Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Wednesday 15th January 2025
(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
17:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 342 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 341 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 341 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of impact of new multipliers—
“(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,
(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.
(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—
(a) businesses,
(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and
(c) Billing Authorities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.
New clause 3—Sections 1 to 4: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, conduct an assessment of the expected impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on relevant businesses.
(2) The assessment must compare the amount of non-domestic rates expected to be paid by relevant businesses once sections 1 to 4 come into force with the amount paid in each financial year between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2026.
(3) The assessment must consider how the impact is expected to differ depending on the number of hereditaments a business occupies.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the assessment.
(5) In this section, a “relevant business” is a business occupying a qualifying retail, hospitality or leisure hereditament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site compared with those occupying multiple sites.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 33, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, page 4, line 9, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, page 4, line 13, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, page 4, line 31, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 35, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from ”persons” to end of line 38 and insert—
“who have special educational needs.
“(5A) In subsection (5) “special educational needs” has the same meaning as in section 20 (When a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“, or
(b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school.
(5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)—
“religious character” has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
“other special character” has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation,
“specified distance” is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.
(5B) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school.
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, leave out “2025” and insert “2026”.
Vikki Slade
Business rates reform is long overdue. It is frequently cited by my constituents as the biggest concern for their businesses’ survival and one of the most direct inhibitors to their growth.
I was contacted this week by a constituent from a local business in Three Legged Cross, right on the edge of my constituency. He has been running it for over 40 years, and the cliff edge created by the small business rate relief means that his rates bill will go from £2,800 to £8,500 per year. The only thing that will save this microbusiness is systemic change as proposed by the Lib Dems in our manifesto, not a tax based on an arbitrary valuation that bears no relationship to the activity taking place inside his building.
High streets are trying to redefine themselves, moving from the heart of goods purchasing to literal shop windows as they struggle to compete against online competitors that do not have their overheads. It would be wrong to think that the solution is to try to return to the perfect high street of the past, as if such a thing exists.
I am old enough to remember C&A being the place me and my friends browsed for the latest fashions, and there was a Blockbuster video store and pic ’n’ mix from Woolies. Where are they now? It is dangerous and self-defeating to be caught up in toxic nostalgia, trying to reclaim the past as some kind of perfect place. Parliament must enact legislation that supports the society of tomorrow and towns that will work for a technological and multicultural age—indeed, an age in which people can no longer afford the stuff that we used to buy on a Saturday afternoon, or are choosing, as I do now, to buy their stuff from second-hand stores.
The dangerous gap between the slashing of retail hospitality and leisure relief by almost half, and a regime that brings in as yet undefined new multipliers, brings real risk. Our new clause 1 would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, on high streets and on the real prize of economic growth that the Government mention so often. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about decisions being made without clear impact assessments. As we move through a period of reform, enshrining such an assessment in law, rather than questioning later whether it has been done, would save us all a lot of trouble and demonstrate that the Government genuinely want to make improvements.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One issue that the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned is the impact of the Employment Rights Bill, which will create further red tape for our high street businesses when it comes into play. Do the Liberal Democrats think that the Government should consider that? Changing taxes and rates is one thing, but creating red tape at the very same time, constraining business growth, is another.
Vikki Slade
I agree that this is a difficult time for small businesses, with so many things changing at the same time—not least the increasing national insurance rates.
To return to the role of the high street, the most successful high streets are moving quickly to reinvent themselves. Since my election, I have been trying to find a high street location for my constituency office. I had decided to base myself in the historic market town of Wimborne, where my mum lived and my children went to school. It is the fastest-growing community in Mid Dorset and North Poole—Ministers have heard me talk about its housing problems many times—and it has great bus routes. I thought it would be a great place to find a small unit easily.
I was wrong, however. The strength of the sense of place, the innovation of its businesses and the hard work of its business improvement district and its town council are such that when a business closes down, others are waiting to move in. I have finally found my new home, which will open by the end of the month when we have fitted it out, but the experience proved what I already knew: the high street can survive, but only when the business community is prepared to give people what they want. Retailers such as Tickles and Co. trade alongside the hospice shop, and old businesses such as Bartletts, which has for 120 years sold smart clothes for all seasons, are able to sustain themselves despite changes in the market.
The Lib Dems welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, and we acknowledge that the financial situation the Government were left by the previous Government makes the 75% discount difficult to maintain, but any discount is worthless if businesses that are trying to stabilise following the covid pandemic, the energy crisis and the shift to online cashless purchasing do not even make it through the next year. As I have said before, that is not the reform that business needs. The Minister has already said that this is just phase 1, but we are incredibly frustrated that he has not taken the opportunity to take things further.
New clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), focuses our proposals further on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, and raises valid points about the risk to individual businesses compared with those that have multiple branches. There must be an assessment of that risk alongside a broader impact assessment.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
My hon. Friend is giving an impassioned speech about the importance of business rates reform. Does she agree that there is a risk of unintended consequences in what the Government are proposing? At the moment, the 75% relief is capped at £110,000, but when the relief goes to zero in two years’ time, that cap will not exist. House of Commons Library research shows that the net effect could be that small businesses end up being 80% worse off, while big chains such as Starbucks could be 40% better off. Although it is important that we get a review of the impact of business rates, it is also important that we get the differential assessment set out in new clause 3.
Vikki Slade
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One problem is the same law of unintended consequences that we have seen with things like the national insurance increase—which, as we repeat over and over again, is impacting small businesses, hospices, doctors’ surgeries and things like that—when quite understandably, an attempt is made to raise funds from elsewhere.
I want to share the views of Anthony Woodhouse, the chair of Hall and Woodhouse brewery and pub chain, founded and based in Dorset but with a branch just across the way from this place—unfortunately, I am not able to be at its event in Portcullis House because of the timing of today’s debate. Anthony told me that the revaluing of property when a huge amount of money has just been invested to make it fit for a changing market, and before you have even had a chance to benefit from that market, is completely crazy and discourages business investment. As such, it is important that as we look to reform business rates, we examine that issue as well.
Despite our failure to do that, businesses such as Anthony’s are responding to the market. Pubs such as the Olive Branch in Wimborne and the Old Granary on Wareham quay are now places where muddy boots, children and dogs are welcome, and where they sell as many cups of coffee as pints of local beer. The high street needs to morph as businesses have—to be ready and willing to change—but while business rate reform rightly starts with the high street, it is important that it does not end there.
As such, I turn to our amendments 1 to 6, which would add manufacturing businesses to the lower multiplier. The UK has a rich history of manufacturing excellence, and Barclays’ “Made in Britain” report found that a product being made in Britain held an important influence over consumers’ decision to purchase it, with customers perceiving such products to be high quality, reliable and internationally respected. The “made in Britain” tag was found to be worth an addition £3.5 billion a year to our UK exporters, which is why we believe that the lower multiplier should also apply to manufacturing businesses. We need to give those businesses a shot in the arm to ensure they can compete on the world stage. The threats by incoming President Trump to put tariffs on UK products, our continued isolation from our neighbours through an inadequate Brexit deal, and the rapid growth of economies such as China and India represent a real threat to local manufacturing.
Poole Bay Holdings, based in my constituency, stands ready to produce its innovative Koolpak here in the UK. Anybody who has children will know the brand Koolpak—it is that ice pack that is not even ice—and that business has been modifying its equipment so that it can make the product here, in Dorset, to compete with China. It stands ready to drive up those sales. Recognition of such businesses through a lower multiplier, or at least the potential to include them in a lower multiplier if the market becomes more tricky, is the intent behind our amendments.
Turning to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the Liberal Democrats simply do not believe in the taxation of education. Alongside the changes to VAT, the removal of the special status for schools is really disappointing. Therefore, those amendments—which seek to recognise the value of schools for children whose needs are difficult to meet elsewhere, whether those are special educational needs and disabilities or whether people are choosing to educate in a faith school—seem reasonable.
In summary, this Bill is a fair start, and some businesses will feel it is better than the abyss that might otherwise have been. However, the Government could and should have taken different decisions to protect businesses that will face additional costs in just a few weeks’ time. We are often asked how we would pay for it; I welcome that discussion, as there were many proposals in our manifesto, from taxing big banks to asking gambling companies to pay their fair share. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I recognise that the Government have worked quickly to bring this Bill forward, but the risks of losing businesses en route to something better are just too great. We need proper reform, so that the businesses of the mid-21st century can weather the storms ahead.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this Bill, having been part of the scrutiny process in Committee.
The Committee heard representations from a wide variety of experts in related fields, and I was heartened by the news that many experts felt that this Bill would have a positive impact on 98% of the retail stores that make up our communities. In particular, small convenience stores such as the local Co-op or the great British corner shop will see great benefits to their capacity to support staffing, security and other operational functions. Our incredible independent shopkeepers, such as those who populate the high streets of Ilkeston and Long Eaton in my constituency, will have more funds to take on additional staff, improve their security set-ups and gain long-term confidence in their ability to serve our community. These measures represent a simple, common-sense approach to rebalancing the scales in favour of local retailers and away from the online giants, and increasing taxes on the biggest players while relieving the burden on local retailers.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member may have heard my earlier intervention. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we have to shift the burden away from small businesses on to big online retailers. However, that could be undermined if all we do is shift the burden on to the big chains. House of Commons Library research says that small independent businesses are going to end up subsidising the big chains. Does he share my concern that this could be an unintended consequence and that the Government must look at it?
Adam Thompson
I refer to Hansard for the discussions we had in Committee, but that did not come through in the evidence we heard. However, I respect the fact that the hon. Member has made that point, and I thank her for doing so.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), another sector to benefit significantly from these measures is our local pubs. The fine folk frequenting the Sawley Junction in Long Eaton or the Bulls Head in Breaston in my constituency can rest easy that their locals are in safe hands. More generally, the measures we are bringing forward will reduce the tax burden on the hospitality sector, which is considered by many to be overtaxed. I am very glad that the Government have been able to offer something positive to the sector, which has been broadly forgotten for many years.
Some of the Bill’s opponents have suggested that the removal of charitable relief from non-domestic rates for private schools will have a negative impact on the parents of privately educated children, so I was strongly heartened to hear from one of our experts during the scrutiny process in Committee. Professor Francis Greene, professor of work and education economics at the University College London institute of education, noted that this Bill will have a “marginal” effect on the education sector, and that the policy was fair and would generally not have a great deal of impact on the proportion of children in private schools, which has remained broadly constant over the past 20 years, despite a cash-terms doubling in fees.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on what he has just said, which is that the proportion of children going to private schools has stayed constant? Even the Government’s own analysis does not say that. It says that the number has stayed broadly constant, and in fact the proportion has come down.
Adam Thompson
If I am incorrect, I stand corrected. My understanding from speaking to the experts is that the proportion has remained broadly consistent, but my apologies if that is incorrect. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.
The Committee stage reaffirmed what many of us on the Government Benches already knew, which is that this Bill represents a common-sense modification of our tax policy that will support local small businesses. The Bill represents a core pillar of this Government’s goal to rebalance the scales away from large online giants in favour of local independents and towards the 94% of children educated in the state sector. I know that traders and families in Ilkeston, Long Eaton and the surrounding villages in my constituency will broadly benefit from these measures, and I am proud to support this Bill through its remaining stages unamended.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I intend to confine my remarks to two specific amendments—amendments 3 and 10, on private schools and special educational needs and disabilities—that would delay the introduction of this tax hike so schools have more time to plan financially.
Schools in my constituency have been punished by a series of tax rises since this Labour Government took office in July. By adding VAT to private school fees, and now by ending their charitable business rate relief status, Labour is attacking aspiration. These tax hikes will not hurt the wealthiest. It is the people who have scrimped and saved to send their children to a school of their choice who will be hit the worst. Labour seems to believe people should not have a choice over where they send their child to school, as is evident in their similarly misguided Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through this place.
Schools will close because of this tax hike, and I know this because it is happening in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Carrdus school, founded in 1957, survived the cold war, the winter of discontent, the global financial crisis and three Labour Governments, yet it could not withstand the tax onslaught from this Chancellor and it will close its doors at the end of the summer term. That will mean 120 pupils flooding back into the state system, which is already struggling with capacity issues, at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
Adam Thompson
Will the hon. Member reflect on my comments a few moments ago about how the expert suggested that the Bill would have a marginal, negligible impact on the education sector?
Sarah Bool
That may be the evidence that you have received in this instance, but I am giving the real-life proof. When I spoke to the headteacher about this, she said that the increase in national insurance on teacher costs, which are about 80% of outgoings, in combination with all the other things, has had a huge impact and the school will have to shut. It will be closing its doors at the end of July, which is a travesty.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You said the word “you”, but I did not ask the question.
Sarah Bool
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would not dare say that about you.
If the Government are intent on punishing my constituents’ aspiration for the future of their children, the least they could do is grant the concessions that the Conservatives are asking for in all our amendments, and specifically those in amendments 7 and 10. Amendment 7 would exempt private schools that wholly or partially provide education for children with special educational needs and disabilities who have not yet obtained an education, health and care plan, or whose needs are established but not so severe as to require one. SEND support in schools helps pupils with a level of need below that of an EHC plan. Restricting relief only to those settings that provide for the most severe needs is out of step with the rest of our education system. Many families, on not being successful in applying for an EHC plan, or indeed enduring huge waiting times for the local authority to put one in place, opt to send their children to a private school. We should not punish families who choose to do what is in the best interests of their children.
Amendment 10 would delay the introduction of this tax hike for a further year to allow schools to plan their finances accordingly. That is just plain common sense. It would mean fewer schools like Carrdus having to make the unenviable choice to close their doors.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a timing issue. The Labour Government were explicit and up front on this tax rise in their manifesto, but they claim that they care about children’s education and welfare. If so, why would they implement the change halfway through an academic year? The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) just turned around and said, “Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s 120 kids in the Member’s constituency.” Actually, it really does matter, because every single child’s education matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if those are small amounts at the margin, it is completely justifiable to delay the measure as the schools, the experts and the parents have asked for?
Sarah Bool
I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who made the point powerfully. The impact goes beyond the 120 individual students to their parents’ arrangements and how they work. The headteacher of the school has a husband who was also a teacher, and they face a huge impact in respect of what they will do with their children and whether they can manage to make new school place arrangements. This policy is terribly misguided. We really need to think about what we are doing. It is a travesty that we will lose a school.
Sarah Bool
No, I will keep going if the hon. Member does not mind.
I do not want to see any other schools close or any other children suffer as a result of this plan. I hope that colleagues across the House will join Conservative Members in supporting our amendments.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in favour of the Bill, which is a significant piece of legislation that aims to reform the non-domestic rating system in England. I welcome the Bill’s primary objective of creating a fairer and more balanced approach to non-domestic rating. By increasing the multipliers for large businesses, we will ensure that those entities contribute their fair share to the local economy. That change is particularly important as it addresses the disparity between large corporations and smaller businesses, which often struggle to compete under the current system.
The introduction of lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties is a much needed relief for those sectors, which have faced significant challenges, especially in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. By reducing the tax burden, the Bill aims to support recovery and growth, ultimately benefiting local communities and economies such as the hospitality and retail sector in my constituency.
One of the most notable aspects of the Bill is the removal of charitable relief for private schools. Although private schools play a role in our education system, it is essential to recognise that they operate as businesses and should be taxed accordingly. This change will generate additional revenue that can be invested in public services, including state schools. The Bill represents a step towards a more equitable and balanced tax system. It addresses the needs of various sectors, supports local economies and ensures that all entities contribute fairly to the public good.
Damian Hinds
There are problems with all taxes, which is why we end up with a blend of taxes. For businesses, there is tax on payroll, sales, profits and property. However, business rates are a particularly difficult and unpopular tax because they represent a fixed cost on the business that does not vary when the economy goes up or down, or according to the particular company’s success or growth, or a contraction in its sales or profits.
Over the years, I have heard many times from businesses in Alton, Petersfield, Horndean, Clanfield, Liss and elsewhere in East Hampshire about a desire for business rates reform. I am sure that a lot of small business owners were very attracted to what they heard from the Labour party—that it would to scrap business rates altogether. The Labour Government do not say that any more, but they still want us to believe that they are undertaking some great reform and cutting rates for our high street businesses. I am afraid it is all smoke and mirrors, because for those businesses, including the ones name-checked by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the big effect that they feel right now is the cut in the relief for retail and hospitality business—not a small one, but from 75% to 40%.
It would be bad enough if that was all businesses faced, but it is not. They have to cope with all sorts of difficulties the whole time. We have rising labour costs—we support the increase in the national living wage over time, but not a hike in employer national insurance contributions at the same time. Because of what is happening to the threshold, there will be a massive effect on part-time workers. That will be very difficult for retail and hospitality businesses to swallow.
In and of themselves, the cuts to the multiplier for high street businesses are welcome, but we must remember that they are balanced by increases elsewhere in the system. Sometimes, Government Members talk about big businesses and corporations as some unwelcome part of our economy, but they are the biggest employers in the country and are fundamental to our economy. In the Red Book, these changes involve increases of hundreds of millions of pounds in business rates. Who will the increased rates affect? They will affect large supermarkets—a sector that is one of the biggest employers in the country—and hotels, which are a really important employer, as well as being fundamental to travel and tourism. Will the Minister also say a word about the expected effect on the national health service?
The blurb on the Budget says, “We are going to attack distribution centres, including those used by online retailers.” The word “including” does a lot of work in that sentence, because high street retailers also have distribution centres, and the changes will add to their costs, fuelling inflation on food and everyday consumer goods.
Dr Luke Evans
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent observation on the impact of these costs. We know from the surveys that 75% of businesses will pass on the costs to the very people who use them. They will have an inflationary impact on the public. Does he agree that it is imperative that we think about that?
Damian Hinds
As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. In the end, there is no such thing as a tax on business—you cannot tax a business; you can only tax people. Any tax on business is ultimately a tax on its employees, its customers or its owners. Before somebody jumps up and starts talking about the owners, the owners are often pension funds who are then paying out the pensions for our mums and dads.
My point is that these business rate increases will mean higher costs for bricks-and-mortar companies as well, which come on top of all the other changes, in particular the hike in employer national insurance contributions. And this from a Government who yet again this week keep talking about their growth agenda. It makes me wonder what is actually written in that growth agenda.
Overall, the effect of all these changes—we need only look at the Budget Red Book—is that the revenue from business rates is projected to increase from £32 billion this financial year to almost £40 billion in five years’ time. It is a massive further tax raid on business, and a brake on employment and economic growth.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about the case for an overhaul of the business rates system. Why did the previous Conservative Government never get around to doing that?
Damian Hinds
Well, I did refer at the start of my speech to the calls over the years for reform. I also said that there are problems with all taxes we levy on individuals or on business and that is why we end up with a blend. What I am talking about now is the fact that this Government are hiking up the total amount that will be taken in business rates, which will fall on major employers and then be felt in our unemployment rate. The Government are trying to do this thing of saying, “We are cutting stuff,” but they are not, because for all of the companies we have heard name-checked, reducing the relief will outweigh the effect of the multiplier. On top of that, we have a revaluation coming up in the near future. That is probably going to mean an increase in rateable values that will compound those higher multiples.
For all those reasons, new clause 2 is both important and a reasonable ask. It says that after a period of time, we should review the real-life effect of these changes and give the Government an opportunity to change course and get back to something that looks a bit like a growth agenda.
I turn briefly to the effect of these changes on independent schools. We have debated in the Chamber on a number of occasions the Government’s overall approach to independent schools. Let me say again that we object in principle to taxing education. It makes us almost unique in the world that we would do such a thing and it will be the first time in our national history that we have done so—it has never been done before by any Labour Government, or any other Government. The tax change we are debating today on rates is not the only tax change or transfer of money from independent schools to the Treasury. They were already facing a big increase—5%, I think—in employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme. Like all organisations—public sector, private sector, charitable and voluntary sector—they also have employer national insurance contributions to deal with. And then there is the enormous VAT change.
Specifically on this tax change, it is a fixed cost, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, at a time when there is all this uncertainty around the independent education sector and children will be moving. I will let Members into a secret: no one knows what the ultimate effect will be. We can line up as many experts as we like, but no one knows how many children will be moving, but we know it will be a non-trivial number greater than zero—there will be children moving out of that sector and there is a lot of uncertainty. It therefore seems to be a very unwise time to add, on top of all those other tax changes, a significant change to a fixed-cost tax. The amendments put forward by the official Opposition are therefore very well worth supporting; my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made that case very strongly.
On faith schools, we know that whatever the impact assessment says, people of faith, and particularly of smaller faiths, will be disproportionately impacted by this Government’s changes to education. We also know that children with SEND feature particularly prominently in the independent sector. Many of those schools have an awful lot of children who have special needs, but not necessarily—or not yet—an education, health and care plan. Special consideration should be given to both those types of schools: faith schools—if we wanted to narrow it down further, we could say smaller faiths charging low fees to parents—and those catering to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
On amendment 10, with all else that is going on in the independent sector, it is at the very least an exceptionally reasonable ask of the Government that we delay these changes by a year to give the sector a chance to be able to cope and plan.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having been a member of the Bill Committee—my first Bill Committee in this place—I appreciate being able to contribute on Report in the Chamber.
Southall town centre is well known the world over as a great place to shop for an Asian wedding, with stunning lehengas, saris and sherwani on sale all down the Broadway, King Street and South Road. During the election campaign, I vividly recall seeing two clothes shop workers eating their lunchtime rotis behind the counter. When I commented that business must be good, they both said no. They said that a few years ago, they would never have had time for lunch, and would have worked right up until closing as they were so busy. They told me that they were suffering from being undercut by online retailers because they were paying through the nose for business rates, facing blitz robberies with no police around to respond, and constantly having to chase bigger businesses for payments.
It is ironic that the previous Government have suddenly decided they back local businesses after 14 years of ignoring their pleas. In fact, the only businesses they supported were the rail companies that could not run the trains, the water companies that could not keep our water clean, and, of course, the private sector mates they handed out dodgy covid contracts to. Indeed, the former Prime Minister and former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson, reportedly used a four-letter word beginning with f when making it clear how little he cared about business.
In contrast, this Labour Government are backing local businesses. We are already ensuring that suppliers pay small businesses within 30 days, and we are cracking down on retail crime, too. The Bill will deliver on our promise to ensure a fairer system of business rates that will help brick and mortar shops like those in Southall to compete with online companies. Finally, we will have a permanently rebalanced system that will stop local shops being undercut and stop the slow death of our high streets and town centres.
New clauses 1 to 3 and amendment 9 are all things that are already happening. We are already publishing a review of these measures as part of next year’s Budget, and there is already discretion for local authorities to look at the higher multiplier rate. Amendments 1 to 6 would add manufacturing to the Bill, which would, in my belief, dilute its effect. We have already prioritised manufacturing as part of the Budget, investing £3 billion into aerospace, automotive and the life sciences industries. We make no apologies for using this Bill to prioritise town centres.
Amendments 7, 8 and 10 all seek to either dilute or delay the changes in the Bill. The Bill already exempts all private schools that are wholly or mainly focused on educating children with special educational needs—that is already in the Bill. We know, however, that 93% of children in this country go to state schools. Politics is about priorities. Just as we are prioritising town centres in the Bill, we are also prioritising those 93% of children. Unless the Conservatives think it is okay to have children in state schools taught maths and science by unqualified teachers, they need to say where they would get the money from otherwise.
Although the Bill is about a fairer system of business rates that will help local businesses, many on the Opposition Benches have raised the issue of employer national insurance. Some 93% of businesses in Ealing Southall are microbusinesses. Most of those businesses will either pay less employer national insurance or the same as they currently pay. Some businesses will pay more national insurance, but that is because the previous Government ran up a massive £22 billion credit card bill making rash promises they did not even attempt to keep, while running public services into the ground. When the final demand letters started coming, they hid them in the back of a drawer and pretended everything was fine. Employer national insurance increases for some businesses will help us to pay for the triple lock on pensions, thousands of extra hip and knee operations, and more police on our streets. Again, unless the Conservatives think it is okay to reduce pensions in real terms, let waiting lists go up and up and give our streets over to criminals, they need to say where they would get the money from.
Before Christmas, I met the brewer Heineken at its pub the Star and Scorpion in west Ealing. Labour has already taken a penny off a pint in the Budget and our decision in the Bill to permanently lower business rates for retail and hospitality businesses will help to further protect local pubs like the Star and Scorpion. Without the Bill, the bars and restaurants of west Ealing and Hanwell would be facing a cliff edge in April, with big increases in their business rates as the sticking-plaster solution that the previous Government came up with ends. The Bill both extends temporary reductions in business rates for high street businesses and introduces a new permanent scheme that will level the playing field between the high street and the internet.
The one tax that the Opposition do not mention is the 10p crime tax: 10p added to every shopping basket due to the impact of shoplifting. The Tories did absolutely nothing about that, but this is a Tory tax that Labour is getting rid of. We are investing in neighbourhood policing, scrapping the Tory shoplifter charter that allowed thefts under £200 not to be investigated, and bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker.
The Conservatives had 14 years to help out local businesses like those in Ealing Southall. Instead, they trashed our economy, destroyed public services and stifled business growth. The Labour Government are clearing up their mess. Through this Bill, we are ensuring fairer business rates for shops, restaurants and bars on Ealing Southall’s high streets.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I, too, served on the Public Bill Committee and would like to put on record my thanks to all the witnesses who attended and gave evidence.
The Bill shines a light on how politics is about choices. At the general election, we promised a Labour Government that would make different choices: choices rooted in fairness and a commitment to levelling the playing field. Today, the Bill is a powerful example of how we are going to deliver on that promise. This is a Bill about the politics of equity. It is about ensuring that everyone—from small business owners to schoolchildren in Wolverhampton North East—has a fairer chance to succeed. For too long, the scales have been tipped in favour of the largest corporations, online giants and private schools, while businesses and state schools have been left to shoulder an unfair burden. The Bill changes that. We are delivering a permanent reduction in business rates for the hard-working small businesses that are the backbone of Wolverhampton North East. My constituency does not include a city centre, but it does contain plenty of brilliant small businesses: fantastic cafés, restaurants, beauty and hair salons, a micropub, larger pub chains and family-run shops. These businesses are the heart of our community.
For years, high streets have been forced to compete unfairly with massive online retailers and retail parks, but the Bill will ensure that the largest online retailers, supermarket chains and distribution warehouses finally pay a fairer share. Small businesses in Wolverhampton and Willenhall will now see permanent lower business rates, freeing up resources to invest in their workforce, improve security and grow. As Paul Gerrard of the Co-op has pointed out, this reform will strengthen the viability of small shops, ensuring that they can continue to provide jobs, beef up security, and uphold their community-centred values. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that these changes will save small stores money that can be used directly to hire more staff, install new CCTV, and invest in the future.
The Bill is, however, not just about businesses; it is about fairness in education. Private school fees have risen by about 55% in real terms over the last 20 years, while state schools’ funding has largely flatlined. State schools and academies are paying business rates right now while private schools enjoy business rates tax breaks, and that is simply unfair. This is the reality. Almost 50% of private school students achieved top GCSE grades this summer, compared with just 20% in state schools. Sports facilities in state schools are crumbling, with fixtures cancelled owing to a lack of minibuses or drivers. Private schools have more swimming pools than all the state schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions put together. Just 35% of children from low-income families can swim 25 metres unaided, compared with 82% from affluent families.
The Bill removes those unfair tax breaks for private schools and reinvests every single penny directly in state schools. That funding will recruit more specialist teachers, provide breakfast clubs in primary schools, and give schools the resources that they need to unlock every child’s potential regardless of their family’s wealth. This is the politics of equity in action. I will continue to support strong, vibrant high streets, brilliant schools, and a fairer future for all.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the fact that six months ago our Labour Government inherited a £22 billion black hole from their 14 years of Tory rule—[Interruption]—as they are demonstrating now. It is, however, a fact. With that inheritance from the Tories, our new Government are taking much-needed action such as that on which we are voting today. In particular, they are taking action to end tax breaks for private schools across the UK, and it is the education side of this Bill on which I will now focus.
Many of us are here today partly because of the inspiration, teaching and support that an incredible teacher gave to us. I want to pay tribute to one of my teachers at Hermitage academy, which is a state school. Mrs McKeirnan was my modern studies teacher, and a fine job she did too. I fondly remember writing essays about the reasons for Labour’s election win in 1997; they obviously had an impact. However, while we had skilful and energetic teachers like Mrs McKeirnan, what was less satisfactory was that the school roof often leaked when it rained, and sometimes the windows blew in during the winter. That continued until the election of Labour in both Westminster and Holyrood saw my old school being rebuilt.
We can compare that with the situation today in my constituency, where Balwearie high school in Kirkcaldy needs a new building. The funding has not been available during the last 18 years of SNP government and 14 years of Tory rule. My point is that much of our country’s public sector infrastructure is not fit for purpose after years of Tory neglect. To turn that around, we obviously need to raise revenue, and that is exactly what the measures that we are voting on today will do.
Ending tax breaks for private schools is crucial to the record budget settlement for the Scottish Government—the largest settlement since devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion to spend in this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion for next year. For too many in my constituency, the SNP’s record of educational failure has let the party down. Nicola Sturgeon once said:
“Judge me on my educational record”,
and she promised that her Government would close the attainment gap by 2026. Last year, the attainment gap in Scotland widened, and the PISA report showed that reading, maths and science are in long-term decline. Now that the SNP Government have the funding, it is up to them to clear up the mess in education that they have created, which fails young people in my constituency.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that there is equity in education. The hon. Lady says that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the burden, but I have a family in Berkhamsted who worked really hard to put their son into private education. Following the changes, Seb has had to change schools after just two years, because the family cannot afford it any more. I make a plea on behalf of the children affected by this policy, because it should be about lifting all of us up, not bringing anyone down.
Melanie Ward
All parents work hard to support their families, and all parents want the very best for their children. Hon. Members would do well to remember that.
The additional £1.8 billion a year, which will be raised by ending tax breaks for private schools, allows us to increase per-pupil funding in real terms and helps to deliver the record budget settlement of an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government. I find it strange that the Conservative party, which in the last Parliament promised to level up the country, should be so opposed to measures that will do exactly that. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said that her first act as Prime Minister—I am not sure how many Conservative Members actually believe that the day will ever come—would be to restore tax breaks for private schools. She is obviously not here to defend that statement, but in recent months I have heard little from the Conservatives about what they would cut to pay for that policy. Would they make teachers redundant? Would they cancel breakfast clubs? Would they cut mental health support and careers advice?
At the last election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to break down the barriers to opportunity. As a state-educated MP, I am also proud to deliver this speech in a Parliament in which 63% of its Members were educated at state comprehensives, with 85% of my party’s MPs being state educated. Indeed, only 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools—even fewer than the 7% in England.
The needs of our students are greater than ever. Young people in Scotland face an annual marking saga, decreasing teacher numbers and a deepening mental health crisis—something that I have raised in relation to my own constituency. It is more crucial than ever that we intervene now to prevent those crises from deepening, and that is what these revenue-raising measures will help to fund. I am glad that this Labour Government have introduced protections for SEND children and military families, but it is necessary for private schools to contribute towards improving educational standards across our country. Let us not forget that they have raised their fees by 75% in real terms since 2000.
I know that parents in my Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy constituency want to see their children benefit from the kind of education that their ingenuity, creativity and innate talent deserves. They will be crucial to our future society and economy, and to the kind of country that we want to be. We must make the most of their potential.
In this matter, I take inspiration from Jennie Lee, who attended Beath high school in my constituency and went on to set up the Open University. Her picture hangs in my office. She knew the value of ensuring that high-quality education was available to all, no matter their background and where they lived. If we are to provide that, it has to be paid for, and that is why these measures are so important.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in favour of this Bill, having been involved in its scrutiny at most of its stages. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) in thanking all the witnesses who came forward to give evidence to the Bill Committee. I thank them for the evidence they gave and for the useful insight from their respective sectors.
We on the Government Benches are clear that small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors should pay lower business rates. The Bill establishes two new multipliers that are lower than the current standard business rates multiplier. In order to pay for these changes, we must ask larger businesses to contribute their fair share so that our smaller businesses can thrive. That is because we on this side of the House know that when we have tax cuts, we need to pay for them with revenue-raising measures—something the Opposition have not quite realised yet. This is a good mechanism that the Government are deploying to save our high streets, to incentivise local investment and to support entrepreneurship. As all Members will know, high streets are essential to local towns and should be given the support they need. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill will benefit smaller local businesses such as those on Queen Street, which sits in the centre of Leeds South West and Morley.
In Committee, we heard from Paul Gerrard, who is the board secretariat director at the Co-op. He told the Committee that these changes will help 92% of the Co-op’s retail properties, but he also estimates that they will help 98% of retail businesses because they will have a rateable value that allows them to benefit from these changes. That has to be welcomed. As for those that will pay more to make these changes possible, the higher multiplier will apply to properties with a value greater than or equal to £500,000, including large warehouses that are often used by online giants. They will pay their fair share, and we can start to level the playing field so that essential community high street businesses are on a level playing field with multinational corporations.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a challenge in making sure that things are fair, and we all support a level playing field between the online world and bricks-and-mortar businesses, including in our town centres. There is a thing called the digital services tax, which was conceived while we were in government. Will he say a word about the relative advantages and disadvantages of trying to go after online retailers with business rates changes, which will also affect all manner of other organisations, including bricks-and-mortar retailers, and doing it a different way through a more direct type of tax?
Mr Sewards
I return to the point I made earlier. We know that we have to support these smaller businesses—these bricks-an-mortar businesses, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them—and the only way we are going to pay for this is by finding the money from elsewhere. We have chosen to cut business rates for smaller businesses, and we are choosing to raise the revenue from the larger businesses and corporations that have been getting away without paying their fair share for far too long.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member will recognise that it is the Government’s intention to reduce business rates for the smallest businesses, but as I have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, House of Commons Library research shows that if we compare this year to two years’ time, small businesses will end up 80% worse off, whereas the big chains will end up 40% better off. I believe that this is an unintended consequence. Will he urge the Minister, as I am doing, to address that point in his wind-up?
Mr Sewards
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course I have read the House of Commons Library research into this. I also took time to listen to all the witnesses who came forward in the Bill Committee, and they made it clear that the changes in this Bill will benefit small businesses in the long term. I am quite happy with the evidence that they provided to support the changes that the Bill makes.
Mr Sewards
I will move on to the next part of my speech, but I am happy to take any further interventions that might be relevant to that point. I am going to talk about the amendments now.
I think new clauses 1 to 3 are unnecessary. The Government will monitor the effects of the new multipliers and, as we know, they will show what those effects have been in Budget 2025. They will do the same in all future fiscal statements, so the monitoring is already going to take place. The hon. Member refers to the impact these changes might have in two years’ time, and the Government will comment on that in all future fiscal statements.
Amendments 1 to 6 are noble, but they would significantly affect and reduce the support that the Bill is able to provide to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
Victoria Collins
The hon. Gentleman mentions leisure businesses, and I have been contacted by several soft play facilities. They talk about the importance of play to children’s wellbeing, but they are not sure whether they will be entitled to the lower rate. Even Parliament’s experts are not sure. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in calling on the Government to clarify that soft play will be included in those lower business rates?
Mr Sewards
Yes, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity. As someone who uses soft play—[Laughter.] Not personally, enjoyable though it is. I am sure that my sons Oscar and Arthur, who is six months old and not quite ready to take advantage of soft play, will also be keen to know, so perhaps the Minister could offer some clarity in his closing remarks.
Although amendments 1 to 6 are noble, this Bill is about the high street, and we know just how much our high streets have suffered. This does not mean, for one second, that we are backing down from the challenges facing manufacturing businesses, which amendments 1 to 6 aim to help with. The Budget announced over £3 billion to support the manufacturing sector, including £520 million for a life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, but the changes to business rates in this Bill are primarily about supporting our high streets.
As someone who was teaching on this date a year ago, I am particularly interested in clause 5, which removes the charitable relief enjoyed by some private schools. I welcome this, along with the Budget’s broader measures to remove tax breaks from private schools so that we can fund state education properly. A vote for amendment 10 would delay this funding for state schools by another year.
It is estimated that, of the 2,444 private schools in England, only 1,040 will be impacted by the change. The measure will raise around £70 million, which, when taken together with the other revenue-raising measures we have announced, will increase per pupil funding in real terms to benefit the 94% of students who attend state schools. We must give every child the chance to succeed in life, and that is exactly what this Bill and the other measures we have announced are doing.
Damian Hinds
It is worth reflecting that the education budget goes up every year. It does not go up because there has been a change to business rates, VAT or anything else, which is the logic we sometimes hear from Labour Members. If the revenue from those things is slightly smaller than expected, does that mean less money will go into education? Of course not.
We keep hearing about hiring 6,500 more teachers. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many more teachers were hired in the last Parliament?
Mr Sewards
I heard the right hon. Gentleman put that question to the Minister in last Monday’s Westminster Hall debate but, just to go back to his original point—I will come to the 6,500 new teachers—we are deliberately taking these decisions in order to increase the amount of money that state schools have to teach the 94% of students who enjoy state school education.
As a basic principle, all Members of this House can get behind the idea that it is a basic function of the state to provide a well-funded, excellent state school place for all students, whether or not parents choose to take advantage of it. That is exactly what we are doing with this Bill and the other measures we have announced.
Dr Luke Evans
Talking of basic principles, does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe it is right to tax education—yes or no?
Mr Sewards
I believe it is right to tax businesses. Private schools are businesses, and we are choosing to levy the tax on businesses. We are not choosing to levy the tax on state education, because as I was just setting out, it is imperative on us to make sure there is an excellent and well-funded place in state-funded education for all students, should parents choose to take advantage of it. It must be remembered that not all parents have the choice of private or state education. The reason why 94% of students are in state education is because that choice does not exist for most parents in this country. That is why we will take the necessary action to fund state schools properly.
I will make some progress because I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to—oh, she is being quite generous with her time. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In which case, I will take more interventions.
Some Members have raised concerns about whether the legislation adversely affects the private schools that are primarily concerned with teaching students with EHCPs. I am pleased to report that it does not. The Government have clearly set out that private schools that teach 50% or more students with EHCPs will continue to be exempt from business rates, which is exactly the right approach. There are therefore no concerns there.
Amendment 8 seeks exemptions for certain kinds of schools. We have talked a little bit about faith schools, and we talked about that a lot on Second Reading. I cannot support the amendment given that we are ending the tax breaks to support the 94% of students who attend state schools. If we dilute the measures in the Bill for that exception, it is easy to make an argument for the next exemption, the one after that and the one after that as well. Our guiding principle should be that every child is entitled to an excellent, properly funded state school place, as I think I have said repeatedly.
Amendment 9—the last one I will speak about—gives local authorities discretion over whether the higher multiplier will apply. As many hon. Members will know, local authorities already possess wide-reaching powers regarding discretionary rate relief. Given that the Bill does not affect those powers at all, I do not think the amendment is required.
To conclude, the measures in the Bill are vital to bring about the restoration of our high streets, support local businesses and give state schools the funding they desperately need. Those are the priorities of this Labour Government and my priorities too. If Conservative Members claim to represent the party of business again, if they ever hope to seize back the mantle of being the party of opportunity, I hope they put their money where their mouth is and join us in voting for this unamended Bill today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thought it very sensible for the hon. Member to clarify that it is young Arthur, not himself, who enjoys soft play. I call the final speaker, Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As I have about two hours to give this speech, I want to start by going back to the summer of 1983—[Laughter.] I have just told everyone how old I am, have I not?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also thank the Minister for all his work on the Bill. I genuinely want to thank all Members from across the House too for their contributions in Committee. I thought the way in which the Bill was discussed in Committee and the contributions from both sides were well thought out and, as I have mentioned before, respectful—I say that in advance of any interventions. I also want to thank all the people who came forward to provide evidence to the Committee.
I am honoured to rise to speak on Report on behalf of my constituency of Harlow. First—I promise I will not take two hours—I think everybody in the Chamber will forgive me for taking the opportunity to thank and praise the hard-working teachers and school support staff across my constituency for the hard work they do day in, day out to support young people.
I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Mark Hall academy in my constituency last week and saw the incredible work that its staff are doing to provide an inclusive atmosphere. I particularly welcomed the fact that the school was about not just exam results, but what I describe as the hidden curriculum—how young people grow and develop. The school also focuses on the importance of debating skills, which may be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—I am only joking. I thought that perhaps he and I could go together and learn a thing or two. [Interruption.] I set myself up for that. The school also recognises the importance of critical thinking. As I say, it was a fantastic visit, which was capped by an opportunity to meet the young carers in the school. As many Members will know, young carers are a hugely important issue for me.
I will briefly address private schools, as they have been mentioned a number of times. As I said on Second Reading, private schools affected by this policy can choose to absorb some of the cost if they so wish, and that is their prerogative. Members across the House may disagree with this, but, ultimately, the fundamental issue here is fairness and equality.
Sarah Bool
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that private schools could absorb the cost. The headteacher of my Carrdus school told me that they could not absorb the cost. The school has tried everything possible to stay open, but it cannot. One just cannot make this claim that these schools can absorb the cost; they cannot.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Having spoken to headteachers in private schools, I know that that is what some of them are looking to do. I recognise that may not be the case in that situation. As I said on Second Reading, ultimately, we want all schools to be at such a standard that parents do not need to choose to send their children to private school.
Every business in the UK is required to pay VAT. The “Cambridge Dictionary” definition of a business is a particular company that buys and sells goods and services. Parents pay for the service of their children’s teachers, and they pay for their children to go to private school.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that universities are companies? If he does, would he advocate imposing VAT on fees for university education?
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think that we have had a very good debate on higher education today. It is interesting that Conservative Members want to talk about university and higher education when it is in an awful state. Clearly, we need to look at how private schools are funded. [Interruption.] I am being a teacher, sorry. Members can carry on rambling; this is not a school.
The second part of my speech is about our high streets. I think we can all agree about the importance of supporting our high streets, while also recognising the changing nature of both retail and those high streets. The Bill is designed to decrease tax on high street businesses and make online retailers pay their fair share. Very briefly, in its evidence, the Co-op said that the Bill would benefit “92% of our estate”, which is 98% of retail stores, and described it as having “a significant impact”. The representative of the Association Of Convenience Stores described the Bill as very helpful, and
“very positive for the sector, but…also very positive for the places where they trade.”––[Official Report, Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 18, Q25.]
I have not taken two hours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will conclude. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the practical steps that this Labour Government are taking to address the issues left by the previous Government and to support small businesses in my constituency of Harlow and across the country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It appears that the attraction of business rates has not been sufficient to draw as many speakers to the Chamber as some debates, but I am none the less grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate.
Just a few months ago, we exposed a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget: £3.7 billion of additional spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. Over the weeks since the Budget, we have seen pensioners, businesses of all sizes and types, schools, landlords and tenants all facing additional costs to begin to backfill the consequences of those political choices. With the Bill before the House tonight, those tax hikes are heading for the business rates bill of companies and organisations, large and small, on high streets the length and breadth of the country.
We should not pretend that this is an essential step. Our councils are acknowledged as the most efficient part of the public sector. They responded magnificently to the consequences of the financial crash in the late 2000s, with rising resident satisfaction against a backdrop of increasingly challenged budgets, but the decisions made by this new Government, in particular loading an additional £1.66 billion of national insurance costs on to local authorities, with less than a third of that covered by the promised additional funding, has consequences in our town halls. The Bill begins to make a small step towards bridging that colossal gap, but the Government need to own these political choices. The consequences of the Bill for our businesses and schools are stark.
First, let me address the changes in the multiplier, and in particular the consequences for larger premises. Under the changes to the business rate system introduced by the Government overall, increased costs loaded on to larger premises will provide the source for any reductions for smaller businesses, unlike under the previous Government, when it was covered from general grants. As a result, these businesses, often small and medium-sized enterprises—important employers and vital sources of growth for our economy—will face higher bills.
Such businesses have been characterised by the Government as warehouses, often owned by online giants, but when we look at the detail from the Government’s own data, we see firms such as Banner, which supplies the offices of Members of Parliament with all kinds of stationery products, Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, and Zetex Semiconductors plc, which is an American-owned business that trades on the London stock exchange, producing products that are vital for our security and growth. Those are just examples of businesses in the Minister’s own constituency that will be hit by the changes. Scapa Group Ltd, a major healthcare provider in the constituency of the Secretary of State, will also face significantly higher bills.
We have heard Members wax lyrical about how much they value the opportunities for growth in this country, and how they value in particular different types of community assets, but 28 of the data centres that the Prime Minister speaks of as being vital to the AI agenda will be hit by the Bill, and 16 of the breweries that have supposedly benefited from a penny off the pint, including Fuller’s, Bulmers, John Smith’s and Greene King, all face significant increases in their bills. Eight zoos and safari parks, including Colchester, Bristol and Chester zoos, face significantly increased business rates bills, and 48 stadiums across the country, including Wimbledon, Twickenham and both the Manchester stadiums, all expect to see big rises as a consequence. All Labour Members who love to champion their local pub and talk about taking a penny off the pint need to remember that the consequence of the Bill is to put business rates up by, on average, £5,500 a year per pub. The list is available from Government data. It is very clear that this will be a difficult Bill for retail, hospitality and leisure to swallow, after a period of direct and specific support from the previous Government.
This change does not come from a Government that came to office saying that this was their intention or plan; it comes from a Government whose Chancellor—Rachel from accounts—went so far as to promise in 2021 that she would abolish business rates. Business owners and workers who thought they were voting for a Labour Government that would come in and abolish business rates are facing significant increases today.
Dr Luke Evans
We have heard categorically from Labour that private schools are businesses. They see themselves as part of the community and as charities. Now that they are seen as businesses, they will act as businesses and will have to look to raise revenue from all their sports facilities and anything else that they willingly gave away to the state system. Private schools work with the state system and ensure that there is support for the state system—that is the community basis of what schooling is about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that defining them as businesses will be a big problem?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend highlights a point that many of us will have heard from our local state schools: the fact that they are in sharing arrangements with private schools to access facilities. They are concerned that, as the cost drivers introduced by the Government and the Budget increase the pressure on those schools, they may lose the free or low-cost access they have.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I had a meeting with a state school in my constituency that said the changes will be damaging because it gets a grant from a private school, which will have to be cut to deal with the impact of VAT. That state school, which is in a genuinely working-class community, will be £200,000 a year worse off under this policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is terrible?
David Simmonds
I agree that it is terrible, but sadly it is typical of the consequences introduced into the system by the actions of the Government.
Melanie Ward
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that state schools should not have to go with a begging bowl to private schools to ask to borrow their facilities? They should be properly funded in their own right.
David Simmonds
Having served as a governor in three different state schools during my local government career, I know that many state schools have facilities that they are very happy to share—some have swimming pools, some have libraries, some have adult education facilities. The sharing of facilities among schools of all kinds is normal, but the Bill introduces additional pressure that will take away access to those facilities. Isolated communities in particular, which benefit most from that access, risk losing it.
The basic fact that schools will end up net worse off demonstrates that, contrary to what has been said, this policy fails the basic test of equity and efficiency. It harms some people in our country, with no corresponding benefit to anybody else. Let me address the argument proposed by a number of Members that the consequences are marginal. We heard a lot of evidence from different people. The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) referred to an academic who has built a career writing tracts attacking the private education sector. That is not somebody I consider to be an expert. I will take the word of mums and dads, the Independent Schools Council, institutions that represent people across our country and the House of Commons Library over the word of a single left-wing academic.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) said, “It’s not fair because schools in the state sector pay business rates.” She may not be aware that there is already an 80% mandatory business rate relief for voluntary aided, foundation and academy schools, and 100% of all state school business rates liability is paid for by central Government anyway, so no school budget is burdened by the cost of business rates, whereas the consequence of the Bill will be that every independent school is burdened by those costs.
Many of us in this Chamber will see the added value that independent education brings. Many of those experts whose opinion we value have spoken profoundly about the fact that so much of our special educational needs provision is in the private sector. I made reference in Committee to Gesher school in my constituency. I defy any Labour Member visiting Gesher to come away saying, “That is a private business that deserves to be taxed.” Such institutions have emerged—in many cases over a long time—to cater to very specific and profound special educational needs and disabilities, and they are looking aghast at the consequences of the Bill.
There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are technical. The Government’s solution is to introduce the “wholly or mainly” provision. Schools that wholly or mainly provide places for children with an education, health and care plan—by which the Government mean 50% or more—will be exempt from the provisions. The problem with that policy is that many children who have well-established, diagnosed special educational needs and disabilities do not have an education, health and care plan.
Indeed, beneath statementing, which was the term at the time, the previous Labour Government introduced a number of tiers: school action and school action plus. Children with moderate to severe special educational needs and disabilities could fall into those categories and be supported in a mainstream setting. The statementing and education, health and care plan process was only ever intended to make provision for children with the most significant and severe needs. That is already the case across the state sector. We know from the evidence of many parents up and down the land that they found provision in local independent schools, and at their own cost, for children who had not qualified or had not yet achieved an education, health and care plan. It is very clear that the Government’s solution underestimates, and falls well short of accounting for, the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities. This is a Government whose Secretary of State for Education stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about how much they believe in inclusion. Well, their actions in support of this Bill say otherwise.
The Bill also fails to address the needs of parents who wish to secure a place for their child at a school that has a special character. This is particularly important in rural areas, but it is an issue across the country. We all know that there are schools that have the ability to provide specialist training or coaching in a sport that a child excels in and wishes to pursue, and there are schools that have a faith or cultural identity that is incredibly important to the family.
By requiring all those types of school to pay these significantly hiked taxes, this Government are bearing down on choice in the education sector and pushing up costs for mums and dads. These are not wealthy families, but ordinary people in this country who are seeking to do the best for their child and who, in some cases, are willing to take on the responsibility of paying for their child’s education even if they could still pursue the opportunity of an education, health and care plan for them through the state system. They choose to do the right thing by their child, and this Government will be penalising them.
The amendments we have tabled seek to address the shortcomings I have described as best we can. We will also support some of the amendments tabled by other parties where they clearly fulfil our shared objectives, but as the speeches and other contributions to this debate by Conservative Members have shown, there could have been so many more amendments seeking to get this Bill right.
In conclusion, all of the hereditaments that are covered by this Bill are important to our economy and to growth, and in many cases they are vital to our communities. Since the Chancellor’s Budget, growth has flatlined, inflation has revived, borrowing costs are rising and employment opportunities are diminishing. It is not too late for this Government to choose a different path, and we invite them to do so this afternoon.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Before I speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I thank Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and for the constructive spirit, by and large, in which they have engaged with the Bill since its introduction. Although they are not always seen, with evidence sessions and Committee stages not always being prime-time TV viewing—it is a curse, but that is the way it is—those deliberations are nevertheless essential. The contributions that were made by Members from all parts of the House in probing and scrutinising the Bill were valuable, and I hope that all Members found them interesting.
I will begin by speaking to the amendments concerning the impact of the new multipliers. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, high streets and economic growth within six months of those clauses coming into effect. The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for St Albans have proposed two other new clauses. New clauses 2 and 3 would seek to impose in legislation a requirement for an analysis of the impact of the new business rate multipliers at varying points ahead of, or following, implementation of the Bill. New clause 3 also seeks to require an assessment of how the application of the new multipliers would differ between retail, hospitality and leisure businesses occupying different numbers of properties, and to compare that assessment with the impact of retail, hospitality and leisure relief from the 2020-21 financial year to the 2025-26 financial year.
We agree in principle with the points that hon. Members have raised through their new clauses. It is right that the Government consider the effects of their policies on businesses, on the high street and on economic growth, and indeed within different sectors. It is the policy of the Government that those businesses should feel a material benefit as a direct result of these measures, so let me set out how we propose to do that.
It states in the Bill that the two new retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers may not be set at more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business multiplier. The Bill also places appropriate restrictions on the higher multiplier: when it is set, it cannot be more than 10p in the pound above the standard multiplier, and cannot be applied to properties with a rateable value of less than £500,000. It is important to state that those are not the intended tax rates, but the maximum parameters to be introduced through the new business rate multipliers. As we explained during the Bill’s passage through the House, the actual tax rates will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rate revaluation, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time.
Daisy Cooper
The Minister has been here throughout the debate, and he will have heard a number of my interventions. I accept his point that those figures will not be published until Budget 2025. May I ask if he is in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that small independents, with a small number of hereditaments, will not be subsidising organisations that have many, such as the big chains?
Jim McMahon
I did hear the hon. Lady, and I think we all accept the principle of needing to target or get support to those important small businesses, which we can all identify in our constituencies. With respect, I think there was a degree of conflation with the temporary reliefs brought in during covid, which the previous Government did not account for, that were always going to come to an end.
Our challenge was how to reconcile ongoing support for the high street with a permanent relief in law so that businesses know exactly where they are and can plan ahead with certainty. The choice we made was far fairer: to target higher-value properties of more than £500,000, which are generally—but, I accept, not entirely—the large-footprint warehouse and distribution premises used by the big online retailers.
The shadow Minister used the example of the stationery provider in my constituency. It is an online retailer, so it ought to be paying more. Why? Because for a long time—and we have all heard this from our constituents and industry—we have needed a rebalancing from online to on-street and from out-of-town to in-town, and that is exactly what this targeting does. It was never intended to be a continuation of the relief that was only temporary during covid. It is about rebuilding the foundations, and that is exactly what we have set out to do.
Daisy Cooper
I completely accept that point, and I am very sympathetic to the fact that the Minister inherited a sticking-plaster system from the previous Government. If during the course of this year his Government’s own analysis proves what I have discovered from the House of Commons Library research, will he ensure that the Government at least do not rule out introducing a new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses?
Jim McMahon
As with all tax policies, we will keep this under review, and I say that in a very general sense. We absolutely believe that the businesses that are the backbone of our high streets, town centres and communities would, were it not for these measures, go bust. They would not be viable and they would feel the heat very quickly. However, because of the measures we are taking, businesses will be able to plan with certainty for the future, knowing that they have a Government acting in partnership with them in that enterprise.
David Simmonds
I appreciate the Minister’s point, but clearly no Parliament binds its successors, so every Parliament must make its own decisions. A lot of Members have asked about small business rate relief. It would be helpful to have some certainty from the Dispatch Box about the Government’s intentions on that. Can he give us that certainty tonight?
Jim McMahon
I can certainly give the certainty that we are providing in law for a permanent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will fund that through a very targeted additional payment for properties of more than £500,000, which will primarily be the online retailers occupying big warehouses and distribution centres. It is a promise to shift from the online to the on-street, as I talked about.
Before we move on to vote on the amendment, I will make some progress. The House will know that tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for the impact assessments that accompany non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set.
The Government will continue to keep the policy and its effects under review as a matter of course, because we believe it is good practice to do that for all taxes. However, we want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Government have heard them, and we understand the importance of robustly understanding tax changes, which is something to which we have already committed. I hope this commitment to understanding the effects of the new tax rate when it is introduced will enable hon. Members not to press their proposed new clauses.
Amendment 9 would give local authorities discretion over whether the higher multipliers enabled by the Bill should be applied. The Bill would enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more. As we explained in Committee, we do not have any plans to narrow the scope of the higher multipliers as doing so would reduce the funding available for the very targeted support for lower multipliers for uses that everyone in the Chamber supports.
That does not mean that local authorities will be unable to apply local discretion to rate bills. As was set out in contributions, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers for discretionary rate relief as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the authority is satisfied that that would be reasonable, having regard to the interests of council tax payers. We assure the House that those discretionary powers are unaffected by the Bill and remain in place. Given that local authorities will be able to use those discretionary powers to provide relief, including for ratepayers subject to the higher multiplier, the amendment is not required. I hope that assures hon. Members.
I turn to amendments 1 to 6, which would widen the scope of the lower multipliers so that qualifying manufacturing properties would become eligible alongside retail, hospitality and leisure properties. In the Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke of the vital importance of manufacturing to the British economy and of how providing them with a permanent cut to their business rates could help them to recover.
Let me reiterate the Government’s support for the manufacturing sector as a whole. It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, but it is also a nation of innovators, creators and entrepreneurs. Our manufacturing sector helps bring many of those ideas to life, and we understand its importance. But the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations. If they did not have that targeted support, they would feel the hit very strongly.
Through the Bill, we are delivering our manifesto pledge to protect valuable town centres and high streets by enabling the introduction of permanently lower taxes for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been rolled over year on year since the covid-19 pandemic. We have been clear throughout the process that this tax cut must be fully funded. Therefore, against the current fiscal backdrop, a widening of the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers might dilute the support that the Government were able to provide, or its impact might even require a higher tax rate for properties with values of more than £500,000 to fund such new multipliers. However, we respect hon. Members’ points of view and agree that our manufacturing sector should be recognised and supported.
Advanced manufacturing is one of the eight growth-driving sectors identified as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for the new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. That is how the Government intend to support the innovators, creators and entrepreneurs mentioned earlier. Because we have this package in place to support manufacturing, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with reassurance as to our commitment to support the sector, which I am sure the whole House recognises is vital.
I turn to amendments 7 and 8. While clause 5 will remove business rates charitable relief from private schools, the amendments would introduce new provisions or expand existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that certain private schools remain eligible for business rates charitable relief. Amendment 7 would result in a fee-paying school retaining its relief if it wholly or mainly catered for pupils with special educational needs as defined under section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014, whether or not those pupils have an education, health and care plan. Amendment 8 would result in a private faith school or a private school with a special character maintaining its eligibility for charitable relief if there were no maintained or academy school of the same faith or special character within the statutory walking distance set out in the Education Act 1996. Although amendment 8 does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from previous contributions in the House that that would include schools that follow a particular method of education. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools. As we have said, the removal of the tax break is necessary to fund school support for the over 90% of pupils who are educated in the state sector.
The Government have carefully considered their approach to minimising the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities and that wholly or mainly—by over 50%—provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable relief. As hon. Members will be aware, most children with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can only be supported in a private school, the local authority directly funds that place.
Where an EHCP has not named a private school, the parents or carers of the child may choose to place that child in a private school, but that is a choice made by the parents and does not detract from the assessment that the pupil’s needs can be catered for in the mainstream state-funded sector. In instances where a child’s parents disagree with the local authority’s assessment that their needs can be met in the state sector, the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel to resolve such disagreements.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised by hon. Members and others that pupils with special educational needs in private schools may lose their charitable relief. The Government believe that most private special schools will not be affected at all by the Bill. In fact, we expect any private special schools losing eligibility for private relief to be the exception; according to our assessment, they could be in the single figures. It is important that we keep it in that context.
Jim McMahon
I do not have time for any more interventions.
Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. The majority of children in England with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in the state sector already. The Government’s ambition is for all children and young people with special educational needs or a disability to receive the right support to succeed in their education as they move into adult life.
As Members know, all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which includes fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and of none. We have listened carefully to arguments relating to exempting faith schools from the Bill, and we have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or schools with other special characteristics cannot be justified. For those reasons, we are unable to accept amendment 8.
Finally, amendment 10 would delay the removal of charitable rates relief from private schools by one year to April 2026. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture of the state sector, where most children are educated. Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but, in the end, necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver on the Government’s commitments to education and young people. Together, these policies are expected to raise over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30—essential funding to improve the education of the vast majority of school-age children. Delaying their implementation would forgo about £140 million, which, frankly, cannot be justified.
The House has heard a good range of amendments to the Bill, and I hope that I have been able to address them all. Although we are not able to accept the amendments, I hope that the assurances that I have outlined are accepted and Members feel able to withdraw them. If not, the Government cannot support them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jim McMahon
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge all who have contributed to the Bill’s passage through this House, particularly my private office team, for the support that they have offered during this process, officials in my Department, for the outstanding work that they have done, and colleagues in the Department for Education and the Treasury, as well as Clerks of the House, for supporting the process of this Bill.
The Bill honours the Government’s manifesto pledge to end business rates charitable rate relief for private schools in England and to fundamentally reform the business rates system. We are kickstarting this endeavour through the introduction of lower tax rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties.
I thank all Members who contributed to the evidence sessions, the Committee stage and today’s debate. I hope, even though there were disagreements on parts of the new clauses and on the amendments, that there is at least an acknowledgment that we have gone a long way to ensure that we get to the heart of what this Bill is intended to do when it comes to the high street and our town centres. In the end, whatever the differences—and let us be honest there are plenty—we all know how important our small businesses are to the viability of our high streets. We all recognise that these are more than just places in which to do business; they are places that people look to as the heart of their community. They are always more than the sum of their parts. Hopefully, Members will see that these measures will really make a dent in this area.
I also place on the record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, including: the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation; the British Retail Consortium; the Co-op Group; M&S; the Shopkeepers’ Campaign; the British Property Federation; and the Independent Schools Council. They have enabled us to scrutinise the Bill properly and to get evidence from professionals who understand what things are like on the ground, and that, I believe, added value to the process.
I thank those who attended and gave evidence in Committee for their time and willingness to share their expertise. I also wish to extend my thanks to hon. Members who attended the Public Bill Committee to ask questions, to foster debate, and to contribute to discussions as we take these important first steps to transform the business rates system.
The Bill will help to secure additional funding to enable the Government to deliver their commitments to the majority of children who attend state schools, which is the second part of this Bill. Ending tax breaks for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will come as welcome news to most parents in England, as it represents the Government’s determination to break down the barriers to opportunity and ensure that all children get a high-quality education. Let us be absolutely clear: more than 90% of children in this country go to state schools and they deserve the best, too. Now they are going to get it.
Let me assure Members that the education system in England is prepared for the relatively small number of pupils who may move as a result of the measures in this Bill. Much of what we have heard about churn in the system is not supported by the evidence and, in the end, it runs the risk of scaremongering. We need to reflect on the fact that there has always been change in the system, even before these measures were introduced. Importantly, we are organising to make sure that parents and pupils receive support if they need it, but we believe that will be around the edges.
The Bill will also provide certainty to high streets by making provision to introduce a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have heard a lot about the change from the covid relief to the permanent, baked-in relief that we are providing through the Bill. The Opposition have said a number of times during the Bill’s passage that it represents a reduction, but a degree of honesty is required. The Opposition know, as do we, that there was no provision—not a single pound or penny—for the continuation of the temporary relief provided during covid on which retailers, hospitality providers and leisure providers were relying.
The Opposition know that that is a fact, as do we. The only difference is that while the Opposition were willing to political point score, while businesses were waiting for maturity and for an answer to the problem, we were getting on with the job of government, and providing the permanent support that businesses need. How will we pay for it? We have heard the Opposition say a lot that they do not support measures, but they always support the investment. They support the investment in state schools, but not the measures to generate the income. They support the measures to support high streets, but seem not to support the measures to ensure that premises with a value of £500,000 or more pay more into the pot.
The reality is that this has not just come out of the blue. The Conservatives had 14 years to address the imbalance from the online to the on-street, from the out-of-town to the in-town, and they did nothing, so it is, frankly, ridiculous for them to try to present themselves during the passage of the Bill as the champions of enterprise, of our town centres and of small businesses. They now have an opportunity. We have sorted out the amendments—they were nonsense, and most people would accept that—but on Third Reading we get to vote on the substance of the Bill. The Opposition could do the right thing. They could change course and back support for state schools to get them the money that they need. They could back measures to get money to the high street in our town centres and do the right thing. Now is the time to show that they will be the mature Opposition that they promised to be, but I expect that that will not be the path they choose. Luckily, the Government are getting on with the job. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the Minister, and indeed my shadow Ministers, the other Opposition spokespeople and all parliamentarians who have helped with the passage of the Bill, as well as the Clerks and officials—not that I would like to see the Bill progress any further. Aristotle, in his book “Politics”, over 2,000 years ago—[Interruption.]
Kevin Hollinrake
Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle talked about deviant government. Alongside tyranny, he placed democracy. He said the risk is that, sooner or later, a Government will come along who represent only their own interests and those of their supporters, and that that Government will pursue the politics of envy. Let us see who the Minister’s supporters are. They are not the 12.6 million pensioners in this country, if we judge by the winter fuel allowance; not the 89,500 farmers whose livelihoods will be damaged by the family farm tax; not the 5 million businesspeople who will be damaged by the changes to business property relief, who employ 14 million people and pay £200 billion a year in taxes; not those people who live in rural areas; and not the families of the 550,000 young people who are in private and independent education. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this is not scaremongering —90,000 of them may go back into the state sector as a result of the Government’s choices.
The Government have the gall to say that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a tax break. It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food. Those measures are there because we should encourage people to pursue education, particularly those who scrimp and save to send their children into private education.
What about businesses? Businesses are suffering on the back of the employer national insurance rise of £25 billion a year, and are worried about the future because of the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. The reality is that this Bill means a cut in support for many of those whom the Minister said he seeks to protect—people who work in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. The 75% discount is down to 40%. That will mean a tangible difference for the average pub of £5,500 a year. That comes on top of the huge increases in employer national insurance. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off to the tune of £925 million. That is the tax charge he is placing on those businesses he says he seeks to protect. If he is honest with them, those taxes will go up again in April 2026. That is the reality of the situation.
What promise did Labour make before the election? They said they would scrap business rates completely—another broken promise. In their manifesto, they said they would change the balance between high streets and the online giants. That is not what the Bill does. The Bill also taxes breweries, airports, football stadiums and bricks-and-mortar retailers such as John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. That is the reality behind the Government’s changes: not scrapping business rates, nothing on the online giants and big taxes on many businesses. This is the politics of envy. It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.