33, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, page 4, line 9, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, page 4, line 13, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, page 4, line 31, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 35, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from ”persons” to end of line 38 and insert—
“who have special educational needs.
“(5A) In subsection (5) “special educational needs” has the same meaning as in section 20 (When a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“, or
(b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school.
(5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)—
“religious character” has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
“other special character” has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation,
“specified distance” is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.
(5B) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school.
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, leave out “2025” and insert “2026”.
Vikki Slade
Business rates reform is long overdue. It is frequently cited by my constituents as the biggest concern for their businesses’ survival and one of the most direct inhibitors to their growth.
I was contacted this week by a constituent from a local business in Three Legged Cross, right on the edge of my constituency. He has been running it for over 40 years, and the cliff edge created by the small business rate relief means that his rates bill will go from £2,800 to £8,500 per year. The only thing that will save this microbusiness is systemic change as proposed by the Lib Dems in our manifesto, not a tax based on an arbitrary valuation that bears no relationship to the activity taking place inside his building.
High streets are trying to redefine themselves, moving from the heart of goods purchasing to literal shop windows as they struggle to compete against online competitors that do not have their overheads. It would be wrong to think that the solution is to try to return to the perfect high street of the past, as if such a thing exists.
I am old enough to remember C&A being the place me and my friends browsed for the latest fashions, and there was a Blockbuster video store and pic ’n’ mix from Woolies. Where are they now? It is dangerous and self-defeating to be caught up in toxic nostalgia, trying to reclaim the past as some kind of perfect place. Parliament must enact legislation that supports the society of tomorrow and towns that will work for a technological and multicultural age—indeed, an age in which people can no longer afford the stuff that we used to buy on a Saturday afternoon, or are choosing, as I do now, to buy their stuff from second-hand stores.
The dangerous gap between the slashing of retail hospitality and leisure relief by almost half, and a regime that brings in as yet undefined new multipliers, brings real risk. Our new clause 1 would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, on high streets and on the real prize of economic growth that the Government mention so often. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about decisions being made without clear impact assessments. As we move through a period of reform, enshrining such an assessment in law, rather than questioning later whether it has been done, would save us all a lot of trouble and demonstrate that the Government genuinely want to make improvements.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One issue that the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned is the impact of the Employment Rights Bill, which will create further red tape for our high street businesses when it comes into play. Do the Liberal Democrats think that the Government should consider that? Changing taxes and rates is one thing, but creating red tape at the very same time, constraining business growth, is another.
Vikki Slade
I agree that this is a difficult time for small businesses, with so many things changing at the same time—not least the increasing national insurance rates.
To return to the role of the high street, the most successful high streets are moving quickly to reinvent themselves. Since my election, I have been trying to find a high street location for my constituency office. I had decided to base myself in the historic market town of Wimborne, where my mum lived and my children went to school. It is the fastest-growing community in Mid Dorset and North Poole—Ministers have heard me talk about its housing problems many times—and it has great bus routes. I thought it would be a great place to find a small unit easily.
I was wrong, however. The strength of the sense of place, the innovation of its businesses and the hard work of its business improvement district and its town council are such that when a business closes down, others are waiting to move in. I have finally found my new home, which will open by the end of the month when we have fitted it out, but the experience proved what I already knew: the high street can survive, but only when the business community is prepared to give people what they want. Retailers such as Tickles and Co. trade alongside the hospice shop, and old businesses such as Bartletts, which has for 120 years sold smart clothes for all seasons, are able to sustain themselves despite changes in the market.
The Lib Dems welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, and we acknowledge that the financial situation the Government were left by the previous Government makes the 75% discount difficult to maintain, but any discount is worthless if businesses that are trying to stabilise following the covid pandemic, the energy crisis and the shift to online cashless purchasing do not even make it through the next year. As I have said before, that is not the reform that business needs. The Minister has already said that this is just phase 1, but we are incredibly frustrated that he has not taken the opportunity to take things further.
New clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), focuses our proposals further on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, and raises valid points about the risk to individual businesses compared with those that have multiple branches. There must be an assessment of that risk alongside a broader impact assessment.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
My hon. Friend is giving an impassioned speech about the importance of business rates reform. Does she agree that there is a risk of unintended consequences in what the Government are proposing? At the moment, the 75% relief is capped at £110,000, but when the relief goes to zero in two years’ time, that cap will not exist. House of Commons Library research shows that the net effect could be that small businesses end up being 80% worse off, while big chains such as Starbucks could be 40% better off. Although it is important that we get a review of the impact of business rates, it is also important that we get the differential assessment set out in new clause 3.
Vikki Slade
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One problem is the same law of unintended consequences that we have seen with things like the national insurance increase—which, as we repeat over and over again, is impacting small businesses, hospices, doctors’ surgeries and things like that—when quite understandably, an attempt is made to raise funds from elsewhere.
I want to share the views of Anthony Woodhouse, the chair of Hall and Woodhouse brewery and pub chain, founded and based in Dorset but with a branch just across the way from this place—unfortunately, I am not able to be at its event in Portcullis House because of the timing of today’s debate. Anthony told me that the revaluing of property when a huge amount of money has just been invested to make it fit for a changing market, and before you have even had a chance to benefit from that market, is completely crazy and discourages business investment. As such, it is important that as we look to reform business rates, we examine that issue as well.
Despite our failure to do that, businesses such as Anthony’s are responding to the market. Pubs such as the Olive Branch in Wimborne and the Old Granary on Wareham quay are now places where muddy boots, children and dogs are welcome, and where they sell as many cups of coffee as pints of local beer. The high street needs to morph as businesses have—to be ready and willing to change—but while business rate reform rightly starts with the high street, it is important that it does not end there.
As such, I turn to our amendments 1 to 6, which would add manufacturing businesses to the lower multiplier. The UK has a rich history of manufacturing excellence, and Barclays’ “Made in Britain” report found that a product being made in Britain held an important influence over consumers’ decision to purchase it, with customers perceiving such products to be high quality, reliable and internationally respected. The “made in Britain” tag was found to be worth an addition £3.5 billion a year to our UK exporters, which is why we believe that the lower multiplier should also apply to manufacturing businesses. We need to give those businesses a shot in the arm to ensure they can compete on the world stage. The threats by incoming President Trump to put tariffs on UK products, our continued isolation from our neighbours through an inadequate Brexit deal, and the rapid growth of economies such as China and India represent a real threat to local manufacturing.
Poole Bay Holdings, based in my constituency, stands ready to produce its innovative Koolpak here in the UK. Anybody who has children will know the brand Koolpak—it is that ice pack that is not even ice—and that business has been modifying its equipment so that it can make the product here, in Dorset, to compete with China. It stands ready to drive up those sales. Recognition of such businesses through a lower multiplier, or at least the potential to include them in a lower multiplier if the market becomes more tricky, is the intent behind our amendments.
Turning to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the Liberal Democrats simply do not believe in the taxation of education. Alongside the changes to VAT, the removal of the special status for schools is really disappointing. Therefore, those amendments—which seek to recognise the value of schools for children whose needs are difficult to meet elsewhere, whether those are special educational needs and disabilities or whether people are choosing to educate in a faith school—seem reasonable.
In summary, this Bill is a fair start, and some businesses will feel it is better than the abyss that might otherwise have been. However, the Government could and should have taken different decisions to protect businesses that will face additional costs in just a few weeks’ time. We are often asked how we would pay for it; I welcome that discussion, as there were many proposals in our manifesto, from taxing big banks to asking gambling companies to pay their fair share. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I recognise that the Government have worked quickly to bring this Bill forward, but the risks of losing businesses en route to something better are just too great. We need proper reform, so that the businesses of the mid-21st century can weather the storms ahead.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this Bill, having been part of the scrutiny process in Committee.
The Committee heard representations from a wide variety of experts in related fields, and I was heartened by the news that many experts felt that this Bill would have a positive impact on 98% of the retail stores that make up our communities. In particular, small convenience stores such as the local Co-op or the great British corner shop will see great benefits to their capacity to support staffing, security and other operational functions. Our incredible independent shopkeepers, such as those who populate the high streets of Ilkeston and Long Eaton in my constituency, will have more funds to take on additional staff, improve their security set-ups and gain long-term confidence in their ability to serve our community. These measures represent a simple, common-sense approach to rebalancing the scales in favour of local retailers and away from the online giants, and increasing taxes on the biggest players while relieving the burden on local retailers.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member may have heard my earlier intervention. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we have to shift the burden away from small businesses on to big online retailers. However, that could be undermined if all we do is shift the burden on to the big chains. House of Commons Library research says that small independent businesses are going to end up subsidising the big chains. Does he share my concern that this could be an unintended consequence and that the Government must look at it?
Adam Thompson
I refer to Hansard for the discussions we had in Committee, but that did not come through in the evidence we heard. However, I respect the fact that the hon. Member has made that point, and I thank her for doing so.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), another sector to benefit significantly from these measures is our local pubs. The fine folk frequenting the Sawley Junction in Long Eaton or the Bulls Head in Breaston in my constituency can rest easy that their locals are in safe hands. More generally, the measures we are bringing forward will reduce the tax burden on the hospitality sector, which is considered by many to be overtaxed. I am very glad that the Government have been able to offer something positive to the sector, which has been broadly forgotten for many years.
Some of the Bill’s opponents have suggested that the removal of charitable relief from non-domestic rates for private schools will have a negative impact on the parents of privately educated children, so I was strongly heartened to hear from one of our experts during the scrutiny process in Committee. Professor Francis Greene, professor of work and education economics at the University College London institute of education, noted that this Bill will have a “marginal” effect on the education sector, and that the policy was fair and would generally not have a great deal of impact on the proportion of children in private schools, which has remained broadly constant over the past 20 years, despite a cash-terms doubling in fees.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on what he has just said, which is that the proportion of children going to private schools has stayed constant? Even the Government’s own analysis does not say that. It says that the number has stayed broadly constant, and in fact the proportion has come down.
Adam Thompson
If I am incorrect, I stand corrected. My understanding from speaking to the experts is that the proportion has remained broadly consistent, but my apologies if that is incorrect. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.
The Committee stage reaffirmed what many of us on the Government Benches already knew, which is that this Bill represents a common-sense modification of our tax policy that will support local small businesses. The Bill represents a core pillar of this Government’s goal to rebalance the scales away from large online giants in favour of local independents and towards the 94% of children educated in the state sector. I know that traders and families in Ilkeston, Long Eaton and the surrounding villages in my constituency will broadly benefit from these measures, and I am proud to support this Bill through its remaining stages unamended.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I intend to confine my remarks to two specific amendments—amendments 3 and 10, on private schools and special educational needs and disabilities—that would delay the introduction of this tax hike so schools have more time to plan financially.
Schools in my constituency have been punished by a series of tax rises since this Labour Government took office in July. By adding VAT to private school fees, and now by ending their charitable business rate relief status, Labour is attacking aspiration. These tax hikes will not hurt the wealthiest. It is the people who have scrimped and saved to send their children to a school of their choice who will be hit the worst. Labour seems to believe people should not have a choice over where they send their child to school, as is evident in their similarly misguided Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through this place.
Schools will close because of this tax hike, and I know this because it is happening in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Carrdus school, founded in 1957, survived the cold war, the winter of discontent, the global financial crisis and three Labour Governments, yet it could not withstand the tax onslaught from this Chancellor and it will close its doors at the end of the summer term. That will mean 120 pupils flooding back into the state system, which is already struggling with capacity issues, at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
Adam Thompson
Will the hon. Member reflect on my comments a few moments ago about how the expert suggested that the Bill would have a marginal, negligible impact on the education sector?
Sarah Bool
That may be the evidence that you have received in this instance, but I am giving the real-life proof. When I spoke to the headteacher about this, she said that the increase in national insurance on teacher costs, which are about 80% of outgoings, in combination with all the other things, has had a huge impact and the school will have to shut. It will be closing its doors at the end of July, which is a travesty.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You said the word “you”, but I did not ask the question.
Sarah Bool
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would not dare say that about you.
If the Government are intent on punishing my constituents’ aspiration for the future of their children, the least they could do is grant the concessions that the Conservatives are asking for in all our amendments, and specifically those in amendments 7 and 10. Amendment 7 would exempt private schools that wholly or partially provide education for children with special educational needs and disabilities who have not yet obtained an education, health and care plan, or whose needs are established but not so severe as to require one. SEND support in schools helps pupils with a level of need below that of an EHC plan. Restricting relief only to those settings that provide for the most severe needs is out of step with the rest of our education system. Many families, on not being successful in applying for an EHC plan, or indeed enduring huge waiting times for the local authority to put one in place, opt to send their children to a private school. We should not punish families who choose to do what is in the best interests of their children.
Amendment 10 would delay the introduction of this tax hike for a further year to allow schools to plan their finances accordingly. That is just plain common sense. It would mean fewer schools like Carrdus having to make the unenviable choice to close their doors.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a timing issue. The Labour Government were explicit and up front on this tax rise in their manifesto, but they claim that they care about children’s education and welfare. If so, why would they implement the change halfway through an academic year? The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) just turned around and said, “Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s 120 kids in the Member’s constituency.” Actually, it really does matter, because every single child’s education matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if those are small amounts at the margin, it is completely justifiable to delay the measure as the schools, the experts and the parents have asked for?
Sarah Bool
I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who made the point powerfully. The impact goes beyond the 120 individual students to their parents’ arrangements and how they work. The headteacher of the school has a husband who was also a teacher, and they face a huge impact in respect of what they will do with their children and whether they can manage to make new school place arrangements. This policy is terribly misguided. We really need to think about what we are doing. It is a travesty that we will lose a school.
Sarah Bool
No, I will keep going if the hon. Member does not mind.
I do not want to see any other schools close or any other children suffer as a result of this plan. I hope that colleagues across the House will join Conservative Members in supporting our amendments.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in favour of the Bill, which is a significant piece of legislation that aims to reform the non-domestic rating system in England. I welcome the Bill’s primary objective of creating a fairer and more balanced approach to non-domestic rating. By increasing the multipliers for large businesses, we will ensure that those entities contribute their fair share to the local economy. That change is particularly important as it addresses the disparity between large corporations and smaller businesses, which often struggle to compete under the current system.
The introduction of lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties is a much needed relief for those sectors, which have faced significant challenges, especially in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. By reducing the tax burden, the Bill aims to support recovery and growth, ultimately benefiting local communities and economies such as the hospitality and retail sector in my constituency.
One of the most notable aspects of the Bill is the removal of charitable relief for private schools. Although private schools play a role in our education system, it is essential to recognise that they operate as businesses and should be taxed accordingly. This change will generate additional revenue that can be invested in public services, including state schools. The Bill represents a step towards a more equitable and balanced tax system. It addresses the needs of various sectors, supports local economies and ensures that all entities contribute fairly to the public good.
Damian Hinds
There are problems with all taxes, which is why we end up with a blend of taxes. For businesses, there is tax on payroll, sales, profits and property. However, business rates are a particularly difficult and unpopular tax because they represent a fixed cost on the business that does not vary when the economy goes up or down, or according to the particular company’s success or growth, or a contraction in its sales or profits.
Over the years, I have heard many times from businesses in Alton, Petersfield, Horndean, Clanfield, Liss and elsewhere in East Hampshire about a desire for business rates reform. I am sure that a lot of small business owners were very attracted to what they heard from the Labour party—that it would to scrap business rates altogether. The Labour Government do not say that any more, but they still want us to believe that they are undertaking some great reform and cutting rates for our high street businesses. I am afraid it is all smoke and mirrors, because for those businesses, including the ones name-checked by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the big effect that they feel right now is the cut in the relief for retail and hospitality business—not a small one, but from 75% to 40%.
It would be bad enough if that was all businesses faced, but it is not. They have to cope with all sorts of difficulties the whole time. We have rising labour costs—we support the increase in the national living wage over time, but not a hike in employer national insurance contributions at the same time. Because of what is happening to the threshold, there will be a massive effect on part-time workers. That will be very difficult for retail and hospitality businesses to swallow.
In and of themselves, the cuts to the multiplier for high street businesses are welcome, but we must remember that they are balanced by increases elsewhere in the system. Sometimes, Government Members talk about big businesses and corporations as some unwelcome part of our economy, but they are the biggest employers in the country and are fundamental to our economy. In the Red Book, these changes involve increases of hundreds of millions of pounds in business rates. Who will the increased rates affect? They will affect large supermarkets—a sector that is one of the biggest employers in the country—and hotels, which are a really important employer, as well as being fundamental to travel and tourism. Will the Minister also say a word about the expected effect on the national health service?
The blurb on the Budget says, “We are going to attack distribution centres, including those used by online retailers.” The word “including” does a lot of work in that sentence, because high street retailers also have distribution centres, and the changes will add to their costs, fuelling inflation on food and everyday consumer goods.
Dr Luke Evans
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent observation on the impact of these costs. We know from the surveys that 75% of businesses will pass on the costs to the very people who use them. They will have an inflationary impact on the public. Does he agree that it is imperative that we think about that?
Damian Hinds
As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. In the end, there is no such thing as a tax on business—you cannot tax a business; you can only tax people. Any tax on business is ultimately a tax on its employees, its customers or its owners. Before somebody jumps up and starts talking about the owners, the owners are often pension funds who are then paying out the pensions for our mums and dads.
My point is that these business rate increases will mean higher costs for bricks-and-mortar companies as well, which come on top of all the other changes, in particular the hike in employer national insurance contributions. And this from a Government who yet again this week keep talking about their growth agenda. It makes me wonder what is actually written in that growth agenda.
Overall, the effect of all these changes—we need only look at the Budget Red Book—is that the revenue from business rates is projected to increase from £32 billion this financial year to almost £40 billion in five years’ time. It is a massive further tax raid on business, and a brake on employment and economic growth.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about the case for an overhaul of the business rates system. Why did the previous Conservative Government never get around to doing that?
Damian Hinds
Well, I did refer at the start of my speech to the calls over the years for reform. I also said that there are problems with all taxes we levy on individuals or on business and that is why we end up with a blend. What I am talking about now is the fact that this Government are hiking up the total amount that will be taken in business rates, which will fall on major employers and then be felt in our unemployment rate. The Government are trying to do this thing of saying, “We are cutting stuff,” but they are not, because for all of the companies we have heard name-checked, reducing the relief will outweigh the effect of the multiplier. On top of that, we have a revaluation coming up in the near future. That is probably going to mean an increase in rateable values that will compound those higher multiples.
For all those reasons, new clause 2 is both important and a reasonable ask. It says that after a period of time, we should review the real-life effect of these changes and give the Government an opportunity to change course and get back to something that looks a bit like a growth agenda.
I turn briefly to the effect of these changes on independent schools. We have debated in the Chamber on a number of occasions the Government’s overall approach to independent schools. Let me say again that we object in principle to taxing education. It makes us almost unique in the world that we would do such a thing and it will be the first time in our national history that we have done so—it has never been done before by any Labour Government, or any other Government. The tax change we are debating today on rates is not the only tax change or transfer of money from independent schools to the Treasury. They were already facing a big increase—5%, I think—in employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme. Like all organisations—public sector, private sector, charitable and voluntary sector—they also have employer national insurance contributions to deal with. And then there is the enormous VAT change.
Specifically on this tax change, it is a fixed cost, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, at a time when there is all this uncertainty around the independent education sector and children will be moving. I will let Members into a secret: no one knows what the ultimate effect will be. We can line up as many experts as we like, but no one knows how many children will be moving, but we know it will be a non-trivial number greater than zero—there will be children moving out of that sector and there is a lot of uncertainty. It therefore seems to be a very unwise time to add, on top of all those other tax changes, a significant change to a fixed-cost tax. The amendments put forward by the official Opposition are therefore very well worth supporting; my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made that case very strongly.
On faith schools, we know that whatever the impact assessment says, people of faith, and particularly of smaller faiths, will be disproportionately impacted by this Government’s changes to education. We also know that children with SEND feature particularly prominently in the independent sector. Many of those schools have an awful lot of children who have special needs, but not necessarily—or not yet—an education, health and care plan. Special consideration should be given to both those types of schools: faith schools—if we wanted to narrow it down further, we could say smaller faiths charging low fees to parents—and those catering to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
On amendment 10, with all else that is going on in the independent sector, it is at the very least an exceptionally reasonable ask of the Government that we delay these changes by a year to give the sector a chance to be able to cope and plan.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having been a member of the Bill Committee—my first Bill Committee in this place—I appreciate being able to contribute on Report in the Chamber.
Southall town centre is well known the world over as a great place to shop for an Asian wedding, with stunning lehengas, saris and sherwani on sale all down the Broadway, King Street and South Road. During the election campaign, I vividly recall seeing two clothes shop workers eating their lunchtime rotis behind the counter. When I commented that business must be good, they both said no. They said that a few years ago, they would never have had time for lunch, and would have worked right up until closing as they were so busy. They told me that they were suffering from being undercut by online retailers because they were paying through the nose for business rates, facing blitz robberies with no police around to respond, and constantly having to chase bigger businesses for payments.
It is ironic that the previous Government have suddenly decided they back local businesses after 14 years of ignoring their pleas. In fact, the only businesses they supported were the rail companies that could not run the trains, the water companies that could not keep our water clean, and, of course, the private sector mates they handed out dodgy covid contracts to. Indeed, the former Prime Minister and former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson, reportedly used a four-letter word beginning with f when making it clear how little he cared about business.
In contrast, this Labour Government are backing local businesses. We are already ensuring that suppliers pay small businesses within 30 days, and we are cracking down on retail crime, too. The Bill will deliver on our promise to ensure a fairer system of business rates that will help brick and mortar shops like those in Southall to compete with online companies. Finally, we will have a permanently rebalanced system that will stop local shops being undercut and stop the slow death of our high streets and town centres.
New clauses 1 to 3 and amendment 9 are all things that are already happening. We are already publishing a review of these measures as part of next year’s Budget, and there is already discretion for local authorities to look at the higher multiplier rate. Amendments 1 to 6 would add manufacturing to the Bill, which would, in my belief, dilute its effect. We have already prioritised manufacturing as part of the Budget, investing £3 billion into aerospace, automotive and the life sciences industries. We make no apologies for using this Bill to prioritise town centres.
Amendments 7, 8 and 10 all seek to either dilute or delay the changes in the Bill. The Bill already exempts all private schools that are wholly or mainly focused on educating children with special educational needs—that is already in the Bill. We know, however, that 93% of children in this country go to state schools. Politics is about priorities. Just as we are prioritising town centres in the Bill, we are also prioritising those 93% of children. Unless the Conservatives think it is okay to have children in state schools taught maths and science by unqualified teachers, they need to say where they would get the money from otherwise.
Although the Bill is about a fairer system of business rates that will help local businesses, many on the Opposition Benches have raised the issue of employer national insurance. Some 93% of businesses in Ealing Southall are microbusinesses. Most of those businesses will either pay less employer national insurance or the same as they currently pay. Some businesses will pay more national insurance, but that is because the previous Government ran up a massive £22 billion credit card bill making rash promises they did not even attempt to keep, while running public services into the ground. When the final demand letters started coming, they hid them in the back of a drawer and pretended everything was fine. Employer national insurance increases for some businesses will help us to pay for the triple lock on pensions, thousands of extra hip and knee operations, and more police on our streets. Again, unless the Conservatives think it is okay to reduce pensions in real terms, let waiting lists go up and up and give our streets over to criminals, they need to say where they would get the money from.
Before Christmas, I met the brewer Heineken at its pub the Star and Scorpion in west Ealing. Labour has already taken a penny off a pint in the Budget and our decision in the Bill to permanently lower business rates for retail and hospitality businesses will help to further protect local pubs like the Star and Scorpion. Without the Bill, the bars and restaurants of west Ealing and Hanwell would be facing a cliff edge in April, with big increases in their business rates as the sticking-plaster solution that the previous Government came up with ends. The Bill both extends temporary reductions in business rates for high street businesses and introduces a new permanent scheme that will level the playing field between the high street and the internet.
The one tax that the Opposition do not mention is the 10p crime tax: 10p added to every shopping basket due to the impact of shoplifting. The Tories did absolutely nothing about that, but this is a Tory tax that Labour is getting rid of. We are investing in neighbourhood policing, scrapping the Tory shoplifter charter that allowed thefts under £200 not to be investigated, and bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker.
The Conservatives had 14 years to help out local businesses like those in Ealing Southall. Instead, they trashed our economy, destroyed public services and stifled business growth. The Labour Government are clearing up their mess. Through this Bill, we are ensuring fairer business rates for shops, restaurants and bars on Ealing Southall’s high streets.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I, too, served on the Public Bill Committee and would like to put on record my thanks to all the witnesses who attended and gave evidence.
The Bill shines a light on how politics is about choices. At the general election, we promised a Labour Government that would make different choices: choices rooted in fairness and a commitment to levelling the playing field. Today, the Bill is a powerful example of how we are going to deliver on that promise. This is a Bill about the politics of equity. It is about ensuring that everyone—from small business owners to schoolchildren in Wolverhampton North East—has a fairer chance to succeed. For too long, the scales have been tipped in favour of the largest corporations, online giants and private schools, while businesses and state schools have been left to shoulder an unfair burden. The Bill changes that. We are delivering a permanent reduction in business rates for the hard-working small businesses that are the backbone of Wolverhampton North East. My constituency does not include a city centre, but it does contain plenty of brilliant small businesses: fantastic cafés, restaurants, beauty and hair salons, a micropub, larger pub chains and family-run shops. These businesses are the heart of our community.
For years, high streets have been forced to compete unfairly with massive online retailers and retail parks, but the Bill will ensure that the largest online retailers, supermarket chains and distribution warehouses finally pay a fairer share. Small businesses in Wolverhampton and Willenhall will now see permanent lower business rates, freeing up resources to invest in their workforce, improve security and grow. As Paul Gerrard of the Co-op has pointed out, this reform will strengthen the viability of small shops, ensuring that they can continue to provide jobs, beef up security, and uphold their community-centred values. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that these changes will save small stores money that can be used directly to hire more staff, install new CCTV, and invest in the future.
The Bill is, however, not just about businesses; it is about fairness in education. Private school fees have risen by about 55% in real terms over the last 20 years, while state schools’ funding has largely flatlined. State schools and academies are paying business rates right now while private schools enjoy business rates tax breaks, and that is simply unfair. This is the reality. Almost 50% of private school students achieved top GCSE grades this summer, compared with just 20% in state schools. Sports facilities in state schools are crumbling, with fixtures cancelled owing to a lack of minibuses or drivers. Private schools have more swimming pools than all the state schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions put together. Just 35% of children from low-income families can swim 25 metres unaided, compared with 82% from affluent families.
The Bill removes those unfair tax breaks for private schools and reinvests every single penny directly in state schools. That funding will recruit more specialist teachers, provide breakfast clubs in primary schools, and give schools the resources that they need to unlock every child’s potential regardless of their family’s wealth. This is the politics of equity in action. I will continue to support strong, vibrant high streets, brilliant schools, and a fairer future for all.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the fact that six months ago our Labour Government inherited a £22 billion black hole from their 14 years of Tory rule—[Interruption]—as they are demonstrating now. It is, however, a fact. With that inheritance from the Tories, our new Government are taking much-needed action such as that on which we are voting today. In particular, they are taking action to end tax breaks for private schools across the UK, and it is the education side of this Bill on which I will now focus.
Many of us are here today partly because of the inspiration, teaching and support that an incredible teacher gave to us. I want to pay tribute to one of my teachers at Hermitage academy, which is a state school. Mrs McKeirnan was my modern studies teacher, and a fine job she did too. I fondly remember writing essays about the reasons for Labour’s election win in 1997; they obviously had an impact. However, while we had skilful and energetic teachers like Mrs McKeirnan, what was less satisfactory was that the school roof often leaked when it rained, and sometimes the windows blew in during the winter. That continued until the election of Labour in both Westminster and Holyrood saw my old school being rebuilt.
We can compare that with the situation today in my constituency, where Balwearie high school in Kirkcaldy needs a new building. The funding has not been available during the last 18 years of SNP government and 14 years of Tory rule. My point is that much of our country’s public sector infrastructure is not fit for purpose after years of Tory neglect. To turn that around, we obviously need to raise revenue, and that is exactly what the measures that we are voting on today will do.
Ending tax breaks for private schools is crucial to the record budget settlement for the Scottish Government—the largest settlement since devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion to spend in this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion for next year. For too many in my constituency, the SNP’s record of educational failure has let the party down. Nicola Sturgeon once said:
“Judge me on my educational record”,
and she promised that her Government would close the attainment gap by 2026. Last year, the attainment gap in Scotland widened, and the PISA report showed that reading, maths and science are in long-term decline. Now that the SNP Government have the funding, it is up to them to clear up the mess in education that they have created, which fails young people in my constituency.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that there is equity in education. The hon. Lady says that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the burden, but I have a family in Berkhamsted who worked really hard to put their son into private education. Following the changes, Seb has had to change schools after just two years, because the family cannot afford it any more. I make a plea on behalf of the children affected by this policy, because it should be about lifting all of us up, not bringing anyone down.
Melanie Ward
All parents work hard to support their families, and all parents want the very best for their children. Hon. Members would do well to remember that.
The additional £1.8 billion a year, which will be raised by ending tax breaks for private schools, allows us to increase per-pupil funding in real terms and helps to deliver the record budget settlement of an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government. I find it strange that the Conservative party, which in the last Parliament promised to level up the country, should be so opposed to measures that will do exactly that. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said that her first act as Prime Minister—I am not sure how many Conservative Members actually believe that the day will ever come—would be to restore tax breaks for private schools. She is obviously not here to defend that statement, but in recent months I have heard little from the Conservatives about what they would cut to pay for that policy. Would they make teachers redundant? Would they cancel breakfast clubs? Would they cut mental health support and careers advice?
At the last election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to break down the barriers to opportunity. As a state-educated MP, I am also proud to deliver this speech in a Parliament in which 63% of its Members were educated at state comprehensives, with 85% of my party’s MPs being state educated. Indeed, only 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools—even fewer than the 7% in England.
The needs of our students are greater than ever. Young people in Scotland face an annual marking saga, decreasing teacher numbers and a deepening mental health crisis—something that I have raised in relation to my own constituency. It is more crucial than ever that we intervene now to prevent those crises from deepening, and that is what these revenue-raising measures will help to fund. I am glad that this Labour Government have introduced protections for SEND children and military families, but it is necessary for private schools to contribute towards improving educational standards across our country. Let us not forget that they have raised their fees by 75% in real terms since 2000.
I know that parents in my Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy constituency want to see their children benefit from the kind of education that their ingenuity, creativity and innate talent deserves. They will be crucial to our future society and economy, and to the kind of country that we want to be. We must make the most of their potential.
In this matter, I take inspiration from Jennie Lee, who attended Beath high school in my constituency and went on to set up the Open University. Her picture hangs in my office. She knew the value of ensuring that high-quality education was available to all, no matter their background and where they lived. If we are to provide that, it has to be paid for, and that is why these measures are so important.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in favour of this Bill, having been involved in its scrutiny at most of its stages. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) in thanking all the witnesses who came forward to give evidence to the Bill Committee. I thank them for the evidence they gave and for the useful insight from their respective sectors.
We on the Government Benches are clear that small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors should pay lower business rates. The Bill establishes two new multipliers that are lower than the current standard business rates multiplier. In order to pay for these changes, we must ask larger businesses to contribute their fair share so that our smaller businesses can thrive. That is because we on this side of the House know that when we have tax cuts, we need to pay for them with revenue-raising measures—something the Opposition have not quite realised yet. This is a good mechanism that the Government are deploying to save our high streets, to incentivise local investment and to support entrepreneurship. As all Members will know, high streets are essential to local towns and should be given the support they need. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill will benefit smaller local businesses such as those on Queen Street, which sits in the centre of Leeds South West and Morley.
In Committee, we heard from Paul Gerrard, who is the board secretariat director at the Co-op. He told the Committee that these changes will help 92% of the Co-op’s retail properties, but he also estimates that they will help 98% of retail businesses because they will have a rateable value that allows them to benefit from these changes. That has to be welcomed. As for those that will pay more to make these changes possible, the higher multiplier will apply to properties with a value greater than or equal to £500,000, including large warehouses that are often used by online giants. They will pay their fair share, and we can start to level the playing field so that essential community high street businesses are on a level playing field with multinational corporations.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a challenge in making sure that things are fair, and we all support a level playing field between the online world and bricks-and-mortar businesses, including in our town centres. There is a thing called the digital services tax, which was conceived while we were in government. Will he say a word about the relative advantages and disadvantages of trying to go after online retailers with business rates changes, which will also affect all manner of other organisations, including bricks-and-mortar retailers, and doing it a different way through a more direct type of tax?
Mr Sewards
I return to the point I made earlier. We know that we have to support these smaller businesses—these bricks-an-mortar businesses, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them—and the only way we are going to pay for this is by finding the money from elsewhere. We have chosen to cut business rates for smaller businesses, and we are choosing to raise the revenue from the larger businesses and corporations that have been getting away without paying their fair share for far too long.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member will recognise that it is the Government’s intention to reduce business rates for the smallest businesses, but as I have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, House of Commons Library research shows that if we compare this year to two years’ time, small businesses will end up 80% worse off, whereas the big chains will end up 40% better off. I believe that this is an unintended consequence. Will he urge the Minister, as I am doing, to address that point in his wind-up?
Mr Sewards
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course I have read the House of Commons Library research into this. I also took time to listen to all the witnesses who came forward in the Bill Committee, and they made it clear that the changes in this Bill will benefit small businesses in the long term. I am quite happy with the evidence that they provided to support the changes that the Bill makes.
Mr Sewards
I will move on to the next part of my speech, but I am happy to take any further interventions that might be relevant to that point. I am going to talk about the amendments now.
I think new clauses 1 to 3 are unnecessary. The Government will monitor the effects of the new multipliers and, as we know, they will show what those effects have been in Budget 2025. They will do the same in all future fiscal statements, so the monitoring is already going to take place. The hon. Member refers to the impact these changes might have in two years’ time, and the Government will comment on that in all future fiscal statements.
Amendments 1 to 6 are noble, but they would significantly affect and reduce the support that the Bill is able to provide to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
Victoria Collins
The hon. Gentleman mentions leisure businesses, and I have been contacted by several soft play facilities. They talk about the importance of play to children’s wellbeing, but they are not sure whether they will be entitled to the lower rate. Even Parliament’s experts are not sure. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in calling on the Government to clarify that soft play will be included in those lower business rates?
Mr Sewards
Yes, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity. As someone who uses soft play—[Laughter.] Not personally, enjoyable though it is. I am sure that my sons Oscar and Arthur, who is six months old and not quite ready to take advantage of soft play, will also be keen to know, so perhaps the Minister could offer some clarity in his closing remarks.
Although amendments 1 to 6 are noble, this Bill is about the high street, and we know just how much our high streets have suffered. This does not mean, for one second, that we are backing down from the challenges facing manufacturing businesses, which amendments 1 to 6 aim to help with. The Budget announced over £3 billion to support the manufacturing sector, including £520 million for a life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, but the changes to business rates in this Bill are primarily about supporting our high streets.
As someone who was teaching on this date a year ago, I am particularly interested in clause 5, which removes the charitable relief enjoyed by some private schools. I welcome this, along with the Budget’s broader measures to remove tax breaks from private schools so that we can fund state education properly. A vote for amendment 10 would delay this funding for state schools by another year.
It is estimated that, of the 2,444 private schools in England, only 1,040 will be impacted by the change. The measure will raise around £70 million, which, when taken together with the other revenue-raising measures we have announced, will increase per pupil funding in real terms to benefit the 94% of students who attend state schools. We must give every child the chance to succeed in life, and that is exactly what this Bill and the other measures we have announced are doing.
Damian Hinds
It is worth reflecting that the education budget goes up every year. It does not go up because there has been a change to business rates, VAT or anything else, which is the logic we sometimes hear from Labour Members. If the revenue from those things is slightly smaller than expected, does that mean less money will go into education? Of course not.
We keep hearing about hiring 6,500 more teachers. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many more teachers were hired in the last Parliament?
Mr Sewards
I heard the right hon. Gentleman put that question to the Minister in last Monday’s Westminster Hall debate but, just to go back to his original point—I will come to the 6,500 new teachers—we are deliberately taking these decisions in order to increase the amount of money that state schools have to teach the 94% of students who enjoy state school education.
As a basic principle, all Members of this House can get behind the idea that it is a basic function of the state to provide a well-funded, excellent state school place for all students, whether or not parents choose to take advantage of it. That is exactly what we are doing with this Bill and the other measures we have announced.
Dr Luke Evans
Talking of basic principles, does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe it is right to tax education—yes or no?
Mr Sewards
I believe it is right to tax businesses. Private schools are businesses, and we are choosing to levy the tax on businesses. We are not choosing to levy the tax on state education, because as I was just setting out, it is imperative on us to make sure there is an excellent and well-funded place in state-funded education for all students, should parents choose to take advantage of it. It must be remembered that not all parents have the choice of private or state education. The reason why 94% of students are in state education is because that choice does not exist for most parents in this country. That is why we will take the necessary action to fund state schools properly.
I will make some progress because I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to—oh, she is being quite generous with her time. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In which case, I will take more interventions.
Some Members have raised concerns about whether the legislation adversely affects the private schools that are primarily concerned with teaching students with EHCPs. I am pleased to report that it does not. The Government have clearly set out that private schools that teach 50% or more students with EHCPs will continue to be exempt from business rates, which is exactly the right approach. There are therefore no concerns there.
Amendment 8 seeks exemptions for certain kinds of schools. We have talked a little bit about faith schools, and we talked about that a lot on Second Reading. I cannot support the amendment given that we are ending the tax breaks to support the 94% of students who attend state schools. If we dilute the measures in the Bill for that exception, it is easy to make an argument for the next exemption, the one after that and the one after that as well. Our guiding principle should be that every child is entitled to an excellent, properly funded state school place, as I think I have said repeatedly.
Amendment 9—the last one I will speak about—gives local authorities discretion over whether the higher multiplier will apply. As many hon. Members will know, local authorities already possess wide-reaching powers regarding discretionary rate relief. Given that the Bill does not affect those powers at all, I do not think the amendment is required.
To conclude, the measures in the Bill are vital to bring about the restoration of our high streets, support local businesses and give state schools the funding they desperately need. Those are the priorities of this Labour Government and my priorities too. If Conservative Members claim to represent the party of business again, if they ever hope to seize back the mantle of being the party of opportunity, I hope they put their money where their mouth is and join us in voting for this unamended Bill today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thought it very sensible for the hon. Member to clarify that it is young Arthur, not himself, who enjoys soft play. I call the final speaker, Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As I have about two hours to give this speech, I want to start by going back to the summer of 1983—[Laughter.] I have just told everyone how old I am, have I not?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also thank the Minister for all his work on the Bill. I genuinely want to thank all Members from across the House too for their contributions in Committee. I thought the way in which the Bill was discussed in Committee and the contributions from both sides were well thought out and, as I have mentioned before, respectful—I say that in advance of any interventions. I also want to thank all the people who came forward to provide evidence to the Committee.
I am honoured to rise to speak on Report on behalf of my constituency of Harlow. First—I promise I will not take two hours—I think everybody in the Chamber will forgive me for taking the opportunity to thank and praise the hard-working teachers and school support staff across my constituency for the hard work they do day in, day out to support young people.
I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Mark Hall academy in my constituency last week and saw the incredible work that its staff are doing to provide an inclusive atmosphere. I particularly welcomed the fact that the school was about not just exam results, but what I describe as the hidden curriculum—how young people grow and develop. The school also focuses on the importance of debating skills, which may be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—I am only joking. I thought that perhaps he and I could go together and learn a thing or two. [Interruption.] I set myself up for that. The school also recognises the importance of critical thinking. As I say, it was a fantastic visit, which was capped by an opportunity to meet the young carers in the school. As many Members will know, young carers are a hugely important issue for me.
I will briefly address private schools, as they have been mentioned a number of times. As I said on Second Reading, private schools affected by this policy can choose to absorb some of the cost if they so wish, and that is their prerogative. Members across the House may disagree with this, but, ultimately, the fundamental issue here is fairness and equality.
Sarah Bool
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that private schools could absorb the cost. The headteacher of my Carrdus school told me that they could not absorb the cost. The school has tried everything possible to stay open, but it cannot. One just cannot make this claim that these schools can absorb the cost; they cannot.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Having spoken to headteachers in private schools, I know that that is what some of them are looking to do. I recognise that may not be the case in that situation. As I said on Second Reading, ultimately, we want all schools to be at such a standard that parents do not need to choose to send their children to private school.
Every business in the UK is required to pay VAT. The “Cambridge Dictionary” definition of a business is a particular company that buys and sells goods and services. Parents pay for the service of their children’s teachers, and they pay for their children to go to private school.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that universities are companies? If he does, would he advocate imposing VAT on fees for university education?
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think that we have had a very good debate on higher education today. It is interesting that Conservative Members want to talk about university and higher education when it is in an awful state. Clearly, we need to look at how private schools are funded. [Interruption.] I am being a teacher, sorry. Members can carry on rambling; this is not a school.
The second part of my speech is about our high streets. I think we can all agree about the importance of supporting our high streets, while also recognising the changing nature of both retail and those high streets. The Bill is designed to decrease tax on high street businesses and make online retailers pay their fair share. Very briefly, in its evidence, the Co-op said that the Bill would benefit “92% of our estate”, which is 98% of retail stores, and described it as having “a significant impact”. The representative of the Association Of Convenience Stores described the Bill as very helpful, and
“very positive for the sector, but…also very positive for the places where they trade.”––[Official Report, Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 18, Q25.]
I have not taken two hours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will conclude. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the practical steps that this Labour Government are taking to address the issues left by the previous Government and to support small businesses in my constituency of Harlow and across the country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It appears that the attraction of business rates has not been sufficient to draw as many speakers to the Chamber as some debates, but I am none the less grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate.
Just a few months ago, we exposed a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget: £3.7 billion of additional spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. Over the weeks since the Budget, we have seen pensioners, businesses of all sizes and types, schools, landlords and tenants all facing additional costs to begin to backfill the consequences of those political choices. With the Bill before the House tonight, those tax hikes are heading for the business rates bill of companies and organisations, large and small, on high streets the length and breadth of the country.
We should not pretend that this is an essential step. Our councils are acknowledged as the most efficient part of the public sector. They responded magnificently to the consequences of the financial crash in the late 2000s, with rising resident satisfaction against a backdrop of increasingly challenged budgets, but the decisions made by this new Government, in particular loading an additional £1.66 billion of national insurance costs on to local authorities, with less than a third of that covered by the promised additional funding, has consequences in our town halls. The Bill begins to make a small step towards bridging that colossal gap, but the Government need to own these political choices. The consequences of the Bill for our businesses and schools are stark.
First, let me address the changes in the multiplier, and in particular the consequences for larger premises. Under the changes to the business rate system introduced by the Government overall, increased costs loaded on to larger premises will provide the source for any reductions for smaller businesses, unlike under the previous Government, when it was covered from general grants. As a result, these businesses, often small and medium-sized enterprises—important employers and vital sources of growth for our economy—will face higher bills.
Such businesses have been characterised by the Government as warehouses, often owned by online giants, but when we look at the detail from the Government’s own data, we see firms such as Banner, which supplies the offices of Members of Parliament with all kinds of stationery products, Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, and Zetex Semiconductors plc, which is an American-owned business that trades on the London stock exchange, producing products that are vital for our security and growth. Those are just examples of businesses in the Minister’s own constituency that will be hit by the changes. Scapa Group Ltd, a major healthcare provider in the constituency of the Secretary of State, will also face significantly higher bills.
We have heard Members wax lyrical about how much they value the opportunities for growth in this country, and how they value in particular different types of community assets, but 28 of the data centres that the Prime Minister speaks of as being vital to the AI agenda will be hit by the Bill, and 16 of the breweries that have supposedly benefited from a penny off the pint, including Fuller’s, Bulmers, John Smith’s and Greene King, all face significant increases in their bills. Eight zoos and safari parks, including Colchester, Bristol and Chester zoos, face significantly increased business rates bills, and 48 stadiums across the country, including Wimbledon, Twickenham and both the Manchester stadiums, all expect to see big rises as a consequence. All Labour Members who love to champion their local pub and talk about taking a penny off the pint need to remember that the consequence of the Bill is to put business rates up by, on average, £5,500 a year per pub. The list is available from Government data. It is very clear that this will be a difficult Bill for retail, hospitality and leisure to swallow, after a period of direct and specific support from the previous Government.
This change does not come from a Government that came to office saying that this was their intention or plan; it comes from a Government whose Chancellor—Rachel from accounts—went so far as to promise in 2021 that she would abolish business rates. Business owners and workers who thought they were voting for a Labour Government that would come in and abolish business rates are facing significant increases today.
Dr Luke Evans
We have heard categorically from Labour that private schools are businesses. They see themselves as part of the community and as charities. Now that they are seen as businesses, they will act as businesses and will have to look to raise revenue from all their sports facilities and anything else that they willingly gave away to the state system. Private schools work with the state system and ensure that there is support for the state system—that is the community basis of what schooling is about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that defining them as businesses will be a big problem?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend highlights a point that many of us will have heard from our local state schools: the fact that they are in sharing arrangements with private schools to access facilities. They are concerned that, as the cost drivers introduced by the Government and the Budget increase the pressure on those schools, they may lose the free or low-cost access they have.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I had a meeting with a state school in my constituency that said the changes will be damaging because it gets a grant from a private school, which will have to be cut to deal with the impact of VAT. That state school, which is in a genuinely working-class community, will be £200,000 a year worse off under this policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is terrible?
David Simmonds
I agree that it is terrible, but sadly it is typical of the consequences introduced into the system by the actions of the Government.
Melanie Ward
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that state schools should not have to go with a begging bowl to private schools to ask to borrow their facilities? They should be properly funded in their own right.
David Simmonds
Having served as a governor in three different state schools during my local government career, I know that many state schools have facilities that they are very happy to share—some have swimming pools, some have libraries, some have adult education facilities. The sharing of facilities among schools of all kinds is normal, but the Bill introduces additional pressure that will take away access to those facilities. Isolated communities in particular, which benefit most from that access, risk losing it.
The basic fact that schools will end up net worse off demonstrates that, contrary to what has been said, this policy fails the basic test of equity and efficiency. It harms some people in our country, with no corresponding benefit to anybody else. Let me address the argument proposed by a number of Members that the consequences are marginal. We heard a lot of evidence from different people. The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) referred to an academic who has built a career writing tracts attacking the private education sector. That is not somebody I consider to be an expert. I will take the word of mums and dads, the Independent Schools Council, institutions that represent people across our country and the House of Commons Library over the word of a single left-wing academic.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) said, “It’s not fair because schools in the state sector pay business rates.” She may not be aware that there is already an 80% mandatory business rate relief for voluntary aided, foundation and academy schools, and 100% of all state school business rates liability is paid for by central Government anyway, so no school budget is burdened by the cost of business rates, whereas the consequence of the Bill will be that every independent school is burdened by those costs.
Many of us in this Chamber will see the added value that independent education brings. Many of those experts whose opinion we value have spoken profoundly about the fact that so much of our special educational needs provision is in the private sector. I made reference in Committee to Gesher school in my constituency. I defy any Labour Member visiting Gesher to come away saying, “That is a private business that deserves to be taxed.” Such institutions have emerged—in many cases over a long time—to cater to very specific and profound special educational needs and disabilities, and they are looking aghast at the consequences of the Bill.
There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are technical. The Government’s solution is to introduce the “wholly or mainly” provision. Schools that wholly or mainly provide places for children with an education, health and care plan—by which the Government mean 50% or more—will be exempt from the provisions. The problem with that policy is that many children who have well-established, diagnosed special educational needs and disabilities do not have an education, health and care plan.
Indeed, beneath statementing, which was the term at the time, the previous Labour Government introduced a number of tiers: school action and school action plus. Children with moderate to severe special educational needs and disabilities could fall into those categories and be supported in a mainstream setting. The statementing and education, health and care plan process was only ever intended to make provision for children with the most significant and severe needs. That is already the case across the state sector. We know from the evidence of many parents up and down the land that they found provision in local independent schools, and at their own cost, for children who had not qualified or had not yet achieved an education, health and care plan. It is very clear that the Government’s solution underestimates, and falls well short of accounting for, the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities. This is a Government whose Secretary of State for Education stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about how much they believe in inclusion. Well, their actions in support of this Bill say otherwise.
The Bill also fails to address the needs of parents who wish to secure a place for their child at a school that has a special character. This is particularly important in rural areas, but it is an issue across the country. We all know that there are schools that have the ability to provide specialist training or coaching in a sport that a child excels in and wishes to pursue, and there are schools that have a faith or cultural identity that is incredibly important to the family.
By requiring all those types of school to pay these significantly hiked taxes, this Government are bearing down on choice in the education sector and pushing up costs for mums and dads. These are not wealthy families, but ordinary people in this country who are seeking to do the best for their child and who, in some cases, are willing to take on the responsibility of paying for their child’s education even if they could still pursue the opportunity of an education, health and care plan for them through the state system. They choose to do the right thing by their child, and this Government will be penalising them.
The amendments we have tabled seek to address the shortcomings I have described as best we can. We will also support some of the amendments tabled by other parties where they clearly fulfil our shared objectives, but as the speeches and other contributions to this debate by Conservative Members have shown, there could have been so many more amendments seeking to get this Bill right.
In conclusion, all of the hereditaments that are covered by this Bill are important to our economy and to growth, and in many cases they are vital to our communities. Since the Chancellor’s Budget, growth has flatlined, inflation has revived, borrowing costs are rising and employment opportunities are diminishing. It is not too late for this Government to choose a different path, and we invite them to do so this afternoon.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Before I speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I thank Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and for the constructive spirit, by and large, in which they have engaged with the Bill since its introduction. Although they are not always seen, with evidence sessions and Committee stages not always being prime-time TV viewing—it is a curse, but that is the way it is—those deliberations are nevertheless essential. The contributions that were made by Members from all parts of the House in probing and scrutinising the Bill were valuable, and I hope that all Members found them interesting.
I will begin by speaking to the amendments concerning the impact of the new multipliers. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, high streets and economic growth within six months of those clauses coming into effect. The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for St Albans have proposed two other new clauses. New clauses 2 and 3 would seek to impose in legislation a requirement for an analysis of the impact of the new business rate multipliers at varying points ahead of, or following, implementation of the Bill. New clause 3 also seeks to require an assessment of how the application of the new multipliers would differ between retail, hospitality and leisure businesses occupying different numbers of properties, and to compare that assessment with the impact of retail, hospitality and leisure relief from the 2020-21 financial year to the 2025-26 financial year.
We agree in principle with the points that hon. Members have raised through their new clauses. It is right that the Government consider the effects of their policies on businesses, on the high street and on economic growth, and indeed within different sectors. It is the policy of the Government that those businesses should feel a material benefit as a direct result of these measures, so let me set out how we propose to do that.
It states in the Bill that the two new retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers may not be set at more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business multiplier. The Bill also places appropriate restrictions on the higher multiplier: when it is set, it cannot be more than 10p in the pound above the standard multiplier, and cannot be applied to properties with a rateable value of less than £500,000. It is important to state that those are not the intended tax rates, but the maximum parameters to be introduced through the new business rate multipliers. As we explained during the Bill’s passage through the House, the actual tax rates will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rate revaluation, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time.
Daisy Cooper
The Minister has been here throughout the debate, and he will have heard a number of my interventions. I accept his point that those figures will not be published until Budget 2025. May I ask if he is in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that small independents, with a small number of hereditaments, will not be subsidising organisations that have many, such as the big chains?
Jim McMahon
I did hear the hon. Lady, and I think we all accept the principle of needing to target or get support to those important small businesses, which we can all identify in our constituencies. With respect, I think there was a degree of conflation with the temporary reliefs brought in during covid, which the previous Government did not account for, that were always going to come to an end.
Our challenge was how to reconcile ongoing support for the high street with a permanent relief in law so that businesses know exactly where they are and can plan ahead with certainty. The choice we made was far fairer: to target higher-value properties of more than £500,000, which are generally—but, I accept, not entirely—the large-footprint warehouse and distribution premises used by the big online retailers.
The shadow Minister used the example of the stationery provider in my constituency. It is an online retailer, so it ought to be paying more. Why? Because for a long time—and we have all heard this from our constituents and industry—we have needed a rebalancing from online to on-street and from out-of-town to in-town, and that is exactly what this targeting does. It was never intended to be a continuation of the relief that was only temporary during covid. It is about rebuilding the foundations, and that is exactly what we have set out to do.
Daisy Cooper
I completely accept that point, and I am very sympathetic to the fact that the Minister inherited a sticking-plaster system from the previous Government. If during the course of this year his Government’s own analysis proves what I have discovered from the House of Commons Library research, will he ensure that the Government at least do not rule out introducing a new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses?
Jim McMahon
As with all tax policies, we will keep this under review, and I say that in a very general sense. We absolutely believe that the businesses that are the backbone of our high streets, town centres and communities would, were it not for these measures, go bust. They would not be viable and they would feel the heat very quickly. However, because of the measures we are taking, businesses will be able to plan with certainty for the future, knowing that they have a Government acting in partnership with them in that enterprise.
David Simmonds
I appreciate the Minister’s point, but clearly no Parliament binds its successors, so every Parliament must make its own decisions. A lot of Members have asked about small business rate relief. It would be helpful to have some certainty from the Dispatch Box about the Government’s intentions on that. Can he give us that certainty tonight?
Jim McMahon
I can certainly give the certainty that we are providing in law for a permanent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will fund that through a very targeted additional payment for properties of more than £500,000, which will primarily be the online retailers occupying big warehouses and distribution centres. It is a promise to shift from the online to the on-street, as I talked about.
Before we move on to vote on the amendment, I will make some progress. The House will know that tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for the impact assessments that accompany non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set.
The Government will continue to keep the policy and its effects under review as a matter of course, because we believe it is good practice to do that for all taxes. However, we want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Government have heard them, and we understand the importance of robustly understanding tax changes, which is something to which we have already committed. I hope this commitment to understanding the effects of the new tax rate when it is introduced will enable hon. Members not to press their proposed new clauses.
Amendment 9 would give local authorities discretion over whether the higher multipliers enabled by the Bill should be applied. The Bill would enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more. As we explained in Committee, we do not have any plans to narrow the scope of the higher multipliers as doing so would reduce the funding available for the very targeted support for lower multipliers for uses that everyone in the Chamber supports.
That does not mean that local authorities will be unable to apply local discretion to rate bills. As was set out in contributions, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers for discretionary rate relief as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the authority is satisfied that that would be reasonable, having regard to the interests of council tax payers. We assure the House that those discretionary powers are unaffected by the Bill and remain in place. Given that local authorities will be able to use those discretionary powers to provide relief, including for ratepayers subject to the higher multiplier, the amendment is not required. I hope that assures hon. Members.
I turn to amendments 1 to 6, which would widen the scope of the lower multipliers so that qualifying manufacturing properties would become eligible alongside retail, hospitality and leisure properties. In the Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke of the vital importance of manufacturing to the British economy and of how providing them with a permanent cut to their business rates could help them to recover.
Let me reiterate the Government’s support for the manufacturing sector as a whole. It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, but it is also a nation of innovators, creators and entrepreneurs. Our manufacturing sector helps bring many of those ideas to life, and we understand its importance. But the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations. If they did not have that targeted support, they would feel the hit very strongly.
Through the Bill, we are delivering our manifesto pledge to protect valuable town centres and high streets by enabling the introduction of permanently lower taxes for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been rolled over year on year since the covid-19 pandemic. We have been clear throughout the process that this tax cut must be fully funded. Therefore, against the current fiscal backdrop, a widening of the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers might dilute the support that the Government were able to provide, or its impact might even require a higher tax rate for properties with values of more than £500,000 to fund such new multipliers. However, we respect hon. Members’ points of view and agree that our manufacturing sector should be recognised and supported.
Advanced manufacturing is one of the eight growth-driving sectors identified as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for the new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. That is how the Government intend to support the innovators, creators and entrepreneurs mentioned earlier. Because we have this package in place to support manufacturing, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with reassurance as to our commitment to support the sector, which I am sure the whole House recognises is vital.
I turn to amendments 7 and 8. While clause 5 will remove business rates charitable relief from private schools, the amendments would introduce new provisions or expand existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that certain private schools remain eligible for business rates charitable relief. Amendment 7 would result in a fee-paying school retaining its relief if it wholly or mainly catered for pupils with special educational needs as defined under section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014, whether or not those pupils have an education, health and care plan. Amendment 8 would result in a private faith school or a private school with a special character maintaining its eligibility for charitable relief if there were no maintained or academy school of the same faith or special character within the statutory walking distance set out in the Education Act 1996. Although amendment 8 does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from previous contributions in the House that that would include schools that follow a particular method of education. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools. As we have said, the removal of the tax break is necessary to fund school support for the over 90% of pupils who are educated in the state sector.
The Government have carefully considered their approach to minimising the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities and that wholly or mainly—by over 50%—provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable relief. As hon. Members will be aware, most children with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can only be supported in a private school, the local authority directly funds that place.
Where an EHCP has not named a private school, the parents or carers of the child may choose to place that child in a private school, but that is a choice made by the parents and does not detract from the assessment that the pupil’s needs can be catered for in the mainstream state-funded sector. In instances where a child’s parents disagree with the local authority’s assessment that their needs can be met in the state sector, the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel to resolve such disagreements.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised by hon. Members and others that pupils with special educational needs in private schools may lose their charitable relief. The Government believe that most private special schools will not be affected at all by the Bill. In fact, we expect any private special schools losing eligibility for private relief to be the exception; according to our assessment, they could be in the single figures. It is important that we keep it in that context.
Jim McMahon
I do not have time for any more interventions.
Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. The majority of children in England with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in the state sector already. The Government’s ambition is for all children and young people with special educational needs or a disability to receive the right support to succeed in their education as they move into adult life.
As Members know, all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which includes fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and of none. We have listened carefully to arguments relating to exempting faith schools from the Bill, and we have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or schools with other special characteristics cannot be justified. For those reasons, we are unable to accept amendment 8.
Finally, amendment 10 would delay the removal of charitable rates relief from private schools by one year to April 2026. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture of the state sector, where most children are educated. Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but, in the end, necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver on the Government’s commitments to education and young people. Together, these policies are expected to raise over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30—essential funding to improve the education of the vast majority of school-age children. Delaying their implementation would forgo about £140 million, which, frankly, cannot be justified.
The House has heard a good range of amendments to the Bill, and I hope that I have been able to address them all. Although we are not able to accept the amendments, I hope that the assurances that I have outlined are accepted and Members feel able to withdraw them. If not, the Government cannot support them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jim McMahon
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge all who have contributed to the Bill’s passage through this House, particularly my private office team, for the support that they have offered during this process, officials in my Department, for the outstanding work that they have done, and colleagues in the Department for Education and the Treasury, as well as Clerks of the House, for supporting the process of this Bill.
The Bill honours the Government’s manifesto pledge to end business rates charitable rate relief for private schools in England and to fundamentally reform the business rates system. We are kickstarting this endeavour through the introduction of lower tax rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties.
I thank all Members who contributed to the evidence sessions, the Committee stage and today’s debate. I hope, even though there were disagreements on parts of the new clauses and on the amendments, that there is at least an acknowledgment that we have gone a long way to ensure that we get to the heart of what this Bill is intended to do when it comes to the high street and our town centres. In the end, whatever the differences—and let us be honest there are plenty—we all know how important our small businesses are to the viability of our high streets. We all recognise that these are more than just places in which to do business; they are places that people look to as the heart of their community. They are always more than the sum of their parts. Hopefully, Members will see that these measures will really make a dent in this area.
I also place on the record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, including: the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation; the British Retail Consortium; the Co-op Group; M&S; the Shopkeepers’ Campaign; the British Property Federation; and the Independent Schools Council. They have enabled us to scrutinise the Bill properly and to get evidence from professionals who understand what things are like on the ground, and that, I believe, added value to the process.
I thank those who attended and gave evidence in Committee for their time and willingness to share their expertise. I also wish to extend my thanks to hon. Members who attended the Public Bill Committee to ask questions, to foster debate, and to contribute to discussions as we take these important first steps to transform the business rates system.
The Bill will help to secure additional funding to enable the Government to deliver their commitments to the majority of children who attend state schools, which is the second part of this Bill. Ending tax breaks for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will come as welcome news to most parents in England, as it represents the Government’s determination to break down the barriers to opportunity and ensure that all children get a high-quality education. Let us be absolutely clear: more than 90% of children in this country go to state schools and they deserve the best, too. Now they are going to get it.
Let me assure Members that the education system in England is prepared for the relatively small number of pupils who may move as a result of the measures in this Bill. Much of what we have heard about churn in the system is not supported by the evidence and, in the end, it runs the risk of scaremongering. We need to reflect on the fact that there has always been change in the system, even before these measures were introduced. Importantly, we are organising to make sure that parents and pupils receive support if they need it, but we believe that will be around the edges.
The Bill will also provide certainty to high streets by making provision to introduce a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have heard a lot about the change from the covid relief to the permanent, baked-in relief that we are providing through the Bill. The Opposition have said a number of times during the Bill’s passage that it represents a reduction, but a degree of honesty is required. The Opposition know, as do we, that there was no provision—not a single pound or penny—for the continuation of the temporary relief provided during covid on which retailers, hospitality providers and leisure providers were relying.
The Opposition know that that is a fact, as do we. The only difference is that while the Opposition were willing to political point score, while businesses were waiting for maturity and for an answer to the problem, we were getting on with the job of government, and providing the permanent support that businesses need. How will we pay for it? We have heard the Opposition say a lot that they do not support measures, but they always support the investment. They support the investment in state schools, but not the measures to generate the income. They support the measures to support high streets, but seem not to support the measures to ensure that premises with a value of £500,000 or more pay more into the pot.
The reality is that this has not just come out of the blue. The Conservatives had 14 years to address the imbalance from the online to the on-street, from the out-of-town to the in-town, and they did nothing, so it is, frankly, ridiculous for them to try to present themselves during the passage of the Bill as the champions of enterprise, of our town centres and of small businesses. They now have an opportunity. We have sorted out the amendments—they were nonsense, and most people would accept that—but on Third Reading we get to vote on the substance of the Bill. The Opposition could do the right thing. They could change course and back support for state schools to get them the money that they need. They could back measures to get money to the high street in our town centres and do the right thing. Now is the time to show that they will be the mature Opposition that they promised to be, but I expect that that will not be the path they choose. Luckily, the Government are getting on with the job. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the Minister, and indeed my shadow Ministers, the other Opposition spokespeople and all parliamentarians who have helped with the passage of the Bill, as well as the Clerks and officials—not that I would like to see the Bill progress any further. Aristotle, in his book “Politics”, over 2,000 years ago—[Interruption.]
Kevin Hollinrake
Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle talked about deviant government. Alongside tyranny, he placed democracy. He said the risk is that, sooner or later, a Government will come along who represent only their own interests and those of their supporters, and that that Government will pursue the politics of envy. Let us see who the Minister’s supporters are. They are not the 12.6 million pensioners in this country, if we judge by the winter fuel allowance; not the 89,500 farmers whose livelihoods will be damaged by the family farm tax; not the 5 million businesspeople who will be damaged by the changes to business property relief, who employ 14 million people and pay £200 billion a year in taxes; not those people who live in rural areas; and not the families of the 550,000 young people who are in private and independent education. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this is not scaremongering —90,000 of them may go back into the state sector as a result of the Government’s choices.
The Government have the gall to say that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a tax break. It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food. Those measures are there because we should encourage people to pursue education, particularly those who scrimp and save to send their children into private education.
What about businesses? Businesses are suffering on the back of the employer national insurance rise of £25 billion a year, and are worried about the future because of the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. The reality is that this Bill means a cut in support for many of those whom the Minister said he seeks to protect—people who work in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. The 75% discount is down to 40%. That will mean a tangible difference for the average pub of £5,500 a year. That comes on top of the huge increases in employer national insurance. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off to the tune of £925 million. That is the tax charge he is placing on those businesses he says he seeks to protect. If he is honest with them, those taxes will go up again in April 2026. That is the reality of the situation.
What promise did Labour make before the election? They said they would scrap business rates completely—another broken promise. In their manifesto, they said they would change the balance between high streets and the online giants. That is not what the Bill does. The Bill also taxes breweries, airports, football stadiums and bricks-and-mortar retailers such as John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. That is the reality behind the Government’s changes: not scrapping business rates, nothing on the online giants and big taxes on many businesses. This is the politics of envy. It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Thursday 16th January 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Wednesday 29th January 2025
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, and in doing so I send my condolences to my noble friend on the death of his mother.
It is a great pleasure to open the debate on the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. I very much welcome the interest shown by noble Lords in the matters related to this Bill and for the opportunity for both I and my noble friend Lord Khan to engage on key points of the Bill.
A few months ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out our Government’s first Budget: a Budget to commence a decade of renewal and deliver on the Government’s primary objective of economic growth. The decisions taken in the Budget, some of them very tough, are necessary to enable the Government to deliver economic stability, restore the public finances and deliver our plan for change. It is right that the Government do not shy away from the challenge before us, doing all they can to restore our public services and give businesses the confidence and stability they need to thrive. Stability, certainty and predictability are essential to business decision-making and, while the Government cannot completely remove all the uncertainty that may arise through running a business, there are elements that are within our control.
We have heard from businesses that they have long-standing frustrations with the business rates system. They have said that it is inflexible, that it stifles investment and that it is unfairly skewed against property-intensive sectors such as the high street. The changes we are making to business rates, including through this Bill, will address those concerns.
I think noble Lords will agree that our high streets sit at the very heart of our communities. They should, and do, represent the very best of our thriving and vital community life. They are centres of economic activity so important to the economic health of our country, but they are also meeting places for vibrant communities, whether it is families enjoying a meal together, work colleagues relaxing after a hard week’s work, friends shopping for a new outfit or gadget, or the multitude of other reasons that people use our town centres. The Government have committed to transforming the business rates system to make it fit for the 21st century, an endeavour that will be delivered across the course of this Parliament. That journey starts with this Bill. Through it, the Government have begun the important task of rebalancing the business rates burden faced by our high streets.
The Bill before us today seeks to enable the commitments made by the Chancellor at the Budget to introduce permanently lower tax rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value below £500,000 from April 2026. This permanent intervention ends the uncertainty of the stopgap retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been extended year on year since the Covid-19 pandemic. That relief was always intended to be a temporary measure, born out of the extraordinary context of the early 2020s, and necessary for the time but at great cost to the Exchequer. In the challenging fiscal context we now find ourselves in, it is not financially responsible to continue that indefinitely.
Our intention through this Bill is to introduce two new lower multipliers. One multiplier offers a tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value of between £51,000 and £499,999 that currently pay the standard non-domestic rating multiplier. The other new multiplier will provide a tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties paying the small business non-domestic rating multiplier—that is, those with a rateable value of less than £51,000.
I have already spoken of the Government’s responsibility towards the public finances. Of course, any permanent tax cut must be sustainably funded. For that reason, the Bill allows for the introduction of a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This represents less than 1% of business properties in England and captures the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by large online businesses, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from our high streets. By introducing this higher tax rate, the lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses can be sustainably funded from within the business rates system—a prudent approach that aligns with the principle of ensuring that any tax cut is fully funded.
I anticipate that noble Lords may raise questions about the delegated powers in the Bill that will enable the Government to introduce these new tax rates from April 2026. Unlike many taxes, which are generally paid after an event, business rates bills are calculated in advance for the whole year and are issued by billing authorities often several weeks before the start of the financial year. Therefore, changes to the multipliers—in other words, the tax rates—have to be made in advance and be in place several weeks before the start of the financial year if they are to be included in demand notices. Therefore, this Bill does not set the level of the tax rates; that will be done later this year at the Budget, taking into account the outcomes of the 2026 business rates revaluation. The Bill instead provides a power to set them.
To put it simply, without introducing delegated powers there would be insufficient time to introduce the tax rates at the Budget and pass the required primary legislation for those tax rates with sufficient time left for billing authorities to prepare for the changes at an operational level. That is why the Bill provides the ability to set these new tax rates through secondary legislation.
Nevertheless, as is expected and good practice, the Government have carefully considered the approach to these powers and constrained them accordingly. The lower tax rate for retail, hospitality and leisure properties cannot be set more than 20p below the small business non-domestic rating multiplier for that year and can be applied only to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the exact definition of which will be set out through secondary legislation later this year. However, it is the Government’s intention for the definition to broadly follow that which is in place for the current retail, hospitality and leisure relief. The higher tax rate cannot be set more than 10p above the standard non-domestic rating multiplier for that year and can be applied only to properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. It is important to say that these are not the intended tax rates—as I have said, they will be set at the Budget later this year. These are the maximum parameters within which the new tax rates may be set, not the target tax rates.
I appreciate there may be interest from noble Lords with regard to how these multiplier changes may impact on the funding available to local authorities from levying business rates. Since 2013, the business rates retention scheme has allowed local government to retain a portion of the business rates that it collects. The measures contained in the Bill will affect the level of business rates income collected by authorities differently in different areas. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that, as far as practically possible, local government income will be unaffected by business rates tax policy changes. It is worth noting that the Government have committed to reform the local government funding system to help deliver this, and, as intended since 2013, business rates growth will be subject to redistribution across the country through a business rates reset in 2026-27.
I am aware that, at the start of my speech, I set out the Government’s ambition that the transformation of the business rates system should go broader than the measures within the Bill before us. Indeed, noble Lords questioned me extensively about our wider plans during Question Time on Monday. I will briefly touch on those plans now.
At the Budget, the Government published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, which set out the priority areas for reform and invited stakeholders to co-design a fairer business rates system. The areas of interest within that paper include incentivising investment and growth, tackling avoidance and evasion, the frequency of revaluations, and ensuring that the system is fit for purpose, reflecting our modern, fast-paced economy. I am pleased to say that many stakeholders have already engaged with the Government on these matters, providing valuable insight and expertise. Any changes will be phased over the course of the Parliament, and the Government will publish an update in due course.
I turn now to the second measure set out in the Bill: the removal of private schools’ eligibility for business rates charitable relief. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity for all. While we believe in supporting parental choice, we must ensure that every child has access to high-quality education that helps them achieve their full potential and thrive. The Government must concentrate on improving the state education sector, where more than 90% of our children are educated. That is why the Government are ending tax breaks for private schools, to help raise revenue to fund the state education priorities that we set out clearly in our manifesto.
As I said earlier, the Government have had to take very difficult but necessary decisions to restore our public finances and, in doing so, enable the restoration of public services. State education is one such public service that is used by the majority and available to all who require it. At the Autumn Budget, the Government announced an increase of per pupil funding in real terms, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget in 2025-26. This includes a £1 billion uplift to high-needs funding in 2025-26, providing additional support for the more than 1 million children in the state sector with special educational needs and disabilities. This funding needs to be paid for. To help make that happen, the Government are ending tax exemptions for private schools, as we set out in our manifesto.
I am aware that there has already been a great deal of discussion in this House of the Government’s policy to remove tax breaks for private schools, and the Government genuinely welcome the scrutiny that noble Lords have brought to this matter. I am sure there will be some more this afternoon.
Noble Lords will be aware that the measure relating to VAT is being legislated for through the Finance Bill. Ending the VAT exemption of private school fees and removing eligibility for business rates charitable relief from private schools that are also charities will together raise approximately £1.8 billion by 2029-30. This will help deliver the Government’s commitments to education and young people.
The Bill before us today covers the business rates change only, and that is where I am going to focus my comments. There are over 2,400 private schools in England, of which approximately half are charities able to benefit from business rates charitable relief. This Bill removes that eligibility. It provides a specific definition of a private school as a school that provides
“full-time education … for pupils of compulsory school age … where fees or other consideration are payable for that … education”.
In respect of further education, the institution is one that
“is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19”,
and where education is provided to those persons full-time which is “wholly or mainly” for a fee or other consideration.
I am aware that noble Lords have raised questions over how this change will affect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government have carefully considered the design of the policy to ensure that effects on those pupils with the most acute needs are minimised. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable rate relief. For clarity, the definition of “wholly or mainly” in business rates generally means 50% or more. This will operate alongside the existing business rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people. Properties that qualify for this exemption pay no business rates at all, and any private schools that currently qualify for that particular exemption will continue to do so.
Taken together, the existing and new provisions are intended to make sure that the majority of private special schools will be unaffected by this measure. In fact, the Government expect that any private special schools losing eligibility for charitable rate relief will be the exception. It is worth adding that stand-alone nursery schools with their own rates bills are not within the scope of the Bill and, if charities, will retain eligibility for the existing relief. As previously announced, it is the Government’s intention that this measure will come into effect from 1 April 2025. As business rates is a devolved tax, the measures in the Bill will apply only to England; there are different measures in place in Scotland and Wales.
The measures in the Bill partly deliver on two of the commitments within the manifesto on which the Government were elected. The measure to enable the introduction of new multipliers is commencing the Government’s plans to transform the business rates system. It begins our journey to fulfil the ambition to deliver a business rates system fit for the 21st century; one that supports our high streets in a sustainable way, offers stability, promotes investment and drives economic growth. The measure to remove charitable rate relief from private schools will contribute to our overall ambition to break down barriers to opportunity and help all children to receive the high-quality education they deserve and their parents aspire to. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I send our condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and to his family in Burnley. He is always in our thoughts and prayers. This will be a difficult time for him, as I know. I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This Bill represents another stealth tax for businesses. Not only are the Government increasing business rates; at the same time they are also reducing business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses up and down this country. This is the wrong approach and we will scrutinise this Bill very closely in Committee.
Throughout the election campaign, the now Chancellor promised that the Labour Government would be the
“most pro-business government this country has ever seen”.
Yet the choices they have made indicate the exact opposite. This Budget has been decidedly anti-business and the decision to increase business rates demonstrates this Government’s failure to understand how to achieve growth.
On Monday, the CBI reported that firms expect another significant fall in activity over the coming three months, with the CBI’s growth indicator suggesting a 23% fall in the three months to January. The only official estimate of the revenue from this Bill is just £70 million for the Exchequer in 2025-26, but the impact on businesses will be disproportionate to that figure. When paired with all the other damaging tax increases in the autumn Budget, it provides a clearer picture of the campaign of crippling tax rises that this Government are imposing on our businesses.
As we scrutinise this Bill, we will be focusing in particular on the impact of these changes on our high streets, including hospitality and leisure businesses. Businesses are being asked to pay more through their employer national insurance contributions and the inflation-busting increase in the national living wage. With this Bill, the Government are hitting businesses with a triple whammy. It is our duty to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise the unacceptable negative impacts this Bill will have.
While the Bill will ensure that these online giants pay higher business rates, the Government have singularly failed to protect businesses on the high street, some of which will also be subject to these higher rates. Although the Government set out to separate online businesses from traditional retail, the Bill uses the rateable value of £500,000 as the distinction. This will allow a higher rate for
“the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants”.
I do not dispute that this distinction will capture many online retailers, but it will also capture additional businesses such as supermarkets, hotels and department stores. The Bill fails to distinguish between these different business types, and it will have unintended consequences. The CEO of John Lewis & Partners has confirmed this, explaining that the prime location of its stores means they have a higher rateable value than out-of-town warehouses. He has called the combination of higher business rates and the national insurance tax raid as a “two-handed grab”.
We are also concerned that the new business rate multipliers have not yet been set. We are being asked to trust the Government and give them these powers without knowing how they intend to use them. I cannot understand why the Government would not set these rates before publishing the Bill; we need clarity if we are to proceed. Would the Minister be willing to give the House an explanation of the Government’s plans in this area before we go into Committee?
We are deeply concerned about the impact these changes will have on businesses, which will be hard hit by these measures. We know the Bill will mean that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on high streets up and down this country are going to be closed. This will be yet another setback for our high streets, which we already know are struggling. The Minister claims these higher rates will affect only 1% of businesses, but I am certain that the impact will be wider spread and it is vital that we protect our high streets. In the world of public finances, the Bill does not raise an extraordinary amount. The £70 million referred to in the impact assessment will not go very far, but the impact on businesses that are forced to close as a result of this, alongside other measures included in the Budget, will have a wide-reaching impact on our economy, as well as on our communities across the country.
The Government claim the Bill will leave retail, leisure and hospitality businesses with a lower bill to pay, but this will not be the case for many businesses that our high streets rely on. The anchor stores of our high streets will be hit. I agree with the Government that independent stores are important on our high street, but that does not mean that the larger stores are not. I am worried that the Bill will have the effect of forcing retailers out of their high street locations and instead moving them to out-of-town locations where the value of property is lower. I cannot see how that is going to benefit anyone.
The second part of the Bill removes charitable relief for private schools. My noble friend Lady Barran will speak about this part of the Bill in more detail in her closing speech. This is a mean-spirited attack on private schools, and Clause 5 raises many issues. I am concerned about the exemption only for pupils with EHC plans. We have been clear that taxing education is wrong, but taxing education for children with special educational needs is unconscionable.
The Government may have made an attempt to retain charitable relief for schools that wholly or mainly educate pupils with SEND, but the way that the Bill has been drafted fails to account for special educational needs pupils who do not have an EHC plan. We know it is exceptionally difficult to get one of those plans and it takes a very long time, so many parents choose to send their children to private schools instead. The Bill will place an additional cost on the many parents in that position. Surely that cannot be right. We will bring forward an amendment in Committee to address this clear failure in drafting.
Alongside the issue of SEND education in private schools, I do not think the Government have considered the effect of the Bill on private schools’ engagement with their local communities, which often involves sharing facilities with state schools, summer schools and other community organisations. Many private schools go above and beyond in providing facilities for the other schools in their areas but, with the number of extra costs the Government are piling on them, they will be unable to provide the same level of help. The Bill may have the perverse effect of forcing private schools to reduce that support as they seek to cover the tax bill imposed on them by the Government through lettings at a higher commercial rate. I ask the Minister to confirm whether that has been considered.
In conclusion, the damage that the Bill will wreak on our high streets cannot be ignored, nor can we allow the principle that education should not be taxed to be abandoned without any challenge. We will take a robust approach to the Bill in Committee and hold the Government to account for the negative impacts that these measures will have on our towns, our high street and our educational system.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in sending our condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and his family. It must be hard for him at the moment, but he can be sure of the warmth from your Lordships’ House.
In speaking to the Bill, I will not comment on Clause 5 because I am sure that quite a few others will speak at some length on it, and we will certainly have a chance to revisit it in some detail at later stages. Instead, I will dwell on business issues, which corresponds with my Front-Bench duties. I declare that I have a family member who owns an independent shop.
There is an aphorism that perfection is the enemy of the good. The Bill is not perfect, and its lack of transparency makes it hard to see what may be good about it. I hope that, during the course of this debate and the later stages of the Bill, the Government see fit to shine more light on it and offer more transparency so that we can get a better feel for all the moving pieces.
However, the Bill is evidently not a comprehensive reform of the business rates system, despite Labour’s manifesto commitment to do so. We know that the business rates system is deeply flawed. Of course I would say that a commercial landowner levy, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats at the last election, would go a long way towards addressing many of the entrenched problems in the current system.
I turn to concerns directly about the Bill. First, it fails to address the core issue of the imbalance between businesses that trade from out-of-town premises to those that trade from bricks and mortar shops within a town centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, analysed this problem, but, of course, this Government inherited it from the noble Baroness and her colleagues, so although they are able to analyse it now, they failed to do anything to address these issues when they were in their control.
At the heart of this issue is the imbalance between in-town and out-of-town valuations. Historically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, valuations on high streets massively outstrip those on warehouses. This mismatch in valuations looms large when considering business rates. We look forward to future reviews of that when and if they come; it would be helpful if the Government could give us a timetable for what will happen in addition to this Bill.
Furthermore, the Bill does not ensure that businesses that invest in their properties will not face an increase in their rate bills. Will the Minister exclude any new investment made now from future business rate valuations from April, so that businesses are able to invest in their future and will not see that investment push up their rate bills even higher? That is an inverse relationship and makes no sense.
The Bill is intended to help retail, hospitality and leisure businesses—the so-called RHL—and has been heralded by the Government as a cut in business rates for them. However, there is no guarantee of that. As I have said, there are a lot of moving pieces and, when all things are considered, businesses could still face increases in the tax burden of their businesses.
The Bill spells out the end of small business rates relief, but we do not know what the intended tax rates will be. As a result, a number of smaller and independent high street businesses will likely be hit hard by this process because, although we do not know what will happen, we can only assume that the Government will not slash rates in the future. Research by the House of Commons Library that was commissioned by my honourable friend Daisy Cooper MP, the member for St Albans, shows that from April 2026 these reforms to business rates could leave small and independent businesses in effect much worse off than the big chains—to some extent, a different version of a problem set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We cannot both be right, but either way that creates a problem.
I shall explain. At the moment, the 75% relief is capped at £110,000, but when the relief goes to zero then that cap will no longer exist. I understand why the cap was there; it was implemented because business rate relief is classified as state aid. The cap therefore ensures that businesses do not benefit from a subsidy above the limit specified in the Subsidy Control Act 2022—one of the Bills that I had the great pleasure of working on. The new multipliers will comprise lower tax rates for specified sectors rather than reliefs and therefore will not engage the subsidy control regime. That is why the cap of £110,000 will be scrapped from 2026-27. I am sorry for explaining things, but it helps me to understand them even if it does not help anyone else.
The Library research shows that the net effect of abandoning the cap could be that small businesses end up 80% worse off, while big multiple outlet chains could be 40% better off because they can aggregate their gains and off-set their costs across their chain. I appreciate that the Government plan to review business rates in the 2026 financial year—at least, that is what they have said—which I hope will analyse the impact on business rates, but it is also important to understand that differential assessment now, while we are assessing the Bill.
Has the Minister’s department gamed out the whole rates system and its effect on large chains versus single individual outlets? Will there be an impact assessment that sets out the impact on small businesses on high streets? Will she publish all this analysis, and ensure that the Government at least do not rule out introducing new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses? That is one reason why the absence of an impact assessment of the Bill’s effect on the high street seems, frankly, inexplicable. How can a Government propose a change such as this without looking at the impact, and how can we consider the Bill without knowing what its effects will be?
RHL businesses are a very important part of most high streets—I would say a key part—but they are only one element of a well-functioning, prosperous high street, and the Bill does not offer immediate support to businesses outside the RHL sector. What about banking hubs and Post Offices? What about small businesses, such as accountants and those in the creative industries? What about the light engineering and manufacturing sector? In the Commons, the response has been that this Bill is targeted at the RHL sector, but look at the short title and the long title and you will see that it is not. It can definitely include these other elements, and so will the amendments that we will bring in Committee.
Furthermore, the implication we have heard from ministerial quarters is that these non-RHL businesses have a choice where they locate. This is a pernicious assumption. In other discussions, where we have talked about the need to enhance our high streets and market towns, much has been said about creating a mixed environment and a mixed economy. That means a mix of not just retail, hospitality and leisure outlets but banks, Post Offices, small businesses, offices and light engineering, all playing a role in bringing people to an area and creating a lively local economy. The Bill works diametrically counter to this, and will make it less likely that such beneficial mixed use happens. Moreover, we are increasingly seeing large tracts of towns being owned by one landlord. In this way, competition for rents is eliminated, making it even harder for small concerns to negotiate a reasonable rent.
Finally, the Bill fails to address the issue of business rates non-payment, which runs at a higher level even than council tax avoidance. In the days where councils are even more cash-strapped, they need help in collecting what is due.
In summary, this Bill is very unlikely to materially help market towns across our country. The change from a system of capped temporary relief to an uncapped lower multiplier will inadvertently end up with small businesses subsidising, and doing worse than, big corporations. We on these Benches believe that the Government should complete the consultation before unfreezing the rates relief, which could badly affect small businesses in our high streets. The Government say that they want growth, and so do we—we all do—but these business rates changes will stifle the growth of small businesses and our high streets at a time when we should be unleashing them. We urge Ministers to think again.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her introduction to the Bill and add my best wishes to her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I express my thanks to him for his willingness to engage prior to this debate.
I commend the briefing from your Lordships’ Library, which is a most useful explanation of what is rather a niche specialism. I am grateful for comments from two rating specialists, Jerry Schurder and Simon Green from Newmark, formerly Gerald Eve, and to fellow professionals from the RICS rating and taxation forum. However, I stress that the views I express are mine and not in any way an official view of any other person or body.
I remind your Lordships that I come to this matter from a technical standpoint, with on-off professional involvement going back over 50 years in business rates and local government finance matters. I am also the beneficiary of a small business exemption on a very small rural business hereditament. I hold no brief from any professional body or any relationship with any commercial business rates payer or school.
The Bill has been described as a rebalancing measure, and that has been a repeated theme. We have heard that it imposes supplementary charges on less than 1% of some 2.15 million hereditaments where the value is £500,000 rateable value or over. According to my information, that amounts to 16, 857 separate hereditaments. I understand also that the Bill is the first step to meet the Labour manifesto commitment to
“replace the business rates system”
and
“level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.
At the moment, as we have already heard, there is a long-standing, and I believe just, criticism of the overall burden of business rates. Like for like, they are the highest of any OECD country. I am told that Jaguar Land Rover has a plant in Germany where the comparable tax burden is just one-sixth of the English plant equivalent. This is repeated constantly across many different types of business.
I remind noble Lords that when I first joined your Lordships House, back in 1985, I made my maiden speech on something called the Local Government Finance Bill—noble Lords may remember that that brought in the poll tax. In those days, there was a unified system of rateable values for all residential and commercial, and of course it has now been split. There is discrepancy in the whole local government finance arrangements between the burden borne by the capped council tax payers—who, as it happens, are almost certainly the main consumers of the goods and services produced by local government—and the rather higher level placed on business rates payers, who, it must be added, do not have a vote.
Any changes in taxation should aim to make the process more certain, clear, simple, speedy, efficient and so on, as we have heard. This is the expectation of businesses and the general public. The importance of business rates revenues is such that HM Treasury strives to protect the revenue stream at all costs, despite wider economic contraindications. Accordingly, it follows that the appetite so far within the Treasury for a root and branch reform has been rather modest. I hope that the consultation will produce real change.
As ever, the real rebalancing becomes evident in the other details. First, there was Covid assistance for retail, hospitality and leisure, or RHL, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. The previous Government put that in place, but it is now progressively being withdrawn and will disappear by April 2026. It was previously worth £2.5 billion, but is now worth about £1.7 billion. The Government say they are not removing this relief, but from 2026 onwards it will have to be funded internally by the ratepayers themselves, rather than being an extra grant from the Government. This follows the fiscal neutrality principle, whereby however you shuffle the deck of the burdens within the business rates system, the thing will still yield the same amount or more. The situation now is whether the lack of adequate tapering—I think there is a problem with that—is going to produce a cliff edge in demands when we get to April 2026 and this is brought in.
Secondly, and much more significantly, the overall burden of business rates is set to rise. Currently, I believe it is about £26 billion gross—so I am told—but according to the last OBR budget report it is set to rise to £39 billion by 2029-30. That is a 50% increase over five years. I have really no idea at the moment how this is going to be achieved—will it be by broadening the tax base or simply by increasing the rate in the pound multiplier for existing businesses? That is another uncertainty. One must accept that businesses are not stupid; they can see what is coming down the track and will take a view accordingly. The rebalancing is not quite what one might expect. The Bill seems to be a redistribution of fiscal risks without attempting to deal with the underlying problem, and I have difficulty with that.
Noble Lords will note—it has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that there is no financial impact assessment for this Bill, because it relies on the level of values, both cumulative and individual, in the as yet unpublished rating list for 2026. The explanation is that the figures on which such an assessment may be made are currently unknown.
This means that, effectively, we are being asked to sign off something without really having any idea of how it is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the number of moving parts. Yes, absolutely. I have been constantly saying that this has more moving parts than a Swiss watch. I make no apology for that analogy. We just do not know how much individual businesses will face, because the manner in which the reliefs apply and their response to them is, of course, entirely opaque. Government would set the relative multipliers in the Budget speech: I understand that they could set a different one in each successive Budget. There will be at least two multipliers on the sub-£500,000 rateable value cohort, which is the majority of the hereditaments.
There is a discrepancy between what the Bill allows and the admitted policy. For instance, the Bill allows for many higher multipliers, but, apparently, the policy is to have only one. Because policy can presumably be amended at relatively short notice, and the multipliers will be decided in each Budget speech, I cannot see that this does anything other than create a level of uncertainty that could be avoided. I am unclear whether the supplemental multiplier—that is, for the £500,000 value and above—will in the end apply to all the hereditaments in that category, or to only some.
The Government suggest that the current guidance for small business relief will become statutory regulation and thus more certain. I welcome that, but I wonder whether, of itself, it will generate arguments at the margins about whether something is in or out, creating further problems and uncertainty about the yield that the tax will produce. Going back to the number of moving parts, pushing one bit means that several other bits keep moving on the way. It is a very difficult thing to keep track of. So that is one of the things that is there. If the OBR estimates are right about this 50% rise in the burden, this has to give us thought as to the implications for business confidence, investment and growth.
I will leave other noble Lords to say—and I hope somebody will—how this might impact billing authorities and their ability to deal with it. The retail, hospitality and leisure uses do not necessarily coincide with high streets. We keep hearing about this as if they are almost interchangeable. They are not. They are different templates. High street health depends on many more things than business rates. It depends on local policies for planning, core time servicing, pedestrianisation, parking, congestion and air pollution charges, disruptive roadworks and things such as national insurance, minimum wage and other legislative and regulatory functions.
I will say a quick word on properties that might be affected. They include some 4,600 odd offices; 2,443 large warehouses, of which—as we have heard—some will be fulfilment centres; 1,802 superstores; 955 factories; 947 schools; 860 shops—some of them in major shopping centres—534 hotels, and so on. They also include some 325 hospitals—places such as large London teaching hospitals, at least one of which I know has a £12 million rateable value at the full rate. That will be £1.2 million. Well, I leave your Lordships can work out how many nurses and doctors or rehabilitation of hospital wings that could deal with.
I will conclude with three points. First, I will repeat what I have long maintained, namely that the impact of business rates is, of itself, a material mover and shaker of business decisions and policies. It does not exist in isolation. Why put oneself in a tangible, fixed asset such as highly rented business premises if one can operate from something else or in another way? I will leave that at that point.
Secondly, rates and rents are intertwined. Businesses naturally look at the overall costs of occupation when comparing their options, one area with another. If rate reductions simply bolster rents, nothing is gained. If rents are diminished by rates burdens, beware of impeding investment decisions in favour of high streets where one might want that investment to occur.
Finally, I will say a quick word on charitable relief. I do not call into question anything to do with the political policy that sits behind it. From a practical point of view, premises used for charitable and some not for profit community or social purposes—not just registered charities—can get 80% mandatory relief and may get another 20% discretionary relief on top. Of course, some of these compete with regular retailers, but I struggle to understand the rationale of the proposed selective denial of relief for private schools operating as charities in educating the young, as against any other philanthropic sector such as animal welfare, the arts, conservation and so on and so forth.
Noble Lords will all know of situations that apply. This strikes me as arbitrary, if not actually discriminatory, that this should take place, especially when we are told that it is not policy under this Bill to differentiate, say, teaching hospitals or public service-type buildings from the £500,000 and above cohort. Well, if you can identify one particular lot of schools, you can certainly identify another lot and say, “Well, we won’t incorporate them”. I cannot believe that, in this modern age of computer technology, you cannot pick them out and make a pretty accurate and granular decision on how you are going to deal with these things. So it seems to me that this is an incredibly blunt instrument that is being applied here. I also think it requires further and better justification, particularly in relation to the charitable relief on private schools, because it appears to lack consistency.
All in all, the normal expectations of tax reform in the area of the manifesto pledge do not appear to be met in this Bill as presented. I, for one, certainly hope that between us we can change that for the better.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He speaks with immense knowledge on these matters. I join in sending condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, as he passes through one of the terrible watersheds of life that we all pass through.
I am going to speak primarily on the second part of the Bill and declare my very recent interest as provost of a famous school—namely, Eton College. Provost means chair of governors in ordinary language. Before we come to that, until a couple of years ago, my wife and children owned a small, historic pub in Dorset Street in Marylebone in which, I am sorry to say, I now have no interest. My daughter Harriet was the licensed publican. She reminded me that it had a very annoying rateable value of £51,000, which was always just above some decimal threshold.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, both said, so many moving parts are coming along in the rating relief world in the next year that it is very difficult to tell whether the Barley Mow will gain or lose, but I recommend that noble Lords give it the benefit of the doubt and go there to support it against any possibility of trouble.
I shall speak mostly today about the sense of sadness—and it is a sadness—that I have about the educational approach of this Government. There are many things about this Government, such as in prison reform and other areas, which I strongly support, but there is a genuine sense of grief about what is happening in secondary education in particular. I have been involved in policy for quite a long time, as have many in this House—in my case since 1971, when I was a civil servant—and I know that very few important things are ever achieved by Governments unless they are persisted with for decades. It is utterly ludicrous, for example, to suppose that the underlying growth rate of a country can be changed in a year or two, or three or possibly even 10. You only have to look at the long-term trends to see that. The same is true of the NHS, for which I once had the privilege of being Secretary of State. Any reform of that great leviathan needs a decade, probably, of consistent working, across party, in the same direction to make any real change. The same is true of education.
The miracle was that it was thanks to visionary Ministers on both sides of the Houses. I name the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, Mr Nick Gibb, my noble friend Lord Baker and Mr Michael Gove. I could also name many who spoke in the debate last week, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and many others, such as our new Member, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, who have taken part in the establishment of academy chains and free schools and, more important than the details, the establishment of a more or less bipartisan approach to education over the last 20 years or so.
The biggest element of that—I will not repeat last week’s debate, which I found very moving—has been the spread of academy chains, with their freedoms and drive. I name, for example, the one with which Eton was in close co-operation, Star Academies, which emerged out of Blackburn with a great deal of help from Mr Jack Straw, under the brilliant leadership of Hamid Patel, now rightly Sir Hamid. It is a quite extraordinary academy chain, and there are many others like him. Since that debate, we have had the added voice of the Children’s Commissioner making the same points that so many made last week, and from different sides of this House.
That was the main plank of the bipartisan approach: the spread of academy schools and the release of extraordinary energy, originality and social entrepreneurship of the best kind in so many schools. A lesser but not trivial plank of the bipartisan policy was the chivvying and pressing of those private schools with charitable status to work with the public sector to exchange expertise—both ways, I have to say—and to develop an educational ecology, if you like, in Britain where the two sectors work together for mutual benefit.
I was chivvied as provost of Eton by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who rang me up and said that I had such a distinguished governing body that I should jolly well get on with it and sponsor a new free school—and we did. We became the academic sponsor of, and in various other ways sponsored, Holyport College, the first new state boarding school for many years. I was chivvied peremptorily by my noble friend Lord Cameron, who, as Prime Minister, sent for me to come to Downing Street at a moment’s notice. I was allowed to park my car on Horse Guards Parade; it was very smart. So we went faster: we were one of the partners in the London Academy of Excellence, that outstanding school in Stratford East, which has created an ecology there that other schools, such as Brampton Manor Academy, have now followed. They compete with it; some are doing even better, which is wonderful and everything we hoped.
Eton was in the process of proposing, with Star Academies—maybe it will still happen; I pray that it does—similar schools to the London Academy of Excellence in Oldham, Dudley and Middlesbrough. Our analysis, with the help of people in those localities, was that GCSE results there were perfectly good but there was not good passage into top universities. Statistically, there must be just as many people in Middlesbrough who deserve to go to Oxford, Cambridge or King’s, and all the other great universities that we have, but they were not getting there. In our school, we really know nothing about and could not contribute to one of the other great things that needed to be done—my noble friend Lord Baker is the great leader on this—of spreading better technical education. But we knew that we could help with getting clever people into really good universities, and that is what we proposed to do.
All this kind of partnership is now put under threat. That is what is so sad; it genuinely saddens me. It is not easy to find many areas of our national life where we have been outpacing our many competitor countries, such as France, Germany and the United States, over the last 20 years, but in the PISA tests and other tests we have been. It has not always been upwards, but it has been compared with what they have done, so we have outperformed them. Now backwards we go towards the old days, with academies threatened with being robbed of some of their crucial freedoms, and Britain the only country that I know of seeking to drive a wedge between private and public, by making independent education subject to tax. I think we are virtually alone in the advanced world on that.
I come in particular to the effect of the taxation of charitable schools, which is removing from charitable schools their rating relief and charging the parents VAT. Then there is a sort of hidden tax of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, which is unfunded. State schools are reimbursed for it, so the Treasury can really put any number it likes on it. It is another source of taxation on those independent schools which have teachers in that scheme.
This divide will get worse. First, of course, the charitable test goes back to a great judgment of that wonderful and famous jurist of the latter half of the 20th century, Lord Wilberforce. His seminal judgment said that there are plenty of charities that have to charge fees. His judgment was actually attached to a supplier of medical scanners, which charged fees, but he said that the test is not whether you charge fees—plenty of charities do that—but whether you make what you provide available to enough people who cannot pay the fees.
The first thing that the charitable schools will have to do with this additional taxation burden is to withdraw everything back into the bursary provision. I have nothing against bursary provision; Eton has spent more than £10 million a year on bursaries, to the great benefit of the school and, I hope, the pupils who benefited from them. That will be the first place where schools will have to put the money. Everything will have to go back into that, because the Charity Commission does not give direct credit for outreach or partnership things; it should but does not. The bursaries will have to come first. For many schools, including Eton, which is one of the richest, the search for economies to try to protect parents as best they can in future, and to protect the bursaries, will lead them to say, “We can’t really do so much of the other side of the thing that Lord Adonis and co. were rightly chivvying us about”.
The paradox here is that one of the Back-Benchers on the government side in the House of Commons said, “Oh, these things are just businesses like any others”. Well, there are schools that will be “just businesses” over which the Government and society will have no control at all, and there will be more. In the half of independent schools that are charitable, we have a whole structure of regulation to ensure that we carry out social benefit but we will have schools, like in America, France, Germany and Switzerland, that have no particular social benefits at all. There are no levers for the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, or my noble friend Lord Cameron to pull. That seems to me really paradoxical; we will end up with a much wider division between that different kind of independent school and those that are charitable. Build on the charitable levers and pull them; I am sure that is the right approach.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a point that I have not seen much made elsewhere; namely, this is the first time, to my knowledge—I may be ignorant and probably am—that we have taken one little group of charities and aimed taxation at it. I wish people would not refer to it as a tax loophole or tax break. That is like saying that not having VAT on children’s clothes is a tax loophole. It was a decision taken, by all the countries of Europe and wider, that education, as a public good, should not be taxed. It was not a loophole. That is just shoddy language.
The danger of this is the precedent that is now being set. Imagine that an incoming, right-wing Government—perhaps too right-wing for me and led, goodness knows, by he who shall not be named—finds that some charity has just published a great paper, based on what this incoming Government says is out-of-date Marxist economics. It says that we owe the Republic of India £23 trillion, so is called inconvenient nonsense, being Marxist and so on. That Government might say, “Look at that charity: they’ve got shops all up and down the high street. Let’s take their rating relief away”. This is setting a precedent which will be used by others. The Bill’s supporters will be to blame for it, and they really might want to think again about that.
I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury once, a wonderful job where you get into all the nooks and crannies of government. Do not believe a word about the hypothecation of this taxation. The Treasury never hypothecates anything—it never lets you do that. That is just political flummery. We have done it in the past—everybody does it. The proof that it is not actually hypothecation is that if the Government do not raise the money they expect to out of this, which they probably will not, they will not change the policy or cut the number of teachers they say have been financed by it. That is just politics. It is bad principle taxation and it will do long-term damage. Above all, it is breaking up that consensus, and, my goodness, in this country we need more areas of consensus, not fewer.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is a neighbour of mine in Sussex. I had the pleasure of him being a constituent of mine, when I was a Member in the other place. He speaks with enormous authority on this subject. The issue around the multipliers, with which he dealt with great expertise and subtlety, is one of horrendous complexity, as he says, with many moving parts. I seem to recall that my noble friend Lord Waldegrave had at one stage the delight of being the Minister for Local Government and had to grapple with all these issues. I say to the current Minister that the Government would do very well to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who speaks with such authority and credibility on this complicated topic.
I declare an interest. I would like to say that I am the provost of Brighton College—I like the ring of that—but I have to say, much more humbly, that I am the chair of governors of Brighton College, which is now the top performing co-educational school in the country. It is a charity, as most independent schools are, and it will suffer from the actions of this Government. I hope that Ministers will at some stage give up the fiction that this is about building up the maintained sector. As my noble friend rightly says, there is no hypothecation. There is no credible impact assessment of the effect of the removal of rates relief from educational charities of this kind. The amount of money that is purported to be raised—which is, I guess, very optimistic anyway—gets lost in the roundings of any Treasury arithmetic. We should be very clear, as my noble friend set out extremely eloquently, that this is not about building anything up but about pulling something down—something quite important that has a benefit for the country much wider than the benefit for those pupils fortunate enough to attend these schools.
My noble friend talked about, for example, the London Academy of Excellence. Brighton College was the principal driver of setting that up. It provides an extraordinary education for the most disadvantaged children from the most disadvantaged borough in the kingdom, and it would not have been done without the input, drive and innovation provided by independent schools, which are charities. That was part of the public benefit that charitable independent schools are rightly expected to provide, and while they continue to have charitable status they will continue to be expected to provide public benefit. But the “quid” for that very substantial “quo”—the public benefit—is being removed, not just through the removal of this business rates relief but through the imposition of VAT, as well as the much more widespread hit, as my noble friend says, of the increase in teachers’ pension contributions and the huge hike in employers’ national insurance contributions. It is not just a triple whammy for independent schools but a quadruple whammy, and that will have an effect.
It is not as though such schools are enriching anyone. They are, by definition, schools that are not for profit—that is what a charity is. I think of a school, lamentably little known but actually an incredible national treasure, called Christ’s Hospital. Again, I had the pleasure of representing it in my constituency of Horsham. It is an extraordinary school, completely unique, with a huge endowment greatly supported by the City of London Corporation and livery companies. It is genuinely needs blind. It selects children, but on the basis of those who come from the most disadvantaged families, as long as they meet a minimum ability standard. Those who need the help most are the ones admitted. Christ’s Hospital will be hit by this quadruple whammy. The public benefit is not just what a school such as Christ’s Hospital provides outside; it is manifest in what you might call its day job.
We should be very clear that this is not about building up maintained schools, which we all want to do and which has been done, as has been said, through an extraordinarily long-term consensual bipartisan approach, not just since the Blair Government but before then, which has had great results. The PISA rankings—which do matter—have risen remarkably in England. England has raced up the rankings, in stark contrast with Scotland and Wales, which have not had the same consensual and benign approach.
Such an approach is about creating difference and allowing innovation—allowing great leaders of schools, academies and free schools to innovate and create not so much competition as emulation, where other schools can see what can be done and can follow and build on that. It is the opposite of the bureaucratic approach of “uniformity must rule”; it is about saying that you can innovate and do things differently, and that that will benefit others as well. It is a great shame that that approach has been abandoned. It will do harm to children going to schools now and in the future, because the public benefit that comes from it will be diminished over time.
On the very day the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been expounding the benefits of economic growth and how important it is that we do everything to support it, it is important to make the point that independent schools are internationally renowned earners for this country, through young people from overseas coming to schools in the UK and through the growing number of schools overseas that take the names of great UK schools and are created in their image. There are clearly soft power benefits but also hard currency earnings. At a time when we are told that everything must be done to support growth, in this sector, where there has been growth, innovation, investment and excitement—not just obviously, or even mainly, in the independent sector but supported by the independent sector—the Government are talking the talk but walking in a different direction.
The Government would do well to think again on this. Much that this Government have done since they were elected in July has had the hallmark of not being well thought-through. We are all conscious of the law of unintended consequences, but a lot of the consequences that will flow from Clause 5 of the Bill are, I suspect, not wholly unintended, and are the more to be regretted for that.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in sending my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and his family for their recent loss of a senior member of their family.
I express my interest in the non-domestic rates Bill. I wish the House to note my interest in the matter as a non-domestic rates payer for five properties as part of the veterinary business I manage. My knowledge of non-domestic rates is not as extensive as it could be, and certainly not as extensive as that of my noble friend Lord Lytton.
Non-domestic rates reform has been a topic of discussion for many years for businesses. High street retailers, pubs and hospitality venues have been part of my early morning walk, listening to business news while I walk my dog, for many years. Businesses complain about the financial burdens this tax puts on them. I welcomed the Treasury report Transforming Business Rates in October 2024 and the call for evidence from stakeholders by the end of March. Therefore, I feel that this Bill is the start of a transition on business rates reform, and it is certainly not the solution.
I commend the general direction of the Bill in providing a possibly clearer and more certain system for how non-domestic rates are calculated for businesses, as the current rate is confusing, complex and not guaranteed. Two multipliers are included for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. They are lower than the standard multiplier and possibly apply to two bands of rateable values of up to £500,000, which is welcome. My reservation is that the maximum reduction of 20 pence or 0.2—however it is expressed—will give savings to the RHL sector, but there is no indication from the Government as to the possible level of the lower multipliers that will be announced in the Budget in the autumn.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lytton that it is difficult at this point to estimate and predict whether these businesses will make a saving in the coming years. Can the Minister say whether an assessment has been made of how much lower the standard multipliers would have to be to ensure that small businesses end up paying less or similar amounts of business rates than they currently pay, including the current reliefs that have been in place since the pandemic? I am aware of one leisure business that is already looking forward to 2026-27 with no indication of any relief expected. It is budgeting for a substantial increase in its non-domestic rates bill of thousands of pounds. As a result, it is looking into how to it can absorb those costs.
I welcome the addition of the higher multiplier for properties with rateable values of over £500,000, which is around 1% of the properties charged business rates. What proportion of the 1% are high street shops? These large shops are vital to our city centres, high streets and shopping centres as they attract great numbers to those locations. If this additional cost burden is too great for these large shops, it could have the opposite effect from the one the Government desire of trying to keep the high street alive.
I thank the Minister’s team for the briefing on the Bill last week and the confirmation that it is intentionally meant to be fiscally neutral, with the only additional funding coming from the removal of rate relief for charitable private schools. I have a concern about the removal of the relief. As expressed in the other place, although relief is being given to schools in which over 50% of their young people have an education, health and care plan, some schools that are charities and educate people with special educational needs do not have EHC plans in place for some of their students. If a school has a large number of these pupils, it may not qualify for relief. Those schools will see a significant cost added to their ever-increasing cost burden.
For families that send a child to these schools, this will add a financial burden. They already face certain challenges and need the extra support of these schools to ensure that the child is educated and can fulfil their potential in life, both at home and in the workplace. Has any further evidence been ascertained on the number of schools that provide education to SEN pupils but would not be eligible for the relief that will be removed?
I listened with interest to noble Lords’ many comments and contributions to this debate and to the issues raised. I look forward to contributing further at the next stage.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I continue the discussion about independent education. I do so with some temerity in view of the fine speeches made by my infinitely more distinguished noble friends in this debate.
I declare my interest as former general-secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies, which has just under 700 member schools. Most of them are small in size, operating on tight budgets without any reserves whatever. They are dependent on fee income which, in some cases, can be as low as £3,000 per pupil a year. The council—the chief representative of the independent education sector—acts on behalf of some 1,400 schools. They are immensely diverse in character and are educating with marked success around 80% of the 600,000 children in the independent sector. No responsible Government would seek to make life difficult for these flourishing schools, some of world renown. Yet severe difficulty is exactly what this Government are creating for them.
This Bill continues and extends the Government’s attack on independent schools—one that recognises no distinction between the very varied types of school in the independent sector of education. The Government treat them as it they are all the same and all equally capable of shouldering the new financial burdens, each one of them unprecedented in character, that they are inflicting on independent schools in quick succession. Perhaps the Government believe that all independent schools can somehow find the means to pay their unprecedented financial exactions. If they believe that, they are putting hostile prejudice before reality.
Over 1,000 independent schools, 40% of the total in England, have fewer than 100 pupils, according to the Department for Education’s figures. Is it not obvious that these numerous small schools will suffer particular hardship as a result of the unprecedented financial pressures the Government are piling on them? Some will go under. Evidence is accumulating. The Independent Schools Council will ensure that all of it is placed prominently before the public.
This will add to what is already known. A revealing short debate on Monday, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, brought to our attention the sharp fall of no less than one-third in the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland after Sinn Féin made them pay VAT. It is well known that Northern Ireland has some of the best schools in the country, achieving spectacular exam results. It is deplorable that their number should have been reduced by a VAT burden.
On 1 January, just four weeks ago, the Government slapped VAT at 20% on all independent schools, having given them no more than a few months to rework the budgets they had already drawn up for the current school year. It was a terrible thing to do. As they endeavour to come to terms with Labour’s new education tax, independent schools must now prepare for two more financial burdens: the increase in national insurance contributions and the full payment of business rates for the first time ever under the terms of this Bill. Independent schools face a threefold assault from this Labour Government—an assault carried out in just six months.
The Government rejoice that, through this Bill, they will end tax breaks. What do they mean by this? Presumably, they want us to think that they are taking away from independent schools exemptions from taxes that they did not deserve in the first place but somehow managed to acquire. It is absurd. There are no special arrangements which have hitherto enabled independent schools to get out of paying taxes. They have shared with all other providers of education services exemptions from VAT. Those schools which are charities have, until now, shared in the tax arrangements that cover the charitable sector as a whole.
This Bill will create a two-tier charity system in our country, with independent schools in the bottom tier, where other charities may join them in due course as the Government find fresh targets to hit. This Bill will establish for the first time that charities that the Government do not like can be stripped of their charitable treatment even while they comply with their obligations and serve the community at large through work of great public benefit. For independent schools, public benefit work increasingly takes the form of partnership with state school colleagues, as we have heard from my distinguished noble friends. Up and down our land, the two education sectors work together in thousands of partnership schemes.
The increased costs the Government are inflicting on independent schools will endanger that invaluable work. Remarkably, the Bill will inflict grave damage on independent schools without raising significant revenue. The Budget documents estimate that some £70 million will be raised in 2025-26—just 0.1% of the core schools budget. Could there be any clearer evidence of the Government’s hostility to independent schools? Is this, by the way, the first legislation to substitute “private schools” for “independent schools” in its wording? Over the last 30 years or so, the habit has grown up of referring to independent schools as “private” schools. It is in an informal, everyday term. “Independent” is the correct, formal term. Why are the Government now abandoning it? The education department has always registered schools outside the state sector as independent schools. The department has an independent schools division. Should not legislation respect formal, correct usage?
It will be evident that my chief concern is the damage that this Bill will do to small schools, which abound in the independent education sector, as a result of a threefold financial assault being made on them at such speed. I think of the 20,000 children who attend independent Muslim faith schools, charging pupils on average £3,000 a year. I think of the 20,000 children at the United Kingdom’s 80 independent Jewish schools. Their representatives said last month that they
“cannot absorb the cumulative financial pressures”,
adding that
“it is likely we will see a significant proportion”—
of children—
“being left without a school to attend. Many will be left with no alternative but to be educated at home”.
I think of the many wonderful schools making superb provision for children with both complex and more moderate special needs at a time when the state SEND system is in such deep trouble. About 100,000 families will have to pay more as a result of the Government’s tax increases. A number will be driven into the broken—the Government admit that it is broken —state SEND system, unless the tax rises are eased.
There will be much to consider in detail as we move to the Committee stage of this unfortunate Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also pass on my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and his family.
While I understand the strategy of switching the burden from bricks and mortar retailers to internet retailers to support our high streets, I think this is far too blunt an instrument. I agree with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook that increasing NNDR on large businesses risks damaging some of our key high street retailers, particularly anchor stores, high street cinemas and leisure, that help drive footfall. However, I would like to speak about the wider impact on growth of these measures.
This morning, the Chancellor talked about the Oxford- Cambridge arc as Europe’s Silicon Valley. I declare my interest as a councillor and former leader in central Bedfordshire, which is at the centre of that arc. I agree with the Chancellor about the potential of the arc to support economic growth and improve jobs, but this needs to be nurtured and not taxed. In central Bedfordshire, we have many world-class businesses, such as Lockheed Martin, Millbrook Proving Ground, MBDA, Nissan and Cranfield University—not to mention the potential of Universal Studios coming to our area. All of them will see significant increases in their NNDR.
As a councillor, I worked hard to support the growth of these and other businesses, yet in the past few weeks, talking to local businesses, they have made clear to me the headwinds that they are facing from national insurance increases, employment rights and changes to minimum wages, which have led them to review some of their growth plans. A potential 20% increase in NNDR risks being yet another nail in the coffin of growth, not only in central Bedfordshire—I use that as an example—but across the country.
One of the many attractions of Bedfordshire for international companies and their international staff is the excellent Bedford Harpur Trust schools, notably as they provide the international baccalaureate. Yet, here again, we see the impact of government policies of charging VAT and increases in national insurance and, now, NNDR—to that I will add the pension issues raised by my noble friends—making this option much less attractive for those businesses and their employees.
We have also previously raised the important role private schools provide for those with SEND. Just this morning, I had a council leader raise with me the issue of a parent who had sent their child to a private school and now, with the additional cost of VAT, they are seeking an EHCP so that that burden will now fall on the local council to pay the fees. Again, adding NNDR will only exacerbate this trend.
Finally, I want to touch on the hospitality and leisure sector, which will lose its discounts this year. While many small businesses will benefit from the proposed NNDR changes, larger local businesses such as Center Parcs and Woburn tell me that they will face the double whammy on NNDR, in addition to the impact of national insurance, extension of worker rights and minimum wage increases—yet more headwinds to growth. This is a Government who are focused on growth yet they seem to think more about taxing growth.
As I said earlier, this is too blunt an instrument. There is no clarity on the business rate multipliers and two little information on the impact. I ask the Minister whether the Government will commit that there will be no net negative impact on council finances from these measures and what the impact of the measures will be on high street businesses, businesses in general, jobs and economic growth.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I hope I am okay in asking the Minister to pass on my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and his family at this particularly sad time for them all.
I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Fox has indicated, a radical overhaul of taxation of business properties is long overdue. Successive Governments have tinkered with the multipliers and valuation periods. In addition, the increasing discrimination of the system against town centre businesses has been recognised and the response has been in the shape of various levels of relief. All that demonstrates, however, is that the non-domestic ratings system is no longer fit for purpose. The Government have admitted that to be the case. Unfortunately, this Bill does not address fundamental reform— at which point, I commend to the Minister the Liberal Democrat policy of a commercial landowner levy; I am sure she will read that with interest.
However, the Bill makes a small step in the right direction by attempting to make a significant change to the balance of rates paid by some small businesses, with a larger share demanded, rightly, of the warehouse distribution sector.
What it fails to do is assess the impact of those changes with the loss of relief that is also proposed. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend both said, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other, and it is very difficult to assess what changes these proposals will make.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long argued that online retailing should have business rates comparable with those of small businesses in town centres. The Bill proposes that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses based in town centres—whatever that means—should have a multiplier that is up to 20p in the pound lower than it is now. The Government’s argument is that these changes will help to support small businesses in local centres and encourage the community and economic value they provide. However, this change is restricted to a sector of businesses located in town centres. Can the Minister first provide a definition of them? I believe she did say, in her opening speech, that a definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will come later. To be frank, I do not think that that is acceptable when we are being asked to understand changes that are going to be made, yet we are not sure of a clear definition of those businesses. Do they include, for instance, council-run indoor markets? Those are retail businesses in town centres: my understanding is that they might be excluded. I would love to know from the Minister, because for me it is an important question.
Can the Minister say why professional businesses in town centres are not able to benefit? Solicitors and accountants are at the heart of the commercial operation in small towns, as are post offices and doctors’ surgeries. If the aim is to support our high streets, all these businesses should be included.
Many local centres also include small manufacturing businesses of various sorts, which provide local employment and are often the source of innovation. Can the Minister explain why these businesses in town centres are excluded? How much better it would be to have a blanket of small businesses in town centres all being part of this reduction in the multipliers.
Out-of-town warehouse distributors have long had a competitive advantage over their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. The Bill proposes that the multiplier for these businesses should be up to 10p in the pound greater than it is now. However, the Bill fails to link the valuations of these warehouses compared with to those in small centres. I think I have quoted this before in your Lordships’ House, but an Amazon warehouse in South Yorkshire is valued at around £25 per square metre, whereas a small shop in my town centre has a valuation of £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of business rates because, if those do not change, tinkering around the edges with multipliers will still leave disadvantages for town centres. That is at the heart of the problem we would seek to address in order to redress the balance between online retailers and those in our town centres.
The other issue concerns larger stores, often located in large town centres, and out of town retail centres. It would be interesting to know how those will be judged in this new Bill. Will they be in that 1% or not? If they are, that will put the business model of some of them in jeopardy. The basis of the valuation of rental values makes life very difficult. Can the Minister explain why it is that, despite the number of empty shops in many towns, the rental valuation does not appear to be on the same declining path? My noble friend had a potential answer to that question when he said that the problem is that properties in many market towns are increasingly owned by a single owner. Certainly, in my local small town, most of the properties are in the ownership of two people, and that makes competitive rental values difficult to achieve. I am sure that the Minister will ask her officials about that.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who I met, and his officials for their time in understanding the impact of all these changes, but the main question I had was not satisfactorily answered, I am afraid. It was, “Where is the impact statement?” I was told that, because impact assessments are not published for tax changes, there was not going to be one, but the Government must have done their sums, so let us see them. Otherwise, we cannot understand. We are all making estimates of the various moving parts, as various noble Lords have said, and how those are going to change. The Government must have done those sums, so it would be really good if they would share them and, if the Minister cannot share them today, perhaps she will be able to before Committee.
I will move on. It is also vital that councils know what the impact will be on business rate income, as that contributes a very large slice of funding for local services. I was told that the overall impact will be neutral, but, in her opening speech, the Minister suggested that, although the overall impact would be neutral, it would be difficult to ensure that no council loses out by these changes. Actually, as I know the Minister understands, every pound for a local council is now critical, so, again, I hope she will be able to find the answer to that before Committee.
I will move on, I think. The other major sector of the Bill is about private schools, about which we have heard various noble Lords speak this afternoon. As we know, it removes the business rate exemption for those schools which are charities, and Liberal Democrats are opposed in principle to the taxation of education. I think in particular of the 100,000 or so children with SEND in private education without education and healthcare plans. Those families will be hit hard by the proposals in the Bill when they are already facing more challenges than most of us. Private education provision has already faced the introduction of VAT and the NIC increases on employers. The removal of business rate exemption is the third financial hit in as many months. Well-endowed private schools will weather the financial storm, but others may not, resulting in increasing pressure on state school places.
In conclusion, this Bill is a small step in the right direction, but it fails to assess all the moving parts. As many speakers have said, the Government should think again about the exemption of relief to private schools, and we urge the Government to rethink the totality of the impact of the Bill on business.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add to the noble Baroness’s list of messages to send to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and his family. I send my very best wishes to them at this time.
I listened very carefully to the speeches made by your Lordships this evening. I am struck by the range of concerns expressed across the House, based, as they appear to be, on a lack of transparency in the Bill and the number of moving parts. In fact, the clarity is so absent that my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, ended up with very different analyses of where the impact of the Government’s proposed changes will fall.
The Government are rightly focusing on much-needed growth in our economy, and I do not doubt their commitment to achieving that, but there is a lack of alignment in the actions that they have been taking in order to deliver on that aspiration. This Bill comes after the harmful decision to increase employers’ national insurance and ahead of the impact of the Employment Rights Bill—one where, as the noble Baroness knows, the Regulatory Policy Committee has been deeply critical of the Government’s impact assessment, deeming it not fit for purpose and, crucially, stating that the cost to business will be higher than the £5 billion forecast by the Government. My noble friend Lord Jamieson was spot on when he said that businesses needed to be nurtured and not taxed.
I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and other noble Lords. This Bill does not achieve what the Government committed to in their manifesto—namely, the reform of the business rates system: as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, quoting again,
“the levelling of the playing field between the high street and the on-line giants”.
Since the Bill does not do that, it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could explain why.
We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and other noble Lords have said, once again having to respond to a Bill which does not give us clarity on how it will work in practice and what its impact will be. There has been no proper consultation with businesses, no impact assessment on Clauses 1 to 4 and no clarity on what the business rate multipliers will be. The Minister explained the technical reasons why the latter is the case, but I think—and hope—she could be sympathetic to some of the questions that have been posed to her across the House. If the Bill becomes law without amendment, it will give the Government powers to set business rates multipliers without clarity on how those powers will impact on businesses.
Therefore, can the Minister give the House a forecast for how these proposed changes in business rates will affect council budgets and the revenue they receive, and the revenues to the Exchequer? Ideally, as my noble friend Lady Scott asked, we would like an explanation before we reach Committee. Do the Government have an official estimate of the impact of these measures on jobs? As the noble Baroness knows, retail alone employs 5 million people. She will have seen the forecast from the Centre for Retail Research projecting that more than 17,000 shops are expected to close this year.
It would also help if the Minister could give the House more clarity on the impact on different categories of businesses. We have heard concerns about pubs, leisure centres and anchor stores in high streets. We know that the reduction in small business rate relief from 75% to 40% will have a big impact on many of those businesses, with hospitality, leisure and retail paying just over 30% of all business rates, much larger than their contribution to GDP overall.
We also heard concerns from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the impact on local authority schools, hospitals, police stations and, potentially, our universities. The Minister will have seen calls from the Local Government Association for further clampdowns on business rates avoidance, and I wondered what the Government plan to do to respond to those. The LGA has also called for more flexibility for councils on business rate relief in relation to charities and empty properties and the ability to set their own multipliers, either above or below the national multiplier. My assumption is that that is a reflection of how they feel that they have a real understanding of their local situation and pressures, and want to be able to respond to those. Again, it would help if the Minister could respond to that.
I hope very much that the Minister, who I know does listen, will listen to those concerns from across the business community: from the Association of Convenience Stores to major retailers such as M&S and Sainsbury’s, from leisure centres to hospitality businesses, and from universities to the public sector.
Turning to Clause 5, I thank my noble friends Lord Waldegrave, Lord Maude and Lord Lexden in particular for their extremely eloquent and heartfelt arguments in favour of a more generous and collaborative approach. Certainly, I can speak personally from my time in government and say that we tried to emphasise and encourage more collaboration, and more contribution from independent schools. Now, when faced with a new schools Bill from the Government, we would argue that the flexibilities that have unlocked so much energy, as we heard from my noble friends, in preschools and academies, should be given also to maintained schools.
I went to see the most wonderful primary school—if anybody is in Oldham, I would recommend a visit—last week. It is a maintained school, but it is achieving what it is achieving despite its maintained-school status, rather than because of it. It cannot have all the flexibilities, in terms of timetabling and length of school day, that it would have if it were an academy.
The broader picture for independent schools, as we have heard, feels like continued attack, with the decision to apply VAT to fees part-way through the school year, and now the decision to remove their entitlement to business rates relief for those with charitable status. As we have also heard, schools are also hit by the rise in national insurance contributions and by the increased contribution to the teachers’ pension fund. It is hard to understand this decision in anything other than ideological terms. As we have heard, it does not raise significant sums of money: £70 million out of the £1.8 billion which the Government hope to raise from VAT and this proposal. The same change is not being proposed for stand-alone nurseries, but it will impact nurseries that are part of an independent school. As we have heard from other noble Lords, this seems a curious way, at best, to approach charity law. It will, as we have heard, create a two-tier charity system in which some charities can be disadvantaged fiscally, even when they comply fully with their charitable obligations and serve their communities.
Secondly, we are very concerned about the displacement into state schools of some pupils who are currently in independent schools, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities. I understand that the Government have estimated this number to be just under 3,000 pupils. As I mentioned to the Minister when we met earlier this week, the national figure is not so important. What is important is what is happening in those local authorities that really have no spare places: in areas such as Surrey or Bristol or, as my noble friend Lord Lexden said, in areas such as Bury and Salford, where small, low-cost faith schools will be hit by this move.
How are local authorities in these areas going to accommodate children whose parents can no longer afford to send them to an independent school, and now need a place in the state system? Where is the capital funding going to come from to pay for these places? There are normally long lead times on pupil-place planning for a good reason; children cannot be accommodated well at very short notice.
While these specific measures will have a relatively small effect on displacement into state schools, we need to be clear that there will still be some displacement, and that is a cost to the state. More importantly, when it comes to individual places, it will be a strain on class sizes in some of our local schools and, ultimately, on parents’ prospects of getting the first-choice school they want their child to go to.
The Minister will know that we are particularly concerned about children with special educational needs and disabilities in this context. Some parents have felt they want their child to be educated privately and have made great financial sacrifices to do so. They have not sought an education, health and care plan because they do not want their child labelled in that way, and some of these children will now enter the state system and put more pressure on stretched SEND teams. What support will the department give to schools and trusts to make this workable? Will it commit to monitoring these moves and reporting on them, including any funding and placement challenges for local authorities, as the LGA has requested?
More broadly, all around the country, independent schools are involved with their local state schools, working in partnership, sharing resources such as swimming pools, theatres, academic staff and more. Have the Government assessed the impact on state schools if it becomes impossible for independent schools to continue these partnerships, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave explained, having to focus rather on retaining bursaries, in line with their charitable objectives?
Of course, we welcome the carve-out for schools that wholly or mainly educate children with an education, health and care plan, but I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm how many schools this applies to and how many children are educated there.
This Bill raises many more questions than it answers. Maybe one could generously say that the Government’s direction of travel has been sketched out; the detail along the way certainly has not. While the Government talk about importance of certainty, businesses are not getting certainty with the Bill, apart from, of course, charitable independent schools, where the misguided decision to tax some parts of our education system is all too clear. I appreciate I have asked the Minister many questions. I look forward to her reply, but if she is not able to answer all of them, I would be grateful if she could write.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The great strength of your Lordships’ House is the hugely knowledgeable and informed debates we have, and this has been a great example, with experience from across sectors such as business, education and many other areas—even veterinary practices—so I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. They have demonstrated their enthusiasm and interest for our high streets, the important role they play in our local communities and the small businesses that are their lifeblood, and for ensuring that all children are able to receive a high-quality education. There is certainly consensus on that, if perhaps not on the means of achieving it, but there is a consensus that every child deserves to have all the opportunities that should be available to them.
I will make a few general comments on remarks made by noble Lords, and then I will attempt to answer most of the questions, but I expect I will run out of time long before I get there. I assure noble Lords that anything I do not get to, I will reply to in writing.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Barran, referred to the overall policy, in relation to some of the really tough decisions we have had to take. I understand that these are tough decisions and why people think they are. However, yet again in this House we have had a bit of a swerve around the reason why those decisions were necessary; it is the inheritance we picked up when we came into government. We have to balance the books and get the fiscal picture straight so that we can deliver the reform to public services that we want to see, and tackle some of the cost of living issues that everybody faces.
I have another general comment on a point raised by a number of noble Lords. The Bill is not intended to achieve the comprehensive reform of business rates that we have set out as our intention. We are working on it and there is a consultation paper out at the moment, and I hope all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon—and anyone else who has an interest in the business rates system—will make a contribution to the ongoing work on business rates. Having been a councillor for many years and listened to many complaints from both the public and private sectors about how business rates operate, I am in no doubt that we need comprehensive reform.
I hope that has picked up some of the general points and I will turn now to the specific points that noble Lords made.
There were, rightly, a number of questions regarding the impact of the proposed new multipliers. The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock and Lady Barran, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord de Clifford, all mentioned this issue. As I explained in my opening speech, the actual tax rates to the new multipliers will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rates revaluation, which we have to do, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time. It is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor to make those decisions at the right time. Tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for an impact assessment that accompany other non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of the new multipliers at Budget 2025, taking into account the broader factors that I just mentioned. I hope I set out clearly in my opening speech why we need to take these steps.
On the VOA and its property rateable values, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on 5 February the VOA will publish an ad hoc release relating to properties with a rateable value of over £500,000. That will provide a breakdown by category of property type by local authority for all those properties with a rateable value above and below £500,000, so we will be able to see clearly which properties are impacted by which parts of this reform.
On the issues around the multipliers policy approach, I have heard the message that noble Lords may think this is a blunt tool for dealing with this matter—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned this. The permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including those on the high street, from 2026-27, will ensure that much-needed certainty and support. That tax cut has to be funded, so we intend to introduce that higher rate on the most valuable properties. The Government’s view is that it is the fairest approach to ask all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above to pay a higher tax rate to support the viability of our high streets. It is the fairest way and, as I said in my opening speech, the higher rate will apply to less than 1% of all properties, and we will know which those properties are once the VOA has published its assessment.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, raised the approach being detrimental to anchor stores. I understand the concern around this. Unfortunately, we lost our Marks & Spencer store in Stevenage town centre; luckily, we managed to attract it back, and it is operating there very successfully, and it is much appreciated by our residents.
The Government intend to introduce two permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which will give certainty. I understand concerns that the higher multiplier may catch some of the largest and most valuable retail businesses. However, we think that the fairest approach is to ask all properties above £500,000 to pay that. This is a property tax, so whether large stores are based on the high street or in retail parks, it will still have the same impact. I remind noble Lords that the upper rate will impact on only 1% of businesses.
Retail, hospitality and leisure relief was extended year by year by previous Governments, but it has been a stopgap measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of our process being a temporary measure. This is a permanent measure which will give certainty to those businesses. Before the intervention we are taking now, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for those businesses. We have decided to offer that 40% discount to retail, hospitality and leisure properties up to a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26. By extending that retail, hospitality and leisure relief instead of ending it entirely, the Government have, for example, saved the average pub with a rateable value of £16,800 more than £3,300. We are doing our best to support the sector, in spite of the difficult fiscal picture that we see.
On wider business rates reform, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and many other noble Lords, the discussion paper has been published. It builds on our plans announced at the Autumn Budget to support high streets by further highlighting areas for reform, incentivising investment and modernising the system so that it is fit for the 21st century. A number of noble Lords mentioned business rates avoidance. We will shortly publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of the small business rates relief which is in place to support all of our small businesses. I want to highlight that that provides 100% relief to small businesses which occupy only one property with a rateable value of £12,000. A taper of relief down from 100% is available to such ratepayers with rateable values up to £15,000. That scheme ensures that over a third of all properties, or about 700,000 ratepayers, are not paying any business rates at all. The Government have no plan to remove small business rates relief, which is permanent and set down in legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised the issue of business rates being too high overall and I understand those concerns. We all know only too well that economic and fiscal stability is critical to business confidence. At the Budget, the small business multiplier for properties with a rateable value under £51,000 was frozen at 49.9p, meaning that, together with the small business rates relief, over 1 million properties will be protected from a 1.6% inflationary increase.
The Budget honours the manifesto commitment not to raise corporation tax. The UK has the lowest corporation tax in the G7, the joint most generous plant and machinery capital allowances in the OECD, and the joint highest uncapped headline rate of R&D tax relief in the G7 for large companies. I will come on to the noble Earl’s other points later, but I thank him, as usual, for his expertise, which we experienced during the levelling-up Bill and have once again had the benefit of this afternoon.
Supporting the high street and the broader government approach was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are committed to rejuvenating our high streets and town centres. The measures in this Bill to introduce permanently lower tax rates for RHL properties will help, but they are only part of our work. In December, we introduced the high street rental auctions, a new power which allows local authorities to auction off the lease of persistently vacant commercial units. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for businesses and community groups, while helping to tackle the vacancy rates on our high streets.
In addition, through the English devolution Bill we will introduce a new strong right to buy for valued community assets, such as shops, pubs and community spaces. That community right to buy will give local people the power to purchase community assets that go up for sale, helping to keep assets in the hands of the community. I have seen the great benefit of this in the Station Pub, in Knebworth, which the community has taken over and made a great success of. Like the pub mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, it is a great place, and if noble Lords are ever in that area, they should visit. The Government continue to invest in a number of initiatives to boost town and city centres, including our high street accelerators. As part of our plan for change, we are working hard to support our high streets, and the measures in the Bill are part of that.
I thank all noble Lords for their comments on private schools, and in particular on special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and other noble Lords mentioned pupils who do not have an ECHP. I used to be the education spokesperson at Hertfordshire, so I am very familiar with the sometimes lengthy delays in obtaining EHCPs. The approach adopted in the Bill has sought to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute special educational needs is minimised.
The Government are aware that some parents may make a choice for their child to attend private school, but this is a choice, like that made by any parent using the private sector. For most pupils with a special educational need, support is provided within a mainstream state school, and all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. We support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient school places for children who need them, and that appropriate SEND support is available, if needed. I recognise the issues around obtaining an EHCP. I am concerned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about stigma around obtaining an EHCP, and I will discuss that with my noble friend the Education Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoke about what will happen to pupils with an ECHP when a school loses its charitable relief. Business rates are a tax on property; it is not possible to differentiate at the individual pupil level. Where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charitable rates relief. However, where a private school has been named on a pupil’s EHCP, the local authority funds the pupil’s place. Therefore, in the event that a private school loses eligibility and chooses to pass through some of that additional cost to fees, these pupils and their families will remain unaffected. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, predominantly in private special schools, and 97% of such pupils have their place at a private school funded by their local authority. I hope that helps clarify that point.
The Government are committed to reforming our SEND provision overall to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. We have provided a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding for the next financial year. We know that that will not solve all the problems, but it will make a start. As part of our plan for change, we want to make sure that we are doing our very best to provide those opportunities that SEND children need, as with all children. This Bill is part of the process of driving that forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke about SEND and the state sector, and said that this approach will increase costs. We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust so that their children will get the support they need to flourish. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority will fund that place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, whose great knowledge on this subject I respect, spoke about the Government not caring about pupils in private schools. The Government believe in parental choice, but we are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture and the state sector, where most of our children—93%—are educated.
Ending the tax breaks on business rates—and VAT—for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. We need to secure vital additional funding to help deliver those commitments to education and young people. As I said, there is a consensus on what we need to do, but perhaps not on the means of getting there.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, also mentioned the impact on faith schools. Again, the Government value parental choice but all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and schools are required to follow the Equality Act and requirements relating to British values. We expect them to foster and promote an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths. The Government have listened carefully to arguments on this matter and have decided that a carve-out for faith schools cannot be justified. However, children can attend faith schools and have their faith respected in the state sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to private school closures. We expect those numbers to remain relatively low and they will be influenced by various factors, not just the removal of VAT and business rate tax breaks. Parents can seek places in other private schools or find a state school place through their local authority. There has been a traditional number of around 50 private schools closing each year, including independent special schools, but we must also note that private schools have continued to open, even after the Government announced that they would end tax breaks for private schools. The register of independent schools shows that 77 independent schools have opened between January and October 2024.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, felt that the timing of this was poor. Ending tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is—I will say again—a tough but necessary decision, and we have had to take some measures to fill the gap in the budgets. Delaying implementation of the business rates policy would forgo around £140 million a year that is intended to fund the Government’s investment in state education and young people.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
But if I remember rightly, the decision about the taxation of independent schools was made well before the Chancellor got into place and saw anything in the books.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Knowing the Chancellor as I do, I am sure she was extremely well prepared for taking on the commitment and had some idea of what was going on well before she came into office. I am sure that that was her being well prepared.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Maude, raised the impact on charitable activity if schools stopped or reduced their activity. They will continue to operate as charities and there will be no other tax changes specific to their charitable status.
I see I am running out of time, so I will close. I have a number of other points, including on several points of detail made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will read the noble Baroness’s statement in Hansard with great interest but does she recognise that, far from clarifying the issue, which has a number of moving parts, she has thrown some more moving parts into the bag? For us to have a sensible and reasoned approach to Committee, we really need some more clarity. I hope she will take that back with her from this debate. We are willing and ready to engage but it is very difficult, with the degree of murk we are currently encountering.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord’s remarks, and of course I will take that back. I and, I am sure, my noble friend Lord Khan will be happy to undertake any further engagement that noble Lords wish to have before we go into Committee.
The two key points seem to be that this was not a general review of business rates, which we know it is not—a further, wider review of business rates is going on—and the clarification of the VOA valuations, which will set out what categories properties over and under £500,000 will come into. Of course, we will do our best to clarify any further questions that noble Lords have as soon as we can.
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. This is our first step on the road to transform the business rates system. We want to provide certainty and support to our high streets by enabling the delivery of a permanent tax cut that is sustainable and levels the playing field between the high street and the online giants. It will also help break down barriers to opportunity and support all parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. All parents have aspirations for their children, and it is right that we do our best to support them in delivering and achieving them by raising additional revenue to support the more than 90% of children who attend a state school.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Monday 24th February 2025
(3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 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)
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to vary some non-domestic rating multipliers and to remove the charitable exemption from private schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of this Act and is intended to invite the House to consider whether the Bill meets the Government's stated aims of protecting the high street and encouraging investment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to his place and say that the whole House was sorry to hear of his family’s loss.
We on these Benches welcome this Bill as a narrow tinkering of a broken system. It may have some beneficial effects, but I remind your Lordships that the non-domestic rates system has been broken for years, and if this tinkering distracts from a full and proper review of the system, then it is a malign influence rather than a benefit.
From scrutinising the Commons debate on this Bill, it seems that the Government sought to limit debate by asserting that its purpose was to use multipliers to manipulate the non-domestic rates of a subset of businesses in what it calls high streets. This measure is focused on retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments. Having done this, the broad government claim is that our high streets will somehow be protected and that investment will be encouraged. In wording Amendment 1, we attempted to include words that spelled out the spirit of the Government’s Commons claims, but I have to say that the Public Bill Office resisted all attempts to include the concept of protecting high streets and encouraging investment in the purpose statement. The PBO has confirmed the narrow nature of this Bill.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If they accept the restraints of their own handcuffs and restrict this Bill to varying multipliers for this subset of businesses, the Minister cannot claim to be protecting high streets. There are at least three reasons that make this true. First, high streets are much more than retail, hospitality and leisure, as we will see from various groups of amendments. If the Government’s actual purpose is to protect high streets, they would spread its activity more widely. This will be effectively asserted from these Benches and from those of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Secondly, the Government present no evidence that their claims to be protecting high streets will actually come to pass. As we know, the non-domestic rating system is complex. It is further complicated by the application of reliefs, which will vanish as these multipliers arrive. Increasing the multipliers for larger businesses is another complication. In addition, there is the issue of valuations—this is the elephant in the room that this Bill ignores. They are always up. There are many puts and takes that affect the individual business rates that a business pays and what its competitors pay, yet there has been no attempt at an impact assessment. I have to put it to the Minister that no one actually knows the effects that this Bill will have.
Thirdly, we know that there are some important consequences for activities that fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure focus that could be badly affected by the consequences of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Pinnock will highlight the issue of medical and health-related premises, and I will seek to demonstrate that an important sector of our creative industry—independent music venues—will be hit hard. In both cases, we need the Minister to confirm that increasing rates for these activities is an unintended, rather than an intended, consequence. Both these activities are important parts of well-functioning high streets, although of course there are other activities that also contribute. This is a consequence of blunt targeting, and it needs to be sorted.
I propose this amendment with a heavy heart, because the narrowness of the purpose allowed by the PBO identifies the limitations and faults of this Bill. But there is hope. First off, the Minister could accept my noble friend’s Amendment 51, when it comes up. That is a good starting point but, otherwise, I am sure that we can work with the Minister to come up with a new Short Title and Long Title that will allow us to properly set about protecting our high streets. My colleagues and I stand ready to help the Minister in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I stand to introduce the second group, in which, conveniently, there are three amendments, all in my name—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
We are still on group 1. We will come to group 2 in the fullness of time.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and to my notice opposing the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I was pleased and interested to see that the Liberal Democrats had tabled a purpose clause, given that they have criticised purpose clauses tabled by my Conservative colleagues on other Bills. On the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—
Lord Fox (LD)
As a point of information, I have proposed purpose clauses for at least six Bills in the last three years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will continue. When my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower tabled a purpose clause on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, argued that it was unnecessary because it restated some of the language in the Long Title of the Bill. In contrast to the amendment that we are debating today, my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment included a legal duty on the Secretary of State, as well as establishing a purpose clause giving it legal effect. This is all water under the bridges, though, and we hope that our friends on the Benches to my left will not criticise our use of purpose clauses when scrutinising future Bills. As I say, we on these Benches are very comfortable with purpose clauses which seek to probe the intentions of the Bills that this Government are bringing forward, so I welcome the noble Lord’s amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says in his explanatory statement, there is a real question mark over the Bill’s impact on the Government’s plan to deliver on their stated aims of protecting our high streets and encouraging investment. Later in this Committee, I will seek to probe the impact of the Bill on larger anchor stores, which are often the key drivers of the footfall on our high streets and keep smaller businesses alive. I will also seek to understand more fully the impact that the Bill will have on the retail and major food shops, including supermarkets, which people across the UK rely on.
We know that the Government’s original intention was to hit international businesses that have large, warehouse-style business premises, such as Amazon and other international tech giants, but it is not clear that the Bill achieves that goal effectively. There is a risk that the increased costs of multipliers will be passed on to consumers in very unexpected ways. The higher multipliers that the Bill will introduce are a tax on business. We need to understand better what impacts this business tax will have on jobs, growth and prices. The impact assessment that the Government have published to date is utterly inadequate. Although I am really very grateful to the Minister for his engagement on the Bill so far, I feel that we will need to hear much more detail from the Dispatch Box on the real-world impact of the Bill if we are to proceed with it.
I turn to my stand-part notice, which seeks to question whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the Government’s intention to create a system whereby hereditaments over the value of £500,000 pay at a higher multiplier. What they have failed to include in any part of the Bill, or indeed in the Explanatory Notes, is an explanation of why £500,000 was chosen as the threshold for the higher multiplier. Indeed, £500,000 seems entirely arbitrary, and the Government have not explained why that is the number.
As was mentioned by several noble Lords from across the House at Second Reading, the Bill raises more questions than it has answers, and there is a complete lack of clarity. Not only do we not know why the threshold is set at £500,000, but we also do not know what the actual multipliers will be. The Government’s choice of setting the threshold in this way means that many businesses on our high streets will be forced to pay this higher multiplier.
I agree that the business rates system needs reform, but I do not for a second think that this Bill achieves the reforms that our high streets need. There is an understanding across the board that businesses that operate online and occupy out-of-town warehouses should pay a larger amount of business rates, and such reforms have been nicknamed an “Amazon tax”. But the Bill does not achieve that on its own terms. We know that thousands of large shops will be caught by this threshold, and we cannot support a Bill that risks a decimation of our already struggling high streets across the country simply because the Government have failed to do their homework and have got their numbers wrong.
We will be probing the Government’s proposed threshold as the Bill progresses. It is the job of Ministers to get this right, and we will be listening carefully to the Government’s responses to this challenge. The Labour manifesto committed to reforming the business rates system and to
“level the playing field between the high street and the online giants”,
so why does the Bill not do that? The arbitrary threshold set by the Bill will damage many high-street businesses and, coupled with the reduction of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, will not fulfil the Government’s claims that they intend to reduce how much in business rates these businesses actually pay.
Again, the Explanatory Notes reference the higher multiplier as applying to
“distribution warehouses … used by online giants”,
but simply including a cut-off of £500,000, while it will tax online giants, will not protect other businesses. Although the majority of the businesses with a rateable value over £500,000 may be warehouses, not all of them are. Through a failure to target the policy effectively, the Bill is likely to have unintended consequences that will have a ripple effect on other businesses on our high streets.
It is important to look at this Bill in the context of the wider decisions that this Government have made that force businesses to have higher costs. The Government have increased the minimum wage, which we support, and they have increased the employer national insurance contributions—a hidden tax, a job tax, that will hit the retail sector with a bill of £2.3 billion a year. Although this Bill alone may not cripple businesses, when considered with the other taxes that the Government have imposed on businesses, it very well could be the thing that forces businesses to close on high streets up and down the country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has provided a good contribution to this debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider the concerns that we have both raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by expressing my gratitude for the kind words from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in relation to my not being present for the Second Reading because of the tragic loss of my mother, and I extend my gratitude to everyone in the House. I had a good look at the Second Reading, and I appreciate all the tributes that were made during this difficult time of my life.
It has been a lively start to this afternoon’s proceedings, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 1. It will be appropriate alongside this amendment to consider whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I understand that there is concern that the Bill before us does not deliver on the Government’s stated intentions. I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but I must disagree with their position.
The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment, as announced at the Autumn Budget, to introduce from 2026-27 permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, as also announced at the Autumn Budget, the introduction of a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above—to fund that permanent tax cut sustainably. Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill enable this.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. The nature of this debate has set the scene for some of the groups that we will debate later—the £500,000 limit will certainly come up shortly, as will the other issues. The overall point suggested by the Minister—that we must have this move, or that this move is a helpful precursor to wider reform—is one that I would question. I do not see why this must happen without the wider reform; it is not needed unless it is in the context of something that is more total around the system. Let me repeat myself: there are so many puts and takes in this system that it is hard to know how individual businesses and their competitors are going to be affected simply on the basis of where they stand on a particular road. There is much to be done but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Thurlow
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of Lord Thurlow, seeks to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for more valuable properties.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, after my practice run, for which I apologise, I rise to address this second group. Conveniently, it consists of three amendments, all in my name. Before doing so, I should mention that I was formerly a chartered surveyor and spent several decades working in the realms of commercial property. This included a certain amount of rating, so I have considerable experience. I also beg the Committee’s leave inasmuch as I was unable to take part at Second Reading, but I have read Hansard and spoken to colleagues.
The purpose of Amendments 2 and 4—the latter is consequential on the former—is to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for the more valuable RHL properties on the valuation list. There is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s proposal to pay for the reduced multiplier, hereditament or—I cannot remember what it used to be called—poundage by taxing the larger organisations. To understand this, we must look for a moment at what characterises a successful high street and distinguishes it from one that withers and fades. Although a high street that has withered will continue trading, it will have lost its heart as a retail centre and lost the social cohesion that it provides to the community. There is a gradual decline in the presence of national multiples, which are the key to high streets’ economic health.
A key presence in a successful high street are the anchor retailers, as we have heard. These may be department stores—though, sadly, few remain—other large retailers, such as Marks & Spencer, or possibly a leisure centre. Importantly, nowadays, it may also be a large supermarket. Most larger towns now have a town centre shopping scheme, of course. These are developments that have been carried out behind the retail frontage, usually, but with one or two shopping units providing access to the prime section of that high street. They are anchored by a large retailing presence: the department store or the supermarket in the shopping centre. They also frequently have the advantage of providing car parking and bus station services to the high street, which are particularly important these days with traffic restrictions and general congestion.
It is important to understand that anchor retailers are the lifeblood of our high streets, many of which are pedestrianised to improve the experience and safety of pedestrian traffic. The proposal to charge the larger retailers or RHL traders premium rates will cause yet more of these anchors to close down. This will structurally destabilise the complementary nature of a balanced retail offer. These anchors, including supermarkets, are already under extreme financial pressure.
It is no accident that the large department stores are fast disappearing from our high streets. To ask the higher NDR companies to pay this extra tax is punishment in the extreme. British Home Stores has gone, as has Binns in the north-east. C&A, which many of us will remember, is a good example of another that was forced to close by its parent because it could not afford all the costs, yet it trades healthily and thrives across continental Europe and in other countries around the world. It closed in this country because it could not afford to trade any longer; there was nothing wrong with its product.
Ironically, the only retailers that can afford the high street costs are the mail order giants, and the Government know who they are. Yet we must tread carefully in taxing the fulfilment centres, which are linked to the remaining high street operators and which, by managing to operate away from the high street, can control their costs and keep operating. They are a very different category from the Amazon generic, if I may use that phrase, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, already mentioned.
Amendment 45 probes the wisdom of asking the large ratepayers—£500,000-plus is proposed—to subsidise the RHL discount for smaller traders. As already mentioned, the sweeping and inclusive size-related premium will impact many high street retailers attempting to stay afloat by resourcing their mail order businesses elsewhere. They are not the Amazon generic. Asking the larger retailers to subsidise the smaller ones is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The unintended consequence is that the larger retailers will find it harder to continue. It will be another financial burden for them to bear, and it is too much. High street shops will then close to save costs, impacting in turn the economic health of the town.
The key to all this is to separate the fulfilment centres operating behind the scenes of the high street retailers—the big organisations—from the Amazon generic. Dealing with this is complicated and difficult, and it is a matter of definitions. The solution is to ask the experts. There has been consultation on the Bill, but there has been no impact study of this aspect. There needs to be a simple invitation to the experts in the field—the Rating Surveyors’ Association, the RICS and one or two others—whose profession is focused on these subjects, to come up with proposals, ideas and suggestions that can then be refined and considered as a satisfactory solution to funding the discount that the small RHL players will enjoy. Amendment 45 addresses that funding problem. It should not be the highest ratepayers; they suffer enough. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Thurlow for introducing this point. I support the general thrust of what he said, although I do not see any great likelihood that this will move the government position at all.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, at this point in our first day in Committee, I ought to remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor—we are reliant on business rates for what we do—and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also remind the Committee, given the further amendment that I have, that I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield’s council.
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for speaking to this group of amendments. The thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to remove the higher multiplier. Without really understanding the combination of potential higher multipliers and the loss of what we could call the Covid business relief, because we do not have an impact assessment from the Government, it is difficult to understand the financial impact on businesses of both those changes. I will urge the Minister at every opportunity to provide for the Committee the financial impact on businesses; otherwise, we are debating in the dark a bit because we do not know exactly what the totality of the impact will be on different sectors of the business community.
One of the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, concerned the lack of targeting of specific businesses in the whole range of proposals in this Bill. It is really difficult to see how the current valuation assessments will result in a fair share of property taxation. I say “fair share” because, in his response to the first group of amendments, the Minister talked about the purpose of this Bill—I quote him—as being to create a fairer system. As we will come to understand in our debates on later groups, this Bill fails to do that because it fails to target businesses except on the basis of valuation. The purpose is ostensibly—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who called it the “Amazon tax”—to try to extract a fairer share of property taxation from distribution warehouses.
At this point, I shall quote what I have, I think, quoted before. The Valuation Office Agency has a figure for an Amazon warehouse near where I live in Yorkshire of £25 per square metre, whereas, in my own small town, a local shop is valued at £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of the problem, which this Bill does not address; it is fundamental. What is absolutely essential to getting a fairer system is a total rethink about property taxation.
Things have changed enormously since the non-domestic business rates regime was introduced. There are now significant out-of-town developments in warehouse distribution which did not exist 20 years ago, and large out-of-town retail parks, which did not exist 25 or 30 years ago. However, they do now, and they are benefiting from the way property is valued by the criteria set by the Valuation Office Agency, and they are benefiting at the expense of high streets. If the Government are certain in their aim to provide a fairer system for our high streets, then absolutely essential is this fundamental change to the way properties are valued, so that taxation can be fairly shared between out-of-town distribution centres, which currently benefit from very low rental values, as opposed to city and town centres, where rental values are high and landlords want to keep them high, because that is important for their income.
We will achieve nothing in this Bill unless that basis of the system is addressed. I agree with the thrust of what is being said, though I do not see how you can let people off a high multiplier if you introduce a lower one without losing that taxation take. I also agree with the final point that both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made, which is that this arbitrary £500,000 figure as a cut-off between the lower and higher rates will lead to appeals. If I ran a business which had a rateable value of £510,000, I know what I would do: I would do my best to make it come up for £499,000.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response, but I hope it will be thoughtful.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, if I may, I will intervene a second time, first with an apology because I should have properly declared my interests as a chartered surveyor and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association and of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation.
That apart, I will follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has said. First, we are of course dealing with either the rental or the imputed rental value of properties. I get that point that this is reflecting much lower figures per square foot for some giant distribution centre somewhere upcountry, as opposed to a high-value shop in a sought-after city centre location. However, if that is not the right basis, then we cannot go on slavishly following that. We then have to start thinking about how we split the basis, so that the rental value forms one part of the thing only and something else happens to top the thing up. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to do that, and it cannot be beyond the wit of the Labour Party in opposition to have thought of something when it said in its manifesto commitment that it would replace business rates and
“level the playing field between the high street and online giants”—
and I think I have that verbatim.
More recently, the description of the Bill has been a “rebalancing”. The other way you deal with the whole question of imbalances is to look at the scope of the tax base. The Government have looked at the scope of the tax base; they have decided to take certain private schools out of the exemption and that has increased the tax base. However, that tax base is not retained at all in the business rates pool on a fiscal-neutrality wicket; no, it will be split between government and local authorities for other purposes altogether, so there is a net attrition from the system by that means. What could have been an improvement of the tax base resulting in a reduction across the board will not be there. We have to look carefully at what Governments and the Treasury think they are using business rates for. If they are to go on, bluntly, flogging this poor donkey to death, then things might well start unravelling quite quickly within the timeframe of a valuation list.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Earl alluded to a balloon being squeezed; we should remind ourselves that this is an expanding balloon. The costs faced by local authorities, of which a huge proportion—well over 50% and approaching 80% in some areas—is adult social care, are a rapidly expanding balloon that we are seeking to get our hands around and fill. This has enormous ramifications for not just high streets but the other services that local authorities are required and able to deliver on the budgets they get from rates and central government.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I understand that he may be concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the higher multipliers. We share this concern. We need to hear more detail from the Government. They are wrong to seek legislative powers to implement the higher multipliers without giving Parliament—and, more importantly, businesses—any clarity on what they are likely to be. We do not have an estimate of the revenue from the new multipliers. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation.
In principle, we are open to and understand the big concerns surrounding online giants, but more details are needed on this Bill, which we do not believe meets the policy aims. The principle of higher multipliers for certain ratepayers is a sensible idea when done well, so I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendments 2 and 4. This Bill does not do it well with its arbitrary £500,000 threshold, but the principle of a higher multiplier for businesses that tend to pay less of other taxes can benefit small independent shops.
I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendment 45—although I understand the sentiment—because, in the way the Bill is structured, high street businesses will be supporting other high street businesses through the higher multiplier. This is not sufficient reform. If we are to engage with the Bill on its own terms and seek to make it effective, the threshold will need changing the most. If the online giants were to pay a larger proportion of tax to enable a tax reduction for high street businesses, I would be inclined to support the Bill.
Before I finish, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because, when you hear them talking, you will understand this sector of our economy. They understand what businesses know and think. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is right to say that there should have been a much more in-depth consultation with all types of businesses, but it is difficult to do that when you do not know the effects on those businesses then or cannot give any indication whatever of that.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because I have heard her stories of online giants in Yorkshire. I was pleased when I saw this coming, as perhaps the Government were going to deal with that issue for her. Sadly, I think they are dealing with part of it while, at the same time, putting our high streets in danger.
I am sorry that I disagree with the noble Lord that the Treasury should fund this reduction, but these are important points that the Government should consider carefully and answer fully. I hope the Minister will respond with much more clarity than so far.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 2, 4 and 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which concern provisions relating to the new higher multiplier and the funding of the new lower multipliers.
At the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor set out a Budget to fix the foundations—a Budget that took the difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and to unlock long-term growth. Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street.
Support for the high street is an area on which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and others in this House have spoken passionately in prior debates on business rates legislation. I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience that both he and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, bring to these debates.
The Government have made clear that supporting the high streets is a priority. They are a focal point of economic activity and a point of local pride, and they can often reflect the unique character of a community. Yet, as they are property-intensive sectors, the Government are aware that they shoulder a significant business rates burden. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, a one-year relief has been repeatedly rolled over for retail, hospitality and leisure properties as a temporary stopgap. However, this has meant uncertainty for businesses about their business rates bills from one year to the next, and it has created a significant fiscal pressure for the Government.
The Bill will enable the Government to provide a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country. However, against the challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited, we have been clear that we must take difficult choices to ensure that this support is delivered in a sustainable way. I repeat: the system should work in a sustainable way.
Specifically, this is why, at the Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced our intention to introduce a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, go to the heart of this element of the Bill. They serve to prevent the Government funding the support that the noble Lord would agree is critical for the high street from within the business rates system.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Several times already we have queried the decision to make the dividing line £500,000. It would be good to know why that number was chosen. Why not £600,000 or £400,000?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will come to the noble Baroness’s points when I come back to the valuations, rest assured.
The Government have been clear that they intend to fund new lower multipliers by raising revenue within the business rates system. The lower multipliers are a necessary tax cut, but a tax cut that must be funded. By limiting it to properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above, the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets. Moreover, by including all sectors within this group, they are doing so equitably and will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants—a cohort that I know the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has previously raised in relation to imbalances in the business rates system. We are trying to make sure that we have prudent financial management of the economy and a system that is sustainable.
I come back to some particular points. First, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke in relation to the potential rise of £39 billion, as indicated by the OBR’s Budget report. The OBR forecast assumes that business rates income will vary in line with forecast CPI inflation, estimated growth in the tax base and the change to business rates relief. The main business rates forecast is gross rates yield, net reliefs, net collection costs and other reductions to contributions. The forecast is higher for future years as it assumes that retail, hospitality and leisure relief is removed. The business rates forecast considers measures only after they have been announced at fiscal events. As in normal practice, forecasts beyond 2025-26 are based on a number of assumptions, as the Government have not yet set out their policy beyond that year. This will take place at the Budget later this year: the main business rates forecast will then be updated to reflect it.
As I have highlighted today, the Bill includes constraints that I hope will reassure Members of this Committee. In addition to limiting it to the most valuable properties, the Government cannot set the higher multiplier more than 10 pence above the standard multiplier. The Government have also been clear that this is not the intended rate. It is there to provide flexibility to adapt to outcomes in 2026 following the next revaluation, while acting as a guardrail against concern about excessive increases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will also be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.
Lord Fox (LD)
Coming back immediately on that point, what criteria will the Government be using for that revaluation? In other words, what are they seeking to confirm or otherwise from it? Can the Minister recognise that the point made by my noble friend, which I am sure will be made otherwise, is that when you multiply two numbers together, if one side of the equation is substantially smaller, the sum becomes low? If the valuations are 100 times less out of town, versus those in town, you can mess around with the other number as much as you like, but it will still be a tiny number out of town relative to town centres. Does he recognise that valuations are crucial to this and that, while this is all well and good, until valuations are sorted out, we really are fiddling around?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, on that specific point about criteria, I want to be clear that we have had a one-year ad hoc system and we are trying to build a sustainable system, which will have a three-year rating on non-domestic properties. We want to see how we will get there when we see what the situation is in the fiscal climate; that will be a big part of addressing how the Treasury will set the multipliers. The Bill is not about setting multipliers. It is up to the Treasury to set those. I will come back to the impact in a moment.
In relation to the different level of multipliers, of course it is a complex system. However, the highlight of what we are trying to do is to have a sustainable system that funds itself and, by asking less than 1% of properties to shoulder a bit more, ensures that we support the high street and properties of low valuation. We are trying to have an equitable system that is sustainable and can pay for itself. We recognise that there are different scenarios and situations but, ultimately, we want to ensure that the system is much fairer than it is now and creates more certainty.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this group. The most important takeaway is that it would be too little, too late to postpone until 2027. The acute pain felt in the high street is great enough for there to be substantial loss of retail presence if we do not move more swiftly. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that the lack of impact assessments on the specific, granular issue of definitions is of very serious concern. It needs only another 12-month delay for consultations with experts to take place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, revealed with clarity—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to it as well—that there is a harsh difference between an Amazon warehouse with a rental value, on which rateable values are based, of £4.50 per square foot, versus £45 on the high street. That is a massive difference. Amazon are paying 10%. We are tinkering with the deckchairs if the rate poundage is increased for these larger retailers because it cannot be increased—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out—to anything near what will be required to provide balance.
The difficulty is one of definitions. I would be grateful if we could speak to the Bill team before the next stage of the Bill. There is scope to introduce a new use class order specifically for the purposes of rating—not for planning, but rating. This would identify the difference between a fulfilment centre for a high street business and an Amazon generic. If that was offered, I would withdraw my amendment.
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.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Amendment 3 leads a substantive group. I suggest that the Opposition might want to move it.
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.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it may save time later if I rise to make a comment in the context of these amendments. I can quite see that there is an objection in principle to some of what is being put forward here, because of the Treasury need to predict the yield, if it is going to be able to explain to the Chancellor what announcement has got to be made in the Autumn Budget with regard to the multipliers.
That said, this raises the question of the complication that has arisen from the fact that, by virtue of the Bill, the discretion to define RHL properties, which has rested hitherto with billing authorities, will be taken away under the Bill and, as we have heard, the definition will be set centrally. How will central government make the relevant decisions in applying this as between a small seaside town at one end and a bustling urban metropolis at the other? Will it be by reference to the road name—high street or non-high street, depending on whether you want to dance on that glass pinhead—its predominant use or position vis-à-vis the town itself, never mind the range of uses as between different geographical locations?
I am entirely unsure what the outcome of this shift will be, but I am pretty certain that it will be pretty crude and, to local eyes, fairly insensitive of locational differences. That is because it will have to make one rule that applies across everything, from Bognor to West Bromwich—that is what is going to happen. There is a great deal to be said for some sort of discretion being in the hands of local government, which understands the pitch. That said, I do not know how easy it would be to achieve that, because valuation list analysis does not give you that information; it gives you an address, a postcode, a use category and a rateable value, but it does not go further than that, so there is actually quite a lot of qualitative information that we need before we can actually deal with that.
There are other aspects to this whole question of local government billing authority choice, which I will go into when I get to the group starting with Amendment 5, but I thought it was worth making that comment at this particular juncture.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson—also known as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and Lord Thurlow, for the amendments in this group. I have always in principle supported more powers and influence for local authorities. What I have always said should go without saying, but I repeat it.
However, I am nervous about the amendments from the noble Baroness, which seek to enable local authorities to have discretion over whether the higher multiplier should impact on businesses in their area. This is because, if you look at the Valuation Office Agency’s billing lists, you find that the vast majority—I have not worked out the percentage—of businesses in the £500,000-plus bracket are based in the south-east and London. Therefore, the income from the application of the higher multiplier in those areas is essential for the totality of the business rate take, which is then distributed to fund local authorities across the country. Areas of the country where valuations are much lower absolutely depend on the business rates raised from the south-east and London, and that has been the situation for ever.
If I were a London or south-east authority, I would see anything to encourage businesses as an opportunity and I would use that discretion, but it would be at the expense of councils in the north. Those such as mine in Yorkshire and the Minister’s over the Pennines—I dare not say the county—would suffer as a consequence, because the totality of the business rate take would reduce and the distribution of funding, which is vital for local services, would be less. If the noble Baroness comes up with an amendment which counters that, I could support it, because I support more power and discretion to local authorities. However, as we have a national system, we cannot have little local changes to the benefit of places that currently are fairly well funded or have better income already.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, on defining retail, hospitality and leisure properties, there are later groups which try to get at the detail of this, but it seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong or right—that this whole business is associated with the removal of the Covid rate reliefs. Currently I think they are at 75%, to be reduced to 40% and then to zero. It will be quite a big hit to RHL properties to find themselves suddenly facing the totality of their business rate bill.
It seems to me that the essence of the Bill is removing that with one hand in order to provide some relief with the other hand; that is what we have got here. I think that is why the Government are in difficulty in helping us as a Committee to understand the purpose of this. It seems to me that it is that rather than trying to extract more from distribution warehouses et cetera, which we see from the lists provided are not many—of the, I think, 16,000 properties in the £500,000-plus bracket, only about 1,400 or 1,500 are large distribution warehouses. So, my plea is again: let us have an understanding of what this is about. If we had an impact assessment, we would be better able to understand it. I will keep repeating it, so perhaps before we get to Report the Minister will have extracted and published an impact assessment so we can make the judgments that we need to make.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 3,18, 32 and 37, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, are concerned with the role of local authorities in determining the application of the higher and lower multipliers. Amendment 3 seeks to provide local authorities with discretion over the application of the higher multiplier, and Amendments 18, 32, 37 and 43 are concerned with who sets the definition of a qualifying RHL hereditament.
Currently, the Bill includes a power for qualifying RHL hereditaments to be defined in regulations by the Treasury, as I have said. Our intention is for the definition broadly to follow that currently used in the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. The criteria for the current relief scheme are contained in guidance from this department and are implemented by local authorities. Ultimately, under the current relief scheme, local authorities have the final say over and discretion about who should be awarded the relief. I understand that that is the type of arrangement that the amendments are seeking to reinstate from April 2026 for the lower RHL multipliers.
I should, for completeness, explain to the Committee that Amendment 43 replaces the Treasury’s power to define RHL on the central rating list with the relevant local authority. In fact, the central rating list is operated by the Secretary of State for my department and does not require any local authority involvement. Instead, Amendment 43 would create an unworkable section of the Bill. This would be due to the fact that central list hereditaments cross multiple local authority areas, which would create a lack of clarity around the responsibility. In addition, this amendment would inappropriately insert local authorities into the central list process. I do not think that this is the intention of the noble Baroness. I think it is important to clarify there are currently no eligible properties to be prescribed for the lower multiplier on the central list, and nor would we expect there to be in future.
Moreover, I understand from the helpful explanation provided that Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is, in a similar way to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeking to confer on local authorities the power to determine what is a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament. However, as drafted, it does not do that. As drafted, Amendment 32 would completely remove the power to define a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament in respect of unoccupied properties from the Bill. In essence, it would mean qualifying RHL for unoccupied properties would remain undefined, as the power would not automatically be granted to local authorities.
However, I understand that these amendments are intended to probe the matter of local decision-making, and that is how I have sought to discuss them here today. As noble Lords would expect from me, I fully support efforts to give local authorities more power and discretion in their areas. The Bill does not disturb the already considerable powers that local authorities have to award relief to ratepayers as set out in Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
However, we have to balance this against the needs of businesses. What we hear from businesses is that they really value certainty. They tell us that the current RHL relief scheme, operated through local discretion, does not give them that certainty. We hear that they do not favour a system where a national relief scheme, such as RHL relief, can be delivered differently by different local authorities. It leaves businesses, especially those with multiple stores, unsure as to where and when they will be awarded relief.
The new lower RHL multipliers will therefore operate through a single set of regulations for all of England, made by the Treasury. Those regulations will still be implemented by local authorities, using their local knowledge, but the definition will be set by the Treasury. This is something that businesses in general would support. We will work with local government over the coming year to prepare these regulations. That goes to the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in relation to our relationships and work with local government; we are doing that already.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Does the Minister have any comments to make on the possibility of redefining the use classes for the purposes of rating, which would focus on the Amazon generic problem?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I forgot to mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; it would be helpful for him to sit down with me to discuss that, as well as his previous request, as soon as he has time in his diary. This is a discussion that we should have to engage on that particular point.
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.
The Earl of Lytton
Member's explanatory statement
This would have the effect of leaving large RHL properties paying the standard multiplier rather than the supplement in line with previous policy intentions.
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.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 7 and 24 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 14, 31 and 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. I have also added my name in support of Amendments 5 and 22 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to which he has just spoken. This is an important group of amendments because it seeks to expose the problem that the Government have in applying a higher multiplier to some businesses without targeting them, as we heard on an earlier group this afternoon.
Searching through the Valuation Office Agency’s information reveals, for instance, that about 60 civic centres or town halls, and 80 police headquarters or very large city centre police stations, are included in this higher rate. If the top end of the higher multiplier is applied to these properties, that will add 20% to the business rates bills of those local authorities or police authorities, at a time when both have severe problems with their finances and are struggling to make ends meet.
It is not just police headquarters, police stations and town halls: 80 courts, from the Supreme Court at one end to large magistrates’ courts at the other, are included in the rateable values assessed as being above £500,000—this is in the information that the Minister shared with us at the weekend—as, indeed, are 80 prisons. I am not quite sure why the Government are including town halls, civic centres, police HQs, courts, prisons and 630 schools in the higher multiplier. Why would any Government want to impose 20% higher costs, potentially, for business rates on those publicly funded essential institutions? I am sure the Minister will have a reply; whether it is one I will accept is a different matter. It gets worse: 300 further education colleges are included in this.
We just had a skills Bill passed through this House, which purported to increase the advantages of a skills agenda for young people. Most of us know that FE colleges have been consistently undervalued and underfinanced over the last 10 to 14 years—or even more. Adding this to the list of their problems will not help the skills agenda, nor will 360 state schools. Why on earth would you include state schools in this catch-all of the higher multiplier? Within the budgets and funding for state schools there is an element to cover their non-domestic rates costs. Whether that will be increased for those who are caught up in this higher valuation remains to be seen. I am just quoting from the information that the noble Lord shared.
On top of that, 310 universities are caught up. As I declared earlier, I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield. I know how hard the changes that the previous Government made have hit university funding. Across the country, universities are having to close departments—often those that are vital for the future growth agenda that the Government are following. I need to hear from the Minister how the Government will address this non-targeted way of having the higher multiplier. Will all those state-funded institutions that I listed—local government, police, prisons, courts, schools and FE colleges—be compensated for the potential higher rate multiplier and therefore the 20% increase in their business rates? Universities function as businesses now and have very little income that comes directly from government, but they are facing very challenging financial futures, which is absolutely contrary to what the Government want to achieve from their emphasis on R&D. That cannot happen if universities struggle to make ends meet.
The challenge the Government have is to ensure that the changes result in the same income from NDR as previously. Between 30% and 40% of local government funding now comes from business rate income. As well as my earlier questions, can the Minister assure this Committee that local government will have the same total funding pot from business rates as it does now and—because of the way the system works—that no local authority will suffer a loss in income from business rates as a result of these changes? I will not go into the way it works for local government. The Minister will understand that assuring the total funding pot of business rates does not necessarily mean that each local authority will continue to have the same level of funding.
The question is whether the Minister can assure us that schools, colleges and so on—all those publicly funded institutions that may have to pay considerably higher costs in business rates—will have compensatory funding from the Treasury to meet those additional costs. Otherwise, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I am going to leave my noble friend to talk about the importance of music venues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, knows that I support both the amendments he has tabled, to which I have added my name, and I do not wish to add anything further to what he said. I am looking forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions .
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 12, 15, 29 and 33 and, in doing so, I apologise to the Committee that I omitted to declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I keep forgetting it. My amendments seek to exempt manufacturing businesses from the higher multiplier.
The manufacturing industry is exceptionally important to the British economy, and to place an additional financial burden on this sector is unsatisfactory. In 2023, the total value of UK manufacturers’ product sales was £456 billion, which demonstrates the value of the sector to the UK economy. The sector accounts for 8.1% of UK employment and, in July to September 2024, accounted for 8.8% of the total UK economic output. Ministers never tire of telling us that growth is this Government’s number one mission, so can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will not have a negative impact on the growth of our UK manufacturing sector?
Recently, the global political situation demonstrated the importance of being self-reliant with the rise in energy prices we have seen in the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. My amendments seek to protect this vital sector, which has an important role to play in growing the UK economy, by allowing manufacturing hereditaments to qualify for the lower multiplier. This Bill, despite promising business rates reform, will put an arbitrary threshold in place and many businesses will be adversely affected. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this group. Given that the manufacturing sector is likely to be included in this bracket, I would be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to outline exactly what impact his department expects the changes to business rates will have on the UK manufacturing sector.
This sector is already facing higher costs due to the increase in the cost of labour, and the Government are hitting it with a triple whammy of increasing costs with the increase in the minimum wage, which of course we support, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is a damaging jobs tax. The House will have the opportunity to debate the national insurance measures tomorrow, and we will be speaking up for the number of sectors that will be devastated by this government policy. But why would these businesses invest to increase the value of their business and risk it going over £500,000? Labour-intensive sectors are already paying the cost of a Labour Government, and if businesses are forced to pay the higher multiplier suggested in this Bill that will only worsen their predicament.
Amendments 5 and 22, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to exempt retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from the higher multiplier. They are sensible amendments, and several of my amendments touch on very similar issues. I have referred in my amendments to specific types of stores on our high street, which are yet to be debated, but the sentiment of the noble Earl’s amendments is certainly one that I support.
Amendments 14, 31 and 41 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I do not see in her seat.
Lord Fox (LD)
They are not from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They are in my name.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Once again today, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Fox (LD)
For the Committee’s information, there is a misprint. It should have read “grassroots music venues and larger venues”. If I had spoken before the noble Baroness, I would have explained. The Royal Albert Hall is clearly not a grass-roots venue.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That confused me, but I thank the noble Lord.
Amendments 7, 13, 19, 24, 30 and 38 all seek a similar thing: to allow the Treasury the power to exempt other hereditaments from the higher multiplier as it sees fit. While I understand the desire to introduce flexibility into a Bill that does not seem to have been fully thought through, it is important that we empower local authorities rather than afford the Treasury further powers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will speak for myself rather than the noble Baroness. What we have seen in the various themes in this group is the malign effect of a blunt instrument. My noble friend Lady Pinnock raised the important issue of public sector buildings that fall into the trap of high value and therefore the higher multiplier. Clearly, we need to understand the overall financial effects on those organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke well about manufacturing. We tabled the same amendments in the Commons, where one of the implications of what the Government said was that manufacturing does not have to be in a town centre, on the basis that there is somehow an ability to up sticks and go without huge capital implications and lots of other things.
If we are talking about a mixed economy in town centres, things such as light engineering and printers, as well as other businesses such as accountants, design agencies and all sorts of things, add to their plurality and success. When you remove from a town centre the people who work or live there, you remove a huge proportion of the trade that the sector that the Government are seeking to boost relies on. Not everybody has to come in a car to buy a sandwich from a shop. They might work or live there. That is an important part of trade that this Bill seems to ignore.
I turn to my Amendments 14, 31 and 41. I was going to clarify at the beginning that the explanatory statement should have read that they are to probe the impact of the higher multiplier on large venues and, for other elements of the Bill, on grass-roots venues. There were two issues, and I somehow managed to conflate them into a mess.
I spoke earlier about unintended consequences. This Bill has lots of potential unintended consequences. The Music Venue Trust calculates that just the move from 75% to 40% business tax relief from April 2025 will create a demand for £70 million more in additional premises tax from the GMV sector, as I am going to call grass-roots music venues, that in 2024 returned an entire gross profit across all 810 venues of just £25 million. In other words, the sector will be asked for well over twice—nearly three times, in fact—what it made in profit last year. Some 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2024 and, in 2025, they continue to operate an overall profit margin of just 0.5%. This is a very marginal activity. I believe that, given the tone of the Budget and the commitment to consider the culture area of our economy in the spending review, this must have been an unintended consequence or an omission of protection, rather than an intended tax rise. I look to the Minister to confirm this.
As an aside, GMVs have specific space issues in their business characteristics that are not recognised properly in the general rateable value process. That is a separate issue with which a review would, I hope, deal.
I return to the consequences of this Bill. There are two areas. The first is an option for the Government to create multipliers that are designed specifically to encourage activity we wish to see. This goes back to the flexibility point that other noble Lords mentioned. For example, specific multipliers for cultural spaces would go a long way to support creative growth and the regeneration of our high streets, both of which are key elements in the Government’s wider agency, but there is an immediate, separate issue facing cultural spaces that operate in properties over the rateable value threshold of £500,000.
Just like schools and universities, there are big venues around the country, such as the Royal Albert Hall, the Underworld, the Roundhouse and the Royal Festival Hall—there are others, I am sure, but not a huge number—that fall above the £500,000 threshold. For those businesses, there needs to be some differentiation according to their activity. I come back to what my noble friend said about universities. Why are we including them in this measure? Why are we including police stations? Also, why are we including large-scale cultural icons? The idea of flexibility will help with other issues, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend will talk in our debate on a future group of amendments. Without that flexibility, what we have is a blunt instrument, as I have said before.
I come back to music venues: we believe that these venues will be penalised unless something is done. Can the Minister respond to either this debate or some consultation with experts so that we can make sure that that does not happen? Grass-roots music venues are the R&D of our music industry. They are where almost every band starts. Bands start in their bedrooms, they then move to the streets, and then get to a grass-roots music venue. They may end up in the Royal Albert Hall, on television or whatever, but GMVs are where our music industry comes from. That ecosystem also supports wider nightlife and hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs, food businesses, takeaways, taxis and nightclubs, all of which have physical premises in the community.
There are two issues here. One is the removal or reduction of relief for grass-roots music venues across the country, which will, on average, put them out of profit and into loss. The second is the application of the higher multiple on particularly large venues around this country. I do not think that the Government intended to deliver either of these outcomes for our music industry, but they must intend to improve and change the system in order for these catastrophic issues not to happen. So I hope that the Minister, either now or with consultation, can come back with two different solutions for these two sides of a very important industry.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I speak in support of this group of amendments. I declare my interest that I do not have the expertise that I have listened to this afternoon, so I will just do my little bit. I thank the Minister for his reply to the questions I sent him on the multiple retail shops that will be affected by this increase due to the larger rate for valued properties.
I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. There will be 3,260 retail shops affected by these changes, many of which are supermarkets. If the Government increase the multiplier by 0.1%, this would increase costs by about £3.7 million per year on these properties. This would be passed directly on to customers who shop in these shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets, and would also damage the large anchor stores in shopping centres, which are under pressure already from the online warehouses which this Bill tries to target. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has already detailed the value of these large retail stores to the high street and shopping centres much more expertly than I. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider these amendments urgently, because they will add costs to these businesses.
The Minister also made clear why no detailed impact assessment or calculations have been done. This is due to these rates being set in the Budget, and the revaluation, which will be a disappointment to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The cost to large businesses is unknown. The Bill could damage these larger businesses just to support smaller ones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, stated, we just do not know what the final financial impacts of this will be. I spoke to a leisure business this weekend. It has no idea what its rates will be in 2025-26 and therefore finds it very difficult to budget for what it will have to charge and how it will manage its subscriptions in the coming year.
Regarding Amendment 13, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill tries to protect the high street. The high street is not only retail, hospitality and leisure, so I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to try to ensure some flexibility in the future for these types of businesses to be added in. High street businesses will change in the coming year as high streets need to prosper, with new types of business. These could include veterinary surgeons—a business that I have an interest in—who want to come to the high street and need to be encouraged with possible lower rates.
I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who spoke with passion about government and local authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who spoke in support of the manufacturing industries and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who spoke in support of music venues—all of which need more clarity and information in this Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group and the three groups that follow seek to change the Bill in two broad respects. They seek to carve out properties from the higher multiplier and to widen those hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers. These amendments and those that follow would have a significant impact on the scope of Clauses 1 to 4, the potential cost of the lower multipliers and the revenue flowing from the higher multiplier. They would therefore reduce the Treasury’s ability to set sustainable and worthwhile higher and lower multipliers. As such, it is important that we consider these amendments—and those in the three groups that follow—in the overall context of the wider purpose of Clauses 1 to 4.
In the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27 by introducing two permanent lower multipliers for these properties. It is important that any tax cut is sustainably funded, which is why the Government also announced their intention to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and over—from 2026-27.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I clarified that there were two issues. If the Minister looks in his data, he will find that the Royal Albert Hall is classed as being over £500,000, and I specifically asked about the Royal Albert Hall, so we require an answer to that. The point about grass-roots venues was not about the £500,000; it is about the loss of the relief, from 70% to 40% in the coming financial year, which will put them below the waterline, on average. That was a specific and different question that the Minister may want to answer separately.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I did say that I would come back to the noble Lord on his specific question.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will the extra burdens on local authority budgets that might come be funded by the new burdens policy?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I have just looked up the Royal Albert Hall. It has a £1.9 million rateable value.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl very much for that clarification, but if he looks at my remarks later, he will see that I said that we do not expect “many”—not any—grass-roots music venues to fall above the £500,000 threshold. As I said, although we do not hold data specifically on music venues, we know, for example, that pubs, which often play an important role in the grass-roots music scene, have an average rateable value of only £16,800.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked how the lower multipliers will affect vacant property. The Bill allows for the lower multipliers to apply to vacant RHL properties. I assure the noble Earl that we intend to apply these new multipliers to occupied properties in the same way as we do to vacant properties. That will be consistent.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched on the important point of why an impact assessment has not been prepared. Let me be absolutely clear and repeat my previous points on this: policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions and are therefore not required to be accompanied by an impact assessment. However, His Majesty’s Treasury committed to publishing an analysis of the new multipliers at the Budget.
A further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties. I repeat this for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who raised this in particular: a further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties and, more generally, a power to widen the lower multipliers to other sectors.
I acknowledge the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to provide greater flexibility within the Bill, should it be deemed appropriate, in future, to apply the lower multipliers to other types of property. However, the Government were clear at the Budget that the intention is for the permanently lower tax rates to apply to qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of RHL relief that has been extended year on year. This has been an ad hoc system, and year on year is not the most effective way for businesses to plan.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I heard the Minister say, on a different group, that this will apply for three years. On that basis, we cannot really expect a root-and-branch change of the system until either the end or beyond the end of this Parliament. Would that be a reasonable assessment?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. This will come into force in 2026-27; we are talking about the revaluation and review being three years after that. Again, this provides more certainty, because we do not want year-on-year unpredictability in an ad hoc system. This is a sustainable process, and it will give us a chance to see what the environment and fiscal climate will be at that time. Again, it is for the Treasury to set the multipliers.
Against the current fiscal backdrop, widening the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers would potentially reduce the level of tax cut that could then be provided to that cohort. Similarly, widening the scope may require a higher tax rate on those properties paying the higher multiplier to enable the Government to deliver a permanent tax cut.
The amendments for manufacturing could, of course, widen the lower multipliers somewhere beyond the town-centre and high-street environment. As we have heard from stakeholders, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses tend to occupy properties in higher-value locations with higher footfall, which in turn drives up the rateable value and rates bill. The Bill will rebalance this. The same cannot generally be said for manufacturing, so the case for special treatment for it here is weaker.
The Government are supporting our manufacturing sector through other means. At the Autumn Budget, we announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period and up to £520 million for a new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Live music venues are currently eligible for the existing RHL relief. The definition of RHL, in terms of the new multipliers, broadly follows the current definition, which will be set later in secondary legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry; I am just trying to process that. Are you saying that, going forward, they would continue to benefit from the lower multiples as RHL-qualified businesses?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
In terms of over £500,000, we are going to have the same policy applied to all sectors. We are not doing carve-outs, but in terms of any relief that music venues are having below that, the definition of the new multipliers will broadly follow the current definition and will be set out in secondary legislation later this year.
I think I have answered the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but I will make a few points again about the impact on the public sector. The fiscal inheritance demands tough choices in order to fix our public services to create long-term growth and investment that will support businesses, but we have sought to mitigate the worst impacts of these choices. It would not be fair on businesses if we excluded the public sector from the higher multiplier.
In relation to the points made by noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I repeat, in particular, that the Government will work to ensure that, as far as practically possible, local government income from business rates is unaffected by business rates tax rate changes. The Government are making good on the promise to reform the local government funding system. I talked about this on the previous group. We will pursue a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government in partnership with the sector and with the principle of giving councils early notice.
There has been a wide-ranging debate on this group. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will understand, as we consider these amendments and those in the three groups that follow, that we should not seek to carve out certain properties from the higher tax rate or bring other properties into eligibility for the lower multiplier. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments for the support, some of it qualified, for the amendments that I have put forward. I do not wish to labour the point, especially as the temperature in this Room seems to continue to drop and my feet are getting extremely cold.
To pick up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—that the size of hereditament does not equate with ability to pay—some of our most marginal and most valuable operations operate right on the limit. I hear what the Minister says about the difficulties of dealing with this; I have to say that I do not share his view. We already have two lists: we have a general rating list, and we have a central rating list, and there is no reason why the Government could not split it into more than that if they chose to do so. As I said earlier, when it comes to a digitised list, one can fiddle around with it in all sorts of ways. We are talking about 16,500, or some such number, of entries with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. I would have liked to have had a pointer that the Government sort of get this and want to move more rapidly to, first, making the present system more flexible and responsive and, secondly, that we can have some pointer to where this is going in terms of reforming the whole business rates system. However, that is clearly an argument for another day.
My last point, an entirely frivolous one, is that the contents of the various groups of amendments gets smaller henceforward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 37, page 4, line 6, and page 4, line 17, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on the impact of the higher multiplier on hospitals, clinics and other larger health institutions. Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, and the other three amendments, Amendments 20, 23 and 39, are consequential amendments. The Minister has spoken several times this afternoon about being “fair and sustainable” and also, just latterly, about “tough choices”.
I have looked down the list shared by the Minister of those properties with rateable values above £500,000. There are some notable exceptions. I could not find Buckingham Palace. Tough choices? Are Parliament and the Parliamentary Estate exempt? I could not find them in the list. Maybe the list is not complete; if that is the case, it would be good to hear from the Minister how much extra the Government expect the higher multiplier to cost the Parliamentary Estate.
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.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the amendments that I have tabled to try to persuade the Government to think again. The Minister talked about an agnostic approach to the application of the higher multiplier. Now, agnostic approaches are all very well until we see what we catch in the trap. What we have exposed this afternoon is that the Government intend to apply higher costs to the very public services for which they are desperate to have higher funding. They cannot, on the one hand, say that they wish to provide higher funding for some of these important public sector services when, on the other hand, they take some of the funding away. That is the consequence of an ill-considered agnostic approach. I urge the Government to think about having a more targeted approach that includes in its catch more warehouse distribution services and fewer public sector providers of important and valuable public services. At the minute, that is not what is happening.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt businesses that open for longer than 18 hours a day because they are often the only retailer in the local area.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I will also speak to the rest of the amendments in this group. They focus on protecting the essential services that are provided up and down the high street.
Amendments 8 and 25 in my name seek to exempt community shops that are open for more than 18 hours a day. Within local communities, there is often a shop that is open for longer hours than general retail premises. Often, this can be a garage forecourt which is open 24 hours and has essential things for people working in the night-time economy, who may be on a different clock to us. These shops provide essential services for those living in that surrounding community. Without them, there may be fewer customers on that high street, which we believe would begin to damage the surrounding shops and businesses. People often rely on these stores with longer opening hours, so exempting them from the higher multiplier would ensure that they can continue to provide a vital service to local people.
My Amendments 9 and 26 seek to exempt hereditaments that have a post office on the premises from qualifying for the higher multiplier. A post office does not make the same level of profit as the shop, but it provides essential services that many people rely on. Does the Minister agree that it would be unacceptable for shops providing these services to close because they are inappropriately hit by the higher multiplier?
Amendments 10, 17, 27 and 35 seek to exempt premises shared with banking hubs. Less than two weeks ago, many in this House discussed the importance of banking hubs in a debate on bank closures and the particular impact on rural communities. The shift to online banking inevitably brings to light issues of accessibility. While digital banking services are convenient for many, they are inaccessible to others, particularly those living in rural areas. The elderly and the disabled are often significantly impacted by the lack of physical banking services. Age UK has found that over 4 million over-65s in the United Kingdom with a bank account did not manage their money online, placing them at a high risk of financial exclusion. Bank closures have also been found to negatively affect those with disabilities, with a Which? survey concluding that 50% of respondents would be negatively impacted by not having access to a physical service.
The previous Conservative Government recognised the detrimental impact of bank closures on groups in our society and collaborated with the banking industry to establish shared banking hubs. Operated by both the Post Office and banks, these hubs offer essential banking services, including cash withdrawals, deposits and in-person consultations. We must continue to look to mitigate cases of financial exclusion, and I draw noble Lords’ attention to my Amendment 26.
This group of amendments deals with a matter of utmost importance for millions of people across the UK who rely on these essential services. I therefore encourage the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised in the debate.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is another example of the blunt instrument in operation. We have talked about increasing tax on public services, some of which have the ability to recover the money via new burdens, while some do not. But these services are offered by private sector organisations, and we know for a fact that they will not get recompense from the Government for this, which will increase their costs, reduce their profit and may eliminate their viability altogether. When post offices and Crown offices are retreating from the high street, this is not a good time for those businesses.
In a moment we will talk about flagship operations. I put it to noble Lords that banks and post offices are flagship operations. People travel to towns to visit a post office and banks, and then they spend their money on other things, so by denuding or putting in peril those sorts of operations, we are removing the attraction of town centres. We are making sure that they do worse rather than better. That is the first point.
Secondly, I have a relative who owns a shop in a country town—I do not have an interest in that shop—and one of their biggest difficulties is banking their money. They have to drive 20 miles twice a week to take bags of money to bank it because there is no longer a bank. The removal of a banking hub would make that even harder. It also drives shops to go fully digital, which means that people who do not want to use digital and want to keep using cash are no longer facilitated by those businesses. I have seen businesses that can no longer handle cash simply because they no longer have the necessary banking facilities.
Once again, we are looking at the RHL sector, but these businesses serve the RHL sector and make their lives operational. I am happy to support the various amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how taxing post offices and banking hubs will help the RHL sector in our town centres and high streets.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I will say a few words in support of the excellent Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It had not occurred to me but is worth saying here that, just as an anchor is critical to the economic health of the high street and the social contribution that comes with it, so are these very small and vital retailers—if that is the right word—for banking facilities, as well as the small facilities open all hours, 18 hours a day or whatever it may be. They are critical. In fact, they should perhaps be considered in a conversation about revising the use classes order because, as we heard with the good examples given, they are essential to the health of the local community.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she hoped the Minister listens very carefully. Just to reassure her, I always listen very carefully and with great interest to everything that the noble Baroness says, as is the case for all noble Lords in this debate.
Six of these eight amendments seek to change the Bill to remove certain high street services from the higher multiplier. In the previous debates on the amendments in groups 4 and 5, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and have not excluded any sector or type of property. The same considerations apply here and I will not repeat them.
As regard detail, it is worth being clear what type of retail properties on the current rating list would be caught in the higher multiplier. The Valuation Office Agency’s published data shows that, of the subsector of shops that are at or above the £500,000 threshold, 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves only 900 other shops at or above £500,000 across England, and of these 630 are in London and the south-east. For most regions, the number of shops affected, excluding supermarkets, large food stores and retail warehouses is fewer than 50. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.
In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned petrol stations, and amendments would support petrol stations but, in reality, from the Valuation Office Agency’s data, the number of petrol stations above the higher multiplier threshold of £500,000 is fewer than five.
The danger with these carve-outs from the higher multiplier is that the benefit could, in part, flow to large businesses in thriving and valuable locations, reducing the ability for us to support smaller businesses and less valuable locations through the lower multiplier. We understand the importance of facilities such as post offices or banking hubs for local communities. The average post office has a rateable value of only £16,000, so we do not anticipate that the higher multiplier will apply to very many premises used by post offices, and post offices are eligible for the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
We understand that Amendments 17 and 35 seek to add to the lower multiplier hereditaments that host banking hubs. In the debate we have just had on group 4, I explained why we feel it necessary to target the lower multiplier on RHL. These amendments could easily widen the lower multiplier to other settings and introduce a loophole to the Bill. I assure the Committee that the Government will continue to work closely with high street banks to ensure that communities and local businesses have access to the banking services they need. I hope the Committee is assured that the Government remain committed to banking hubs. With these facts and assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported these amendments. This group has dealt with high street services, in particular, post offices and banking hubs. While it goes unnoticed, a post office remains an essential street service, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. Its use extends well beyond a mail service, and for many, particularly those without internet access, it plays a critical role in ensuring that individuals can pay their bills, collect their pension or access other financial services that a bank would traditionally offer. Indeed, they are the backbone of many of our British high streets, notably those in rural areas. As we enter a digital age, physical banking services offered by bank branches are incredibly hard to come by. When branches close, the impact extends far beyond just customers. It impacts on the whole local economy, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Many small retailers—farmers and other independent traders—continue to rely on cash transactions. When a bank closes, cash withdrawals become harder, credit becomes less accessible and many face greater financial insecurity. In fact, bank closures may be yet another a blow to small businesses, with the Federation of Small Businesses warning that they could result in reduced
“ability to manage cash flow and productivity”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because they drive business on the high street.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11, 28 and 36 in my name, which seek to exempt anchor stores from the scope of the proposed changes in the Bill. These amendments are crucial for safeguarding the health and vitality of our high streets particularly in the context of the ongoing challenges facing retailers and small businesses. I thank all noble Lords who, throughout this debate, have acknowledged the importance of these businesses.
As we are aware, anchor stores play a vital role in the commercial ecosystem of any high street. They act as a significant draw for foot traffic, attracting customers not only to their own establishments but to the surrounding smaller retailers and businesses. It is no exaggeration to say that, without anchor stores, many high streets would be devastated. They are the backbone that supports the smaller independent shops that contribute to the unique character of our local economies.
However, while the higher threshold for non-domestic rates is a well-intentioned measure to ensure that out-of-town warehouses and large-scale online retailers contribute their fair share, we must pause and consider the unintended consequences of this approach. The so-called Amazon tax may be designed with online giants in mind, but the current proposals would also capture larger businesses operating on our high streets—businesses that, in many cases, are anchor stores.
It is a very real concern that these stores become subject to increased rates. They may choose to relocate to out-of-town retail parks where rates are more favourable. This would exacerbate the very problem we are seeking to address—the decline of our high streets and the hollowing out of our town centres. We must ask ourselves what the impact would be on our communities if these anchor stores, which currently act as magnets for footfall, were to disappear from our high streets. Would we see a chain reaction where smaller businesses, already struggling under the pressure of rising costs and changing consumer habits, are left without customers and forced to close? How many small businesses would be driven to the brink if the larger retailers that currently support them were to move away, taking their foot traffic with them? These questions are not just theoretical; they are deeply practical and must be considered carefully if we are to protect the future of our high streets.
Amendments 11, 28 and 36 seek to exempt anchor stores from the broader measures in the Bill and offer a way forward that ensures that we do not punish those businesses that are essential for the economic vibrancies of our town centres. They are about striking the right balance. We must ensure that we support businesses that are critical to the future of our high streets and town centres. Exempting anchor stores from this measure would help to achieve this balance. I ask the Minister to consider whether the current proposals risk harming the very high streets that we all seek to protect. We cannot afford unintentionally to undermine the businesses that are central to our local economies. Exempting anchor stores is a sensible, practical step to ensure the long-term health of our high streets, and I urge the Government truly to reflect on this before moving forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this group of amendments which seeks to exempt so-called anchor stores from high streets.
We could do with a definition of an anchor store and, indeed, of a high street, but we will come to that in a later group. High streets vary enormously from small town high streets and market town high streets to larger town centres and city centres. When there is a new retail development in a town or city centre, the phrase “anchor store” often comes into play. It is very clear in the business sector that retail works better if there is one major store, which is a sun around which the satellites of smaller shops and businesses operate. This is the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, provided. However, that is just for a group of retail businesses, often in a new situation—such as an out-of-town retail park, a new retail development within a larger town centre or an existing large business in a town centre, for example a Marks & Spencer or a John Lewis store that has a multitude of operations within it. That enables other businesses to exist and thrive from the footfall that the big name store attracts.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the importance of these so-called anchor stores, although I would like to see whether the Government have a definition that can be applied. I agree with her argument that smaller businesses develop and thrive as a result of the draw of a so-called anchor store and, equally, the argument that she makes that, because anchor stores are critical to the business environment for the totality of large, medium and small businesses—retail, leisure, hospitality or otherwise, within the sector—it is important to think about whether those often large retail businesses are exempt from the higher multiplier.
I am thinking of a local town high street where the Marks & Spencer closed and moved out some years ago. It was absolutely clear that that was the focus of shoppers going to that town. Once it went, it caused the closure of a whole section of shops in that town and very difficult situation for the businesses that were left. The town will require government money for regeneration to get back on its feet. That is what happens.
So it is important that the Government, in thinking about the Bill and the impact it will have on businesses, think about the consequences of what they are doing. In a previous group, I raised the consequences for public sector-funded businesses, but this is as important for the future health of our town centres. If you take out the key store around which others, like satellites, are drawn because its business sums no longer add up, the whole area will be on a downward spiral.
I will give the Committee an example from some figures that I remember, so they may be wrong. Take John Lewis, which is a big store. It knows that much of its business will move online. I think its business plan expects 60% of its business to move online. If we put an additional cost, as would happen under the large multiplier, on the remaining 40% of its business, I expect that one of the consequences would be that a greater proportion would move out of the high street to online to reduce those costs. That is not what this Government want to happen. They have argued for the importance of the health of our town centres for all sorts of reasons, not just to support small businesses but to support the community which goes there to meet and so on.
It is important that the Government think about the unintended consequences of this rough and ready Bill because it will potentially have very rough consequences on our high streets, particularly those which depend on a big store as the holder of the rest of the businesses around it. I look forward to what the Minister says, but I hope that he does not use “tough choices” and “fair and sustainable”.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I will briefly add a few comments. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has clearly illustrated what happens to a town centre when the anchor departs and the economic health of the shopping environment dies.
The problem we have is that of definitions. When a comprehensive town centre development is designed by developers, it contains, without fail, something called an MSU—a major space unit. That is the anchor, the John Lewis or the Marks & Spencer. When that goes, the only possible replacement, generally speaking, is a supermarket.
If the supermarket becomes the anchor of the economic health of the high street, at the back of a shopping centre, filling the space of the department store that was there before, the supermarket really has to be described as an anchor. I do not disagree with the concept, but it makes the problem one of definitions and gets back to the question of use classes, which we will perhaps be able to speak about with the Bill team at another time.
I agree with the principle of this amendment, but I think it is more complicated. We need to get to the bottom of it, but it is one of definitions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove anchor stores from the higher multiplier. I apologise for being repetitive, but as I explained in the debates on the previous three groups of amendments, we have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. This is the fairest option.
We have also ensured that the Valuation Office Agency has published data on those properties currently falling within the threshold for the higher multiplier. This shows that the impact on high street shops is very limited. I will not repeat those numbers at this time but encourage noble Lords to look at that information.
Alongside noble Lords, we of course appreciate the role anchor stores can play in the high street, but it should be acknowledged that anchor stores are often part of large retail chains that will also have a number of properties with a rateable value of below £500,000. Where retail properties’ rateable value is below £500,000, they will benefit from the lower tax rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure from April 2026.
The amendment would also be difficult to operationalise and would require the Government to define the meaning of an anchor store. It would be very difficult to define these stores in the way that the noble Baroness is thinking. There are anchor stores in almost every out-of-town shopping centre and retail park, and what is an anchor store beyond a large shop?
While I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, I do not think it follows that we should exempt anchor stores from the higher multiplier, nor do I think that this can easily be done without, in effect, removing all shops. Some very difficult decisions have been made, and we need to ensure that the system is long-standing and continues in a fair manner. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and all others who have mentioned this issue throughout the afternoon. There is an important role for anchor stores. To the definition, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that they should ask communities and their residents what would be an anchor store in their local town centre and ask the sector to discuss that as well. As a former leader of a council for many years, and knowing many council leaders, as I do, I know that they know exactly what an anchor store at any one time would be for the size and type of the high street they are trying not only to protect but to keep being a high street for any length of time. Many leaders of councils across this country have spent many hours working with the sector to get exactly that in order to make sure that they have a good thriving and surviving high street for their local communities.
As we have said, we all agree that these stores play a crucial role in the vitality of high streets and town centres. We know that they drive footfall, support local businesses and contribute significantly to the economic and social fabric of our communities. That is why it is important that we find a definition and a way through this. Without them, many of our high streets will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. I have spoken to the sector, and these businesses will leave the high street and go out of town where it is cheaper. Not only that, but they may even go out of business and, as we are seeing, go permanently online. That will not help our high streets.
As I have said, the changes in the Bill could inadvertently harm these vital businesses and place an undue burden on them, pushing them out of our high streets. The Bill follows several other damaging decisions that businesses are having to fund. This one at the end of it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Not only will it likely leave anchor stores paying higher business rates; they will also be paying increased staff costs, as we talked about earlier.
These decisions will have a cost, and if the Government continue to make them, we are worried that there will be no businesses left in the high street to tax. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns raised by many noble Lords today. We just want a fair and equitable business rates system—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
And equitable. We must not overlook the specific need, as we have all said—across parties—to protect our high streets for our communities for the future. We believe that exempting anchor stores from these changes is a measured and practical way of safeguarding the future of our town centres. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister on this before Report but, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
(a) as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues,(b) for assembly and leisure, or(c) as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe what hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality or leisure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 16, 34 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox seek to provide a much-needed definition for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which is sadly missing from the Bill. We keep being told by the Minister that one will be provided, but here is one that he might like to use.
These three amendments propose that the hereditaments defined as retail, hospitality and leisure should be
“shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues”,
and those used
“for assembly and leisure, or … as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation”.
We believe that that probably covers the gamut of RHL hereditaments and hope that the Minister will agree that it is an inclusive list. We hope that he will accept it so that the Treasury does not have to define one.
We have to understand that it is really important to local businesses to have certainty about their costs. This aspect of the Bill has not been touched on yet today. I speak to businesses in my locality, and they are concerned about potential increases in their costs. They need to plan ahead—not just one year but a couple of years at least, and, for cafés or restaurants, even further to be able to plan business costs and make sure that they end the day on the right side of the red line.
It is not helpful to the business community that it is not clear what the definition will be. If, as some of us suspect, it is the same definition as was provided under the rate relief over Covid, then let us understand that. If it will exclude some businesses included in that rate relief, that needs to be clear as well. Time is of the essence here, because the Covid rate relief, as we have heard, is declining considerably and businesses need to know how that will impact their bottom line.
That is the purpose of the first three amendments in our names—to get some certainty so that businesses, particularly small businesses, which this element of the Bill focuses on, understand what additional costs are coming their way. We still do not know, unless the Minister tells us, the consequence of, on the one hand, reducing the Covid relief and, on the other, the business rate changes. That is important. A few thousand pounds here and there can make the difference for a small business between survival and closure, so it is important for this Committee and for businesses to understand.
Amendment 51 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox is slightly different. It tries to put some definition around these fabled “high streets”. The Government have said that they wish to protect high streets and lower the burden of costs on them while increasing the costs for big distribution warehouses. With that I concur, but it is important that we understand what is meant by “high streets”.
In the National Planning Policy Framework, there is a requirement to define what a high street or, more appropriately, town centre should be. When local planning authorities produce their local plans for a strategic approach to planning in their area, they are required to put a boundary around their town centres, because they often have particular importance for grant funding, transport and the consequences of all sorts of operations.
So there is a way of defining a high street or a town centre that encompasses the so-called high street. By “high street”, I believe the Government mean the essential businesses in a town centre. There is an ability for local authorities to use the NPPF to provide that definition. The Government could then enable all businesses within the boundary of a town centre to have a reduced multiplier, which would enable a thriving and prosperous town centre. That would benefit not only those businesses that operate within the town centre but the community that they serve.
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.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their Amendments 16, 34, 42 and 51. I understand the intention of these amendments is to understand further, first, what hereditaments will be included in the definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties; and, secondly, the intended application of the new multipliers to high streets.
The definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be set out via secondary legislation later this year, as I repeated earlier. However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this broadly to follow the definition that is used for the current RHL relief; I note that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are familiar with this definition, as their amendment draws on the guidance published by the Government. When introduced from 2026-27, the new multipliers that this Bill makes provision for will apply to all relevant hereditaments, regardless of their geographical location.
It is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower RHL multipliers: one for RHL properties with a rateable value of between £51,000 and £499,999; and another one for RHL properties with a rateable value of below £51,000. All qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be eligible for these new multipliers. This approach will best ensure that support is targeted towards RHL businesses based on the high street while working within the existing business rates architecture. We are moving from a stopgap, ad hoc, year-to-year relief scheme to a permanent lower multiplier that provides greater certainty for business.
It is also the Government’s intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above—a point that I have made previously. Again, this will affect all properties that meet that criterion, regardless of their geographical location. It is the Government’s view that this is the fairest approach and that trying to restrict the application of the different multipliers based on geography would create unintended consequences and would likely drive perverse incentives.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for introducing the use of the relief definitions. If I have got this wrong, I am very happy for him to tell me so, but my understanding is that the bottom level of below £49,000, I think, were not paying business rates at all. Is that correct? Will they now be classified along with everyone else and pay business rates with the appropriate reduction put on to them, in which case they will go from paying no rates to some—albeit less than the full rate, as we would have seen it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just to clarify, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has got it wrong because the zero, as in no business rates, is for rateable values—£12,000 in particular—and it is then tapered, so the relief decreases as it goes to £15,000.
Lord Fox (LD)
Do they now come into the system or do they continue to have a zero rate under the proposals of this Bill?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just to clarify for noble Lords, there will be no change to small business rate relief—that is not changing—so they will still pay tax.
It is the Government’s view that this is the fairest approach and that trying to restrict the application of the different multipliers based on geography would create unintended consequences and would likely drive perverse incentives. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line around a town centre. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a suggestion around using the understanding of the term as per the National Planning Policy Framework, but that framework does not set a definition of a town centre. It should be noted that the framework suggests those centres identified in development plans, but this does not represent a requirement that all centres are identified. We also know that many areas do not have up-to-date development plans and that, therefore, centres that are identified may not reflect current realities.
Such an approach would essentially give local planning authorities the power to determine where multipliers should apply and could restrict their application from smaller retail centres that might be essential to particular neighbourhoods. Furthermore, it could result in the higher multiplier not being able to be applied to large warehouses used by online businesses or other properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or above if they are not located in a town centre, as these would fall outside the definition of a town centre. I do not think that is the noble Lords’ intention, but it is important to clarify that point. I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify the areas of interest and provided reassurance on the Government’s policy in this space. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, for their supportive comments, as the Minister was not so helpful. Businesses require clarity and certainty. To tell us that secondary legislation will be needed to set out the definition of RHL means that clarity and certainty will be pushed further down the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I wrote down what he said: secondary legislation will set out the definitions. By definition, that will be after this Bill has gone through its processes.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in the very same sentence I said:
“However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this to broadly follow the definition that is used for the current RHL”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
In which case, I apologise to the Minister. I must have missed that bit of his explanation. We have been saying right from the start that Covid relief would be the definition for RHL, and that is the clarity people need. I hope the Government will inform businesses that, if they currently get Covid relief, they will qualify under this Bill. Equally, we will be pushing the Government to expand that definition. It is not as inclusive as some of us think it should be if the aim is for small businesses to thrive or have reduced costs, as opposed to distribution warehouses and online retailers.
On the last amendment, I disagree with the Minister because the National Planning Policy Framework—which I have read—sets out what a town centre is. Local planning authorities have the responsibility to form a local plan. The Minister is right: far too many local planning authorities have failed in that responsibility. However, the Government have said that they expect local planning authorities to produce a local plan. In that case, all local planning authorities would produce a local plan in which they can define what is included within the boundaries of several town centres within their purview. That is really important because lots of issues follow from being within the purview of a town centre.
I hope that the Minister will perhaps go away and think with his officials about whether this could be used as a definition for businesses within the purview that will be set out in the local plan so that this Bill— the Government have stated that its aim is to help the so-called high street, which, as I have said, will be the town centre—will help businesses to thrive despite the growing competition that they face from online retailers, which, by the very nature of business rates, pay much less than those businesses do in town centres even after this multiplier is applied. With that plea to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, this will be the last group today.
Amendment 21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(9D) In sub-paragraph (9B) the £500,000 threshold must be increased on 1 April each year by at least the CPI.(9E) The CPI is the Consumer Price Index percentage recorded by the Office for National Statistics for September of the financial year preceding the relevant year concerned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to increase the £500,000 threshold with inflation to ensure businesses don’t get drawn into the higher rate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 in this group seek to introduce a statutory index-linked uplift in the threshold for the higher multiplier in line with inflation. These specific amendments relate to the level of the threshold in future years, so I am grateful for this opportunity to have a brief and specific debate on the threshold.
We have already probed the Government over their arbitrary threshold of £500,000, but I hope that, in response to this group, the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s current plans for uprating the threshold in future. There are no measures in the Bill to prevent more businesses being caught by this threshold over time. We are told that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller high street businesses to be hit by the higher multiplier, but inflation and a fixed threshold mean that that will be an inevitable result of this policy. I remind the Committee at this point that, thanks to the Government’s Budget measures, inflation rose by 3% in the 12 months to January 2025, up from 2.5% in the 12 months to December 2024. As the hereditament valuations rise over time, more and more businesses will be paying higher business rates.
If the Minister feels that the CPI is not the correct index to tie this threshold to, we are open to discussions about that. Our goal here is to probe the Government’s willingness to explore increases in the thresholds going forward to protect small businesses that should never have been caught by the higher multiplier threshold from facing higher taxes by the back door. Can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller businesses to be hit by these higher taxes? If the Government do not intend to hit smaller businesses with higher taxes, can the Minister give us an undertaking to look at the threshold and consider including in this Bill a measure that would deliver either an index-linked uprating of the threshold or, as a minimum, a power for Ministers to uprate the threshold without having to bring primary legislation before the House again? We are generally cautious of new regulatory powers but, provided that a power was limited to uprating and excluded the possibility of lowering the threshold, that might be a way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think this might be the last group today; I would say that we have done very well to get this far. I shall speak to these four amendments. The first three make an assumption that the £500,000 threshold was right in the first place. Of course, that is really addressed by the fourth amendment, so I am going to speak to it. It is right that there should be some form of uprating, but I am more intrigued about how the figure of £500,000 was alighted on in the first place.
If we were looking at something that was broadly financially neutral, I do not know how we would know, because we do not know how the flexible upper rate will be applied, so we do not know how much money that will raise. We therefore do not know whether £500,000 was the right number to make it financially neutral. Was it chosen for a business reason? Are businesses of that size particular sorts of business that we need to factor in, in a different way, or was there some other sociological plan involved in choosing £500,000? My big question for the Minister is who chose the number. Was it DHCLG or the Treasury?
Lord Fox (LD)
Whatever it is called these days—they keep changing it, and I never normally address this particular crowd. Was it the Minister’s ministry or was it the Treasury? If it was the Treasury, I rather think we should have a Treasury Minister here to answer the question of why it was a £500,000 limit, because it seems to me that it is a very round, arbitrary number. It would have been more convincing had it been £550,000; it might have looked like some thought had gone into it. This looks like a dart-throwing exercise.
So can the Minister explain what was behind the number? Is it trying to balance the money raised? If so, how can you know when your top rate is a top rate and is not necessarily applied? If it is the nature of a business, what is it about the nature of the business? If it is from an analysis of every single £500,000 business, what criteria were used to make that analysis? In other words, where did it come from?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 concern the rateable value threshold above which the higher multiplier may apply. This is set in the Bill at no less than £500,000, as we have heard repeatedly in contributions by noble Lords. The Bill allows the Government to set a higher threshold through regulations if they wish, but the amendments would require this threshold to be increased annually in line with CPI.
Alongside the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has given notice of her intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. It would therefore be appropriate at this point if I set out why Clause 3 should stand part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, raises a reasonable question as to whether, and if so how, the £500,000 threshold should change over time and other noble Lords have also raised this point. Of course, we would expect that, over time, the value of properties and therefore their rateable values will increase as the economy grows. As these rateable values grow, the current threshold in the Bill of £500,000 will, relatively speaking, be smaller and more properties may be drawn into that category. That is the issue that the noble Baroness is probing with these amendments.
However, I do not think these amendments are the answer to that issue. First, and perhaps most importantly, rateable values will not increase annually in line with inflation or with any other measure of property value or the economy. Rateable values are set every three years at revaluations, and between those revaluations will not change other than for matters such as physical changes to the property.
The Government have set out that our intention for the 2026 rating lists is for the threshold for the higher multiplier to be set at a £500,000 rateable value. The Government consider that this will best ensure that sufficient revenue is raised to provide for a meaningful level of support for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and will do so in an objectively equitable way.
The 2026 rating list will last for three years, and those rateable values will not increase over that period, other than if, as I have said before, the property is expanded or improved, for example. By extension, the 2029 revaluation will be the next logical moment to consider whether the £500,000 threshold remains the appropriate minimum for the new higher multiplier.
In approaching these considerations, the Government will need to examine how rateable values have changed at the revaluation but also what support is to be provided to retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, consequently, how much revenue is needed to be raised from the higher multiplier.
I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that there are several factors the Government will need to consider and balance, beyond just the changes in rateable value. More broadly, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that in relation to the proposed amendment, the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold in the relevant regulations should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether MHCLG or the Treasury decided. It was the Government who decided. As much as I love darts, it definitely was not a dart-throwing exercise.
I will now expand further on Clause 3 so that, I hope, noble Lords can agree that it should stand part of the Bill. We have discussed several amendments in relation to Clause 3 today, so I shall try to keep my remarks to the point and not go over previously covered ground too much.
Clause 3 is concerned with how we will determine to which hereditaments those multipliers should apply. It is split into three main parts, concerning occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2), unoccupied hereditaments in Clause 3(3), and hereditaments on the central rating list in Clause 3(4). Properties on the central list are typically utility networks spanning many local authority areas, such as the gas, electricity and water networks. Each of these parts of Clause 3 are essentially identical, so to save the Committee from repetition, I will explain the provisions on occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2) only.
The most important part of Clause 3(2) is the small amendment made by Clause 3(2)(a) to existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under those existing powers, the Treasury already has the ability to determine in regulations which multiplier applies to which property. Those powers, in respect of occupied properties, are in paragraph 10(9) and 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. Clause 3(2)(a) amends that part of the 1988 Act to extend those powers to cover also the new additional multipliers. This means that the Treasury will be able to determine by regulations which properties pay on which multiplier.
As with Clause 1, we have included in Clause 3 safeguards as to how the Treasury may use these powers. These limit the higher multipliers to hereditaments with a rateable value of £500,000 or more and limit the lower multipliers to only qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments.
Finally on Clause 3, the existing powers for determining the application of the multiplier allow the Treasury to do that by reference to a list of factors found in paragraph 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. This is a non-exhaustive list that includes factors such as its rateable value, location or use. Clause 3(2)(c) expressly gives the Treasury the scope also to determine the application of the multipliers by reference to the description which the Valuation Office Agency puts in the rating list.
I hope that this further information provides the reassurance and clarity needed for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and agree that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for speaking in this debate. He actually brought today’s debate right back to the beginning: where did the £500,000 figure come from? If we could get that from the Minister, it would be very useful for our debates as we enter Report.
The answer to whether there will be any further uplifts, is, I understand, the revaluation, which is in three years, but three years could go on. I go back to the difficulty that this makes for businesses to plan when they know they are going to hit that cliff edge of £500,000 and that their business rates are going to go up considerably. I go back to the example of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, who gave the example of the health centre that wants to build an extension, which could possibly move it across; the health centre would need to think very seriously about doing that extension, and this will happen across all investment in different types of businesses, which I think is worrying.
This is something that we could resolve together by a relatively straightforward amendment to the Bill, and I hope that the Government will do the right thing in protecting these smaller businesses from being hit with higher business rates inappropriately in the future. But, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, well done—I think we have finished just before the vote.