The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

James Murray

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Was that 75% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses due to expire in April 2025?

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you, Mr Watson, for taking the time to be here and for the insight you have provided on that first question. I am interested in the point about the number of multipliers. If I understand you correctly, there is a risk that the more multipliers you provide, the more confusion there might be in the system. However, the counter-argument—this is certainty our position—is that the business rate system is a blunt tool almost by design, and that by creating this different approach, we can better target the support that we provide not only for retail, hospitality and leisure, but for the large footprint occupiers, warehouses and distributors, where we create that pool of funding. I am interested to get an insight into how you and your members would see that balance being struck in the right way.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q On that point, is that not why this measure is so important? If we think about the types of shocks that many businesses face, the pandemic was exceptional but also profound. Having that flexibility to move quickly and adapt was very important to the system.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q The first part of the question was more about how agile the system can be. Providing for secondary legislation as part of this Bill is about having that agility and being able to move to recognise any shocks in the system to ensure that, if there is a hit to the local economy, or the high street in particular, the system can move quickly enough at the right point to save it.

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q For the record, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mr Gerrard, many of the stores that you operate are not on the high street or in town and city centres; they are often the last remaining store on the estate in a community. How do you think this Bill might contribute to making those more viable? During the pandemic, when children were being educated from home and given vouchers to get meals during the day, we found that there were significant retail deserts in large parts of the country where that immediate meal was not available, bar the local convenience store on the estate or in the local neighbourhood. From that perspective, beyond the high street and town centres, what impact do you think these measures might have?

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Leading on from that, one of the other measures in the proposals would remove the current cap on the temporary relief so that multiple operators, including national operators such as the Co-op and others, will benefit more from this scheme. I am interested in your view, because you will no doubt have a view on the tax system in the round and the impact it has on the business overall. Is it recognised that there is an attempt being made here to make sure that those national retailers are as important to the high street and communities as independent retailers, and actually it is the ecosystem overall that makes a place thrive?

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for giving time to give evidence today, Mr Woodall. You explained the nature of your members and the fact that their businesses are very much anchors of the community. They are the place that provides the food, but also, in many places, they provide access to finance, post office facilities, postal services and so on. How many of your members do you assess will benefit from the measures, given that the relief is targeted at retail, hospitality and leisure businesses of the scale you talk about?

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q On the point that you made about the potential to improve the system more generally, clearly we want this to be a measure that supports the fabric of community. In the end, these are retail businesses, but they are often the places that bind communities together. That is very much the way that we as a Government perceive them, and perceive the value of our high streets and our precincts in our villages and towns. From your perspective, what measures could be taken to really target the measure to ensure the support is given where it is needed?

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for attending the evidence session, and for the written evidence that you have provided by way of preparation for the meeting. I think there is an acceptance in the evidence that you have given that any business rate system ends up having to draw the line somewhere; it is the nature of the multipliers and of the value that you apply. It stands a fact that, when it comes to most of your members, despite the 4,000 that you say will be above the £500,000 threshold, 772,000 are below the threshold. Therefore, it stands the case that the vast majority of your members will be the beneficiaries of the measures taken here.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q It does, a bit, but I am not entirely sure it hits at the facts, to be blunt about it. It is not the case, from the evidence, that properties above £500,000 are essentially cross-subsidising those below £500,000. Those above £500,000 are only 7.5% of the total rateable value in the whole system. It is not the case that we are seeing that transfer.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That would be very helpful.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence today, Mr Adam. I absolutely accept what you said—you are far more qualified than me on these matters, and I will not try to test some of it. However, I can say from my experience in Oldham that businesses are asking for respite and that they have found things very difficult. Although covid has been and gone, the operating environment before covid was difficult for many high streets and town centres, particularly for retail, hospitality and leisure. In some places, particularly where the economy is vibrant and there is high demand for premises, there might be a shift from business rates to rent as the system is moved round, but in most places, where there is not that high demand and there are lots of vacant units, it is about making the activity more affordable so that people can operate and keep their heads above water, and there probably will not be the shift that you talked about.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q I accept that up to a point, but the temporary relief that the previous Government brought in to cover the impact of covid on the high street and retail, hospitality and leisure was introduced at a time when the sector was decimated and the country and the economy changed beyond recognition, in a way that none of us had experienced. That is not the world today, but the operating environment is still very difficult. Have you made an assessment of the impact of the previous temporary relief coming to an end in the form of a cliff edge? It was just going to stop and there was no provision for it to continue in any form in the Budget or the overall forecast. What impact would that have had on the high street?

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Is part of the tension not that the question described a broken market, but that response describes a functioning market? Is the real issue that many institutional investors would sooner have an empty property with a notional rent attached to it, even if the rent is never achieved, than accept a tenant for a lower rent that would have an impact on their overall balance sheet? Is there not a tension there?

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.

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you, Dr James, for taking the time to give evidence today. We are particularly interested in the evidence you have amassed on the impact of this proposal. Where should the Government focus in mitigating the impact during the course of the process? To take what I think I have heard, the evidence you have provided is that, as a starting principle, the Government do not need to go here because there are plenty of other options, but the fact is that we have chosen to go here. What we are trying to get from the evidence sessions is that, within the decision that has been taken—

Dr James: I am sorry; I am having a bit of difficulty hearing what you are saying distinctly.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q But those are provided for in the scope of the proposed legislation. Schools that have more than half of their intake of children in that situation would be exempt—for those in receipt of a local authority EHCP.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q If it is a stalking horse, it is a fairly mild one. The impact, even if every pound was passed on per pupil, is just over £300 a year—less than £1 a day.

Dr James: I am sorry; I am having difficulty hearing what you are saying.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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—

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q But not on this measure. I am happy to conclude my remarks.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for giving evidence, and for the insight that you provided, which I thought was very comprehensive and gave a good insight into the industry. We all accept just how important pubs are, not just to the economy, but to our communities. In many places, they are where communities come together, where families meet and where memories are made. In many working-class communities, they are also buildings of note—of interest—that add character. All that is taken, and the work that your members do is appreciated. The Government are trying to give certainty in the system and to say that it is not good enough that, year on year, you do not know what is coming down the line. We want you to be able to plan ahead. We want you to know the Government will stand with you.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q This part of the sector is unique in that turnover is so closely aligned to rateable value in a way that is different from other parts of the system. We accept that. You will know about this from your members, and I hear it all the time as a constituency MP—I have large family brewery, JW Lees, that operates heavily in my constituency, and it is very good—but when margins are tight, how much of that is down to a number of factors that are outside the Government’s control, not least rent? We heard earlier from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose evidence indicated that there is a market adjustment: on one side there may well be a rate increase or decrease, but on the other side the rent will move accordingly. I accept that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but it would be helpful to get your assessment of the marketplace, the rent levels that are applied to these businesses and how much those impact viability—well beyond business rates.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q As a quick supplementary, what is your assessment of the number of your members that will benefit from the measures being taken?

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for the evidence you have given, and for making the time to come to this evidence session, which is our opportunity to get an insight into the nuances and how things feel on the ground. We talk about private schools and the independent sector, but the truth is that those terms represent a broad spread of different types of schools in terms of their make-ups, pupil numbers, financial models and so on. It would be helpful to get a snapshot of the variety of schools in the system, including by perhaps comparing and contrasting a couple of different schools, and then I will follow up.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q There is a variety of different schools with different specialisms, particularly those special needs schools. Clearly, we have made provisions to ensure that those with more than 50% of pupils in receipt of an EHCP are exempt from this, so they are out of scope. In the end, do you think that many parents feel the need to go to the independent sector because they do not feel that the mainstream provision is adequate? On that basis, is that a reflection that the Government’s priority of rebuilding that mainstream provision, including the significant investment of £1 billion this year, is essentially about fixing the system so that parents have genuine choice, and do not feel that they have to go to the independent sector?

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q What I was trying to get to more was—to say “evidence” would be pushing it too far—the assessment that has been made of the impact. We hear language like, “Our parents are aspirational,” but all parents, by and large, are aspirational, regardless of the school their children go to. I am aspirational, and my son goes to a state school; that does not mean I am a lesser parent.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q It is important to say, though, that the 1 million vacancies I referred to are in existing schools. So the teachers are in the classrooms, and the buildings are there. These are vacancies in the existing school system.

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence. One thing that we are particularly interested in is ensuring that, within the scope of the Bill—the measures that are being taken, particularly on the multipliers and the reliefs—we understand the impact on the ground in our town and cities, and in the wider economy.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q These measures are very deliberately targeted at those smaller properties in retail, hospitality and leisure that are generally the backbone of our high streets and town centres. Your institutional members, who are investors in those places, must also reflect on the fact that many of those places are really struggling. Where they may be a landlord and the demand just is not there, it will be, by and large, because the business does not believe it can keep its head above water, notwithstanding the rent levels. Do you and your association think that a stable system that has a permanent relief—one that takes away the cliff edge and temporary support, which has been there since covid, to give long-term support—will be good not only for communities but for investors, who will be able to fill those vacant units?

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q It was more about a recognition from industry that, for the institutional investors in property, the Government are going a long way to bake a permanent relief into the system, rather than year-on-year reliefs. That relief can help to fill those units that investors maybe really struggle to let because, whatever the rent levels, they are just not commercially viable for the end user, and these measures will help in that end.

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you for taking the time to give evidence and for your direct and matter-of-fact responses, which in a debate that can be emotive is very welcome to an evidence Committee. The Government want to ensure that, in seeing the legislation through, we fully take into account the likely impact on the school system and on the individual pupils and parents, but the fact is that most schools will seek to absorb this, as they would any other operating cost. It would be helpful to understand, if you have made an assessment, the likely displacement of pupils from the independent sector to the state sector as a result of this measure.

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q My next point is about the accommodation that we have sought to make for SEND pupils, in particular for those schools with a majority of pupils in that category. We recognise that that is an important part of the school system overall. Many councils contract to such schools to ensure that children who need the support get that provision. What is your assessment of the impact of the measures in the Bill on that particular cohort of children? Do you need to separate—in my view, you do—the overall impact across the sector from that on the children who are most in need of specialist support? Under the proposed measures, we seek to give them protection.

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.

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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?

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thought I was going to come back at the end of that debate, but it is fine.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Do you mean to say some words?

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thought you meant generally.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.

Jim McMahon

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

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.