Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will add a few words on this important group of amendments. It is not possible to do an impact assessment at the moment. This has been rushed, and the new valuation list will not be completed for another three or four months. Non-domestic rates are the third-highest cost to most RHL businesses, after rent and employment costs. The third-highest outgoing for these businesses is being discussed here and going into law as we speak before one of the critical ingredients of the P&L of those businesses is known. It will not make good law.

The amendments we have heard about in this group, and some of those to come in later groups, refer to a request for delay to the impact assessment so that these variables are known and businesses are not groping about in the dark trying to understand their profitability and do their business plans. It is not the right moment to be having this conversation, but all will be fine if we allow an extra year to do the impact assessments and the required consultations with the professional bodies that have the expertise, which can then be assessed by secondary legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to introduce a number of provisions into the Bill requiring reports and assessments of various types. They are concerned with the impact on the RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—sector, including on local government revenues, businesses more generally and economic growth. Some reports and assessments would be required before Clauses 1 to 4 come into force, and others after.

First, I want to stress to the Committee the importance we attach to being clear and transparent about this policy—who will be affected and the impact it will have on revenue. The principles behind these amendments are sound. It is right that the impact of tax changes should be carefully considered in detail. However, there is a balance to be struck and some of these amendments would place an undue constraint on the Government that would likely delay the new multipliers coming into effect from April 2026. Others would duplicate existing reports or would require reports to be produced before we will have been able to collect any data from local authorities. Through a combination of existing reports and commitments already made, I am confident that we can give noble Lords the assurances they seek.

Amendments 48 and 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seek to require the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the new multiplier arrangements on businesses, high streets and broader economic growth. Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce a very similar requirement.

Noble Lords will be aware that policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions as defined in the Better Regulation Framework. Obviously, tax measures are introduced for very different reasons from other types of legislation and are therefore not under the same requirements to be accompanied by an impact assessment. This has been the settled position for many years. In fact, the exemption for tax from the meaning of a regulatory provision was captured in primary legislation passed by this House in 2015. Section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 excluded a statutory provision which makes or amends provisions imposing, abolishing or varying any tax, duty, levy or other charge. That exemption now exists in paragraph 2.3 of the Better Regulation Framework.

Nevertheless, the Government understand that there is great interest in the effects of the new multipliers, and the Treasury is committed to publishing analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements when the rates are set in the Budget later this year. The reviews that Amendments 50 and 52 seek to introduce are focused on the changes in business rates paid by qualifying RHL properties and other types of businesses. I believe that what these reviews seek to understand is how the business rates liabilities of affected RHL or other properties have and will change, reflecting on the provision of retail, hospitality and leisure relief since 1 April 2020 and the introduction of the permanent lower multipliers for qualifying RHL businesses and the higher multipliers from April 2026.

Noble Lords will know that retail, hospitality and leisure relief has varied year on year since it was introduced, reflecting the particular economic circumstances, including the terrible economic shock that was created by the Covid-19 pandemic. What is more important to point out, however, is that this relief’s expansion in response to Covid was a temporary, stop-gap measure that has been rolled over repeatedly, leaving businesses in a perpetual state of uncertainty until clarity for at least one more year was provided at Budgets. The new RHL multipliers are ending that uncertainty, introducing permanent lower tax rates that will help qualifying RHL businesses to plan ahead and get on with running their businesses rather than constantly worrying about what the next Budget may bring them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, could I point out that these forecasts are all going to be hypothetical? In five months’ time, the VOA will produce, or have access to, the updated new rateable values nationwide. Current rateable values will be history. Therefore, we have to anticipate what those might be. The balancing act between the larger properties subsidising the smaller RHL properties will then be reworked, but we cannot do it at the moment, which is one of the reasons why we feel that time is required for delays to the impact assessment process to take us one further year ahead.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that point. He also talked about delays, which I will pick up in a later group when we talk about implementation; I have not forgotten about the important points he raises. On the point he just made, the Budget analysis takes into account the 2026 revaluation, so that point is covered by the Treasury in its work in the build-up to the Budget.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I did not quite understand that point. The Minister is saying that the revaluation has already been taken into account in the figures that the Treasury is coming forward with. Does that mean he can share the revaluation with us?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify this for the noble Lord. As I said repeatedly on day one in Committee, the Treasury will publish an analysis when it sets its multipliers at the Budget, but the work that is going on in providing that analysis will consider all the issues, in particular the issue the noble Lord raised about the 2026 revaluation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It seems to me that the Government have done an impact assessment; if it is not an impact assessment, it is an analysis that may or may not be an impact assessment. The Minister is saying that he has some data but is not prepared to let us have it, so we have to make this law blind.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have been quite clear in stating that there is clear evidence that there is no impact assessment on taxation. However, what we are asking to do in the Bill is to set the parameters for increasing the multiplier and the flexibility for the higher rate over £500,000; and, for the lower multipliers, to support RHL, as we committed to do in our manifesto. When the Treasury works up to the announcement and makes a decision on the multipliers at the Budget, it will of course publish analysis on what the impact of that will be in 2026.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to labour the point. This may sound rude but it is not supposed to be. Given that the Treasury seems to be driving almost all of this, could we please have a Treasury Minister here, as well as the noble Lord, on Report? It would make sense to talk directly to the department that has actually made the decisions, rather than to the person who is carrying the message.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I take everything that the noble Lord says in a good spirit; I will come back to him on that point. Let me be clear on the remit of the Bill. On when the Treasury will set its multipliers, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I will go away and see. As I said on day one in Committee, I look forward to meeting all noble Lords who have an interest and amendments. I am happy to sit down and discuss this; if I can get one of my colleagues from the Treasury, subject to availability and diary commitments, I will of course pursue that.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I too do not wish to labour the point but, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that the ministry already has access to the new valuation list. Yet Colliers, a leading firm of rating surveyors with which I have had extensive discussions on this Bill, assures me that 1 June is when the work from the VOA will be completed. It may have been completed early but, if that is the case, can we please have that detail so that businesses can do their budgets and business plans?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I say directly again that the 2026 revaluation has not yet been completed but, obviously, the Treasury is working on it. It is having conversations with all stakeholders, of course. In fact, it is probably also looking at forward planning on the whole future of business rates. As I said on our first day in Committee, this is the start of a huge strategic focus looking at business rates; this is the first part of it. I assure colleagues that, as soon as the multipliers are announced at the Budget, noble Lords will have an analysis—not an assessment, but an analysis.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Thurlow, for their support on what I think is a really important part of the Bill. It is not about us knowing; it is about businesses knowing. We heard very strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about businesses, particularly those that are around the £500,000 and do not know now whether they are or are not, and the multipliers. They are trying to plan their businesses, hopefully for growth, if we hear what His Majesty’s Government want for them, but how can they do it when they do not know what the third-biggest chunk of their expenditure will be? We are trying to get the Minister to understand how very important that is to this sector.

I thank the Minister for his response but I still think, as can be heard from the questions, that we have a lot of concerns over the lack of clarity on this and, particularly, the full impact assessments. I am more than happy to work with the Minister and the Government to find a way around this, so that we can feel comfortable—not for us, as I have said, but so that businesses can fully assess the impact as soon as possible. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 addresses the issue that, despite the Government’s claim that they would reform the business rates system, the Bill does not offer that. We heard concerns from several noble Lords on the previous day in Committee that this is not a Bill that will support the high street and level the playing field, as promised in the Labour manifesto. My concern is that businesses will face substantially higher costs. These proposals are supposed to support the high street, with a so-called Amazon tax, yet this is clearly not the case. It is a blunt instrument that will substantially increase taxes on all properties with a rateable value above £500,000. As such, it risks harming the very businesses it is purportedly designed to help, such as anchor stores and other retail, hospitality and leisure facilities fundamental to the high street.

There is a second concern that we have already raised: the cliff-edge nature of these proposals. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have done some very basic analysis of this. For example, a retail, hospitality or leisure business with a rateable value of just under £500,000 would today pay rates of around £175,000, assuming a 0.2 discount and a multiplier of 0.55, whereas if it were to make a small investment and tip over that threshold, it would pay £320,000. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I allow for a little approximation in those numbers. There are plenty of examples of this. For instance, locally to me in Bedfordshire, Luton Hoo, which is currently looking at some investment, has a rateable value of £490,000. Will that investment go ahead, knowing the additional costs? Even more locally—as Members are aware, I am a councillor and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire—near my own ward, a garden centre in Toddington faces the same issue. Again, I am aware that it is looking at some investments.

We have also touched on the impact of future revaluations. The Minister has been keen to point out that this will impact fewer than 1% of properties and only 3,100 retail outlets. He said that he wants to be clear and transparent, so can he tell us how many additional properties will be above the £500,000 threshold after the next revaluation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers specifically to the idea of a commercial landowner levy as a proposed tax reform to replace the business rates system. I support the sentiment of requiring government to consider genuine reform, rather than the lack of change that the Bill provides. I do not agree with the specific reform proposed by the noble Lord, but I acknowledge the need to adapt the system to ensure that online businesses that operate from out-of-town warehouses pay a fair, proportionate share of business rates. Given that the Bill has been brought forth, it seems reasonable to assume that the Government have delayed any plans they had to reform the system, which will damage businesses up and down the high street. They promised lower business rates but are reducing the relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, sending an incoherent message to our high streets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 seeks to require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the measures in the Bill, once passed, on broader non-domestic rating policy and to set out what potential changes may be required and/or what alternative approaches to non-domestic rating have been considered. The Government are committed to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government commenced that journey at the 2024 Budget, when we announced our intention to permanently—I say that again: permanently—introduce lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, as well as a higher rate on properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above to ensure that the permanent tax cut is sustainably funded.

At the Budget, the Government also published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, setting out priority areas for business rates reform and inviting stakeholders to have a conversation with the Government on this matter over the course of this Parliament. The areas of interest for further reform as set out in the paper include: incentivising investment and growth, considering the frequency of revaluations and ensuring that the system is transformed to make it fit for the modern 21st century economy. The paper also focuses on tackling avoidance and evasion; for example, through the Government’s intention to publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.

I am delighted to say that those conversations with stakeholders on priority areas for reform have commenced and are ongoing. I thank all those stakeholders who have been in contact to offer their valuable insights and experience of non-domestic rating. Furthermore, on 17 February, the Government published the Business Rates: Forward Look policy note, which provides an update on key milestones for the Government’s overall business rates reform agenda. As set out in that note, we are reflecting on engagement undertaken so far and the views expressed as part of that process. It also sets out that we anticipate further stakeholder engagement on specific reform options ahead of the Autumn Budget, when final decisions will be set out.

I am aware that there is support from Liberal Democrat noble Lords and Members of Parliament for the replacement of business rates with a commercial landowner levy. What is important to the Government is that we have a tax that works. It is not the first time that this House has heard suggestions for a tax on land values or a levy on landowners: it was as common a debate in the last century as in this one. What all those debates show is great uncertainty and a lack of evidence of the benefits: any benefits to the high street would be far from certain. We are clear on the need for reform but, to minimise disruption for businesses, the Government will make improvements to the existing system over the course of this Parliament.

Before I conclude, let me address the points that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised on investment. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific examples of live non-domestic rating bills but, as part of the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, we will look at the effectiveness of the improvement relief scheme, which helps businesses that invest in their property. I look forward to our engagement, post Committee, in more detailed conversations. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. I agree that the system is broken and we are trying to fix it. It cannot go on year after year on an ad hoc basis. We need certainty and sustainability so that people can have a clear and fair system. As we said in our manifesto, we will continue to support leisure, hospitality and retail, and those above £500,000 rateable value—fewer than 1% of properties—will contribute to make sure that our system is fair and balanced.

I hope I have provided reassurance as to the seriousness with which the Government are approaching our stated task of reforming the business rates system, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for replying; I am not sure that I thank him for his reply. I thank him for acknowledging that the system is broken. When you try to fix something, there is no point in fixing the windows if the roof has caved in and you have subsidence. The scale of the brokenness means that the ambition to reform needs to be somewhat more than I detected from him.

I am grateful to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for bringing up the cliff-edge point: we have to talk about putting in steps to avoid that cliff edge. The example given was not specific but an imagined, general example. We do not need specifics: we know that if a business is valued at £495,000 and it increases its value just a tiny bit, it is suddenly in a massive tax bracket. The Minister must be able to see that that is a huge barrier to investment. The only way to deal with that is to have not a cliff edge but a gradual approach. We should investigate that process together.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord touched on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made about anchor stores and valuations above £500,000. Let me be clear: many anchor stories in RHL have rateable values of properties in other parts of the country that are less than £500,000, so, equally, they will also benefit from lower multipliers in that bracket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 5 is an interesting add-on to the legislation as a whole, which is focused on non-domestic rates as applied to business premises. Here, we suddenly have one sector of businesses being pulled out for special treatment, which is curious to me. It becomes a very strange Bill with Clause 5 added to it. However, for Liberal Democrats, as I have probably said many times in the course of my public sector career, education is the single most important and best investment that any Government can make in our children, their future and the country’s future. The clause is important to us because it relates to education.

The Government’s policy in this Bill, removing the current exemption for relief of business rates, combined with the introduction of VAT and the impact of employers’ national insurance increases, will undermine two important principles for Lib Dems. The first is that education should not be taxed. All education provided by an eligible body, including universities, music lessons and tutoring, is currently exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on these things—and, hence, neither should business rates. The exemption should not be removed from these schools. The second principle is that parents have a right to choose the education setting that they believe is the best for their children. We champion choice and believe nothing should get in the way of parents making those choices.

The best outcome of all would be that state-funded education was funded at the same level as that experienced by children in the private, or independent, sector. It is curious to me that the gamut of changes that the Government are making in relation to the costs imposed on the private, or independent, sector will not release sufficient funding to make a significant impact on children’s education in the state sector, so it is hard to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve.

It has been an interesting debate. Lots of points of definition have been raised, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the interesting points about the importance of having an accurate definition of the sector. I look forward to his response. But in summation: education is most important, and parents have the right to choose, as long as those choices do not have a negative impact on everybody else, which in this case they clearly do not.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 55 and 62 seek to carve out from the Bill all private schools that charge fees of less than £27,642 per year through exempting schools that meet this criteria from the definition of a private school. I am conscious that other amendments tabled by noble Lords seek to carve out other private schools from the Bill definition, and we will discuss these in more detail as part of today’s proceedings. However, it would be helpful for me to set out the purpose of Clause 5 for when the Committee decides whether to agree the clause. At the same time, I can elaborate further on the meaning of “or other consideration” as per Amendments 56 and 59, and the use of “private school” as opposed to “independent school” in response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.

The Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. The removal of business rates charitable relief, as set out in Clause 5, legislates for the Government’s commitment to secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitment to education and young people, including the more than 90% of children who are educated in state schools.

Clause 5 removes the charitable rate relief from private schools by amending paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZB to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to exclude private schools from the rules in relation to the application of charitable rate relief. Amendments to the rules in relation to the application of charitable relief can be made only through primary legislation.

The Bill inserts new sub-paragraph (3) to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA to remove charitable relief from occupied hereditaments wholly or mainly used for the purposes of carrying on a private school. Ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields that are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.

The rest of Clause 5(2) is concerned with the definition of a private school. To answer directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the terminology “private school” has been used because the term “independent school” includes state-funded academies, which are not in scope of this policy and therefore of the measures in the Bill. The term “private school” has been used to avoid uncertainty regarding which schools are in scope, and I am sure it is not the noble Lord’s intention to bring academies into scope of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before he sits down, can the Minister respond to one point that I made? If he does not have an example today, perhaps he could write to me and share the letter with other Members of the Committee. Does he have a real-life example of where “other consideration” has regularly—or even occasionally—been used in practice to replace fees, either wholly or partly? I have visions of, I do not know, farmers arriving with trailers loaded with whatever it might be. If the Minister does not have an example now, perhaps he could let me know.

I also ask the Minister to confirm something. I take his point about the property value not necessarily being linked to the fees, but can he commit to considering, where a school charges less than the per pupil rate of state funding, whether this policy will still apply?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Committee will understand, it is difficult for me to talk about examples at this time, but I take the noble Baroness’s point. I would like to hear more about the examples that she has, in particular to see what examples we can discuss in depth when we meet post Committee. It is difficult to talk about non-domestic rating examples now.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be honest, I do not have examples, but the Bill suggests that fees might be paid by means of “other consideration”. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me about whether that has ever been used, either wholly, partly, regularly or occasionally.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on those two points; I will also pick them up when we next meet.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, please forgive me: I forgot to make a declaration of interest at the outset. I am a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, which consists of 700 schools—mainly smaller ones—that will be badly affected by this legislation and other actions of the Government in the realm of taxation.

The Committee will have listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to noble Lords. It is unlikely that the Minister’s reply will have given complete and utter satisfaction in every respect. We will return to these matters on Report. As far as my amendments are concerned, I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the reasons why the word “private” is very difficult because of its connotations. The problem with using it in legislation is considerable.

The Minister referred to the position of academies. Another way could have been found of dealing with VAT without introducing independent schools in the way that this has been done in legislation. There are many serious matters that naturally require further consideration and debate. That is why Report will be so important. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are some very important and interesting issues in this group of amendments. The first is about the provision of foundation courses to enable young people to move into further education or training. It is important that the Minister has an answer to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that will put us at ease that they will not be penalised in this way. Often, young people who do foundation courses do so because they missed out earlier in their school careers, for many reasons that might be associated with their family or their own health issues. I do not think the Government would want to penalise those young people by putting at jeopardy those courses available to them.

The next issue, about nurseries, is interesting because different parts of a premises can be assessed separately by the non-domestic/business rate regime. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that even in an Amazon building, the facilities for the employees will be rated at a separate value from the rest of the building. For instance, I have been looking—surprisingly—at the implications for large hospitals, which were raised in the debate on Monday. Different parts of the premises will be rated in different ways. If there is a clinic, that is one thing; the main hospital is another; the café is another; a shop is another. It is possible to assess rateable values, for business rate purposes, in the same premises in different ways, so it is possible to assess nursery sections of a private school separately from the rest of the school. Therefore, it is possible to exclude these from the proposals in Clause 5. I look forward to the Minister being able to confirm that that is the case and that nurseries can be readily and easily excluded from business rate applications, even if the Government insist on removing the charitable status from the rest of the premises.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 68 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern early years provision and private further education institutions. The definition of a private school in the Bill includes institutions that wholly or mainly provide education suitable to persons over compulsory school age but under 19, where such full-time education is wholly or mainly provided for a fee or consideration. This brings private sixth forms into the scope of the Bill measure but excludes general FE colleges. The Bill also includes a specific carve-out for independent training and learning providers. Due to the mechanisms whereby the Government provide funding to these institutions, it was necessary to provide a carve-out in the legislation to ensure that these institutions did not inadvertently come into the scope of the measure.

The Government’s view is that all schools that offer full-time education to children of compulsory school age and/or to 16 to 19 year-olds for a charge should be within scope of the Bill measure. This is to ensure consistency and fairness in the Government’s treatment of private schools. The Bill measure includes stand-alone private sixth forms as well as those private sixth forms that operate as part of private schools that also cater for children of compulsory school age. Amendment 57 would remove entirely this part of the private school definition, the resulting impact of which would be that all private sixth forms would be out of scope and therefore retain charitable rate relief.

The noble Baroness indicated that through this amendment she is seeking to understand whether institutions providing foundation courses would be considered private schools. Foundation courses are a level 5 qualification and as such are classed as higher education. Foundation courses are in the main provided by higher education institutions such as universities. Institutions that are focused on the delivery of higher education are not within the scope of the Bill, and where they are charities they will continue to receive charitable relief. However, any private sixth forms that provide a few higher education courses, such as foundation courses, will still lose their relief if they are wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old. Given that business rates are a tax on property, the Government believe that this is a sensible line to draw for when the relief is removed.

Amendment 58 would amend the Bill definition of a private school. It would remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement in relation to the concern with providing full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old for a fee or consideration in such institutions. In business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means over 50%. Therefore, under the Bill definition, institutions that are more than 50% concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, and where more than 50% of such full-time education is provided for a fee or consideration, will be within scope of the measure and will no longer qualify for charitable relief.

The inclusion of the “wholly or mainly” test in the further education definition has been drafted in recognition that there may be some state-funded institutions where a small minority of pupils pay a fee for the courses they attend. The Government understand that these circumstances are rare but may include international students undertaking further education courses where they do not qualify for a state-funded place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for examples of institutions that may be around 50%. Regarding these schools, which mainly provide education suitable for those over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, it will be for local authorities to implement this test. I do not think it would be right for us to say whether a particular school passes that test, but we do not expect many of them to be at the margins.

Without including “wholly or mainly” in respect of new sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i), the Bill could inadvertently capture state-funded colleges of further education, which is not the intention of the Government’s policy. Similarly, it could risk capturing fee-paying institutions that predominantly provide higher education courses if one pupil who meets the broader further education definition is present. As set out, it is not the Government’s intention to capture higher education institutions within the Bill’s definition.

I should explain that the impact of this amendment would mean that the presence of one fee-paying pupil within the age bracket as per the current definition may result in the institution being brought into scope of the Bill, resulting in it losing charitable relief. In contradiction to Amendment 57, Amendment 58 would mean that more institutions would be in scope of the Bill and so would lose their rates relief. But I understand the purpose of the amendment, which is to understand better the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly”, and I hope I have been able to clarify that for noble Lords.

Amendment 68 seeks to carve out from the Bill private schools that also provide early years provision. For clarity, private nurseries that are on their own hereditament are not within scope of the Bill definition, and where they are charities they will retain charitable relief. The Government have decided that where private schools that provide for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.

It is for individual private schools to decide how they wish to meet additional costs as a result of the business rates measure. The allocation of costs in private schools that also provide early years provision on the same hereditament is a matter for those private schools. It is worth mentioning that government early education and childcare entitlements can be used for childcare in any approved childcare provider; this includes private school nurseries, although the numbers undertaking early years entitlement in private school nurseries are relatively small. Similarly, private school nurseries are also eligible to receive tax-free childcare funding as long as they are registered with Ofsted or an equivalent regulatory body.

Accepting these amendments would remove many private schools from the Bill’s measure. This would reduce the amount of revenue that could be raised and, consequently, may reduce the funding available to the Government to deliver on their commitments to young people and the state-funded education sector, where over 90% of pupils in England are educated. The outcome of the tax changes on private schools will have a significant impact on the Exchequer, enabling the Government to fulfil their commitments on investing in state education and young people. Together with the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, these policies are expected to raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.

I hope that this provides further clarification on the drafting of the definition, as well as on the Government’s position regarding the inclusion of private further education and private schools that also cater for nursery-age children alongside compulsory school-age children. For the reasons set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his remarks and for addressing the points I made in relation to each of these amendments, in particular Amendment 58. I heard the Minister say that relatively few schools or private providers will be at the margins of “wholly or mainly”. I thank him for the example of the international students who might be fee-paying.

On Amendment 68, I understand the Minister’s push-back in relation to exempting a whole school—I hope I addressed that in my opening remarks—but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her explanation of how local authorities can separate out different parts within a hereditament. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the department that this measure just feels really illogical. It will not be a significant amount of money that is raised by withdrawing the relief where an independent nursery is part of a school but not withdrawing it where an independent nursery is not part of a school, particularly in the light of the noble Baroness’s expert insights into how that could be achieved.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are important, focusing on children with special educational needs and disabilities. SEND provision is in crisis across the country, whichever sector of school children attend. The reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has raised, is the huge delay in assessing children who may need an education, care and health plan, often because of the lack of educational psychologists. There are often very long delays getting what used to be called a statement of need but is now just an EHCP.

The consequences for schools in this sector is that they qualify only if their children have ECHPs, and because ECHPs are so difficult to access, many parents send their children to private school in desperation because their children’s needs are not being adequately met in the state sector. There is no criticism attached to that because there is huge pressure on the state sector. If you have a child with special needs then, if you are able, you look to where those needs are best met.

In the days before children with dyslexia were recognised, parents often took children with severe dyslexia out of the state sector and into one of the several independent schools set up around the country that had the expertise to help those children. I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments because we want all children to have their needs met, but schools helping young people with particular needs are in danger of having their relief removed because of the threshold in the Bill.

There is little recognition that children have special needs even without an EHCP, simply because of the huge backlog. The backlog exists because there is also a funding crisis within SEND. On all those issues, the Government really should think again, particularly on Amendment 61. I hope that the Minister will have some positive words in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are concerned with the carve-out within the Bill’s measures for private schools that wholly or mainly provide education to pupils with education, health and care plans. Amendment 60 seeks to remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement, the effect of which would be to carve out from the Bill’s measures private schools that provide full-time education to any number of persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained.

I understand from the accompanying explanatory statement that this amendment seeks to understand the definition of “wholly or mainly”. As I have said elsewhere on a previous group on business rates, wholly or mainly generally means more than 50%. In practice, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the measure. We expect any private special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; they will potentially be in single figures. Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they pay no rates.

I am aware that some concerns have been raised—the noble Baroness has raised them in clear and categoric terms—in relation to the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under or over the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. Therefore, we do not expect there to be many mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold.

To add to that point, if there are any marginal cases, the test in law is whether the institution is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to ECHP pupils. While it will be for the local authority to decide, this wording should avoid the need for schools at the margin to jump in and out of entitlement for charitable relief following small movements in pupils.

The majority of private special school places are funded by local authorities. The 2024 school census shows that in more than 80% of the sector more than nine in 10 pupils have an EHCP plan that stipulates that the place is funded by the local authority.

Amendment 61 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if that fee-paying school wholly or mainly catered to pupils who have special educational needs as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, and regardless of whether or not those pupils also have an EHCP. The Government are aware of the concerns raised with respect to pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief, because the school is not wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. The Government have carefully considered their approach to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.

The Bill provides that schools that are charities and wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rates relief. The Government recognise that where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charity relief. Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector cater for pupils with special educational needs. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met within mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched upon the issue of the wider problem in terms of delay, which I will address. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plans and the respective applications in time for the start of the next school year, so that parents can make an informed decision as to which school they send their child to. In special cases, the local authority is able to pre-pay one term’s fees if the education, health and care plan is not complete but the outcome is foreseeable. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to be granted an EHC plan in the future.

The Government are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish. Private schools can provide choice, high-quality education, economic benefit and public benefit through partnerships and means-tested bursaries, but most parents cannot choose private schools. We need to improve provision for the 93% of pupils at state schools, and that is rightly our focus. The Government are also committed to reforming England’s SEN provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. The Government will provide an uplift of around £1 billion in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.

Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector, as I said before, cater for pupils with special educational needs. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the way that this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state-funded schools. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs—with or without an EHCP—have their needs met in the state-funded sector. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited.

It is for the reasons cited that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments, but I hope that, with this further information, I have provided satisfactory explanation as to the Government’s approach and reassurance that the approach adopted ensures that the impact on those children with the most acute needs is minimised. I request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for the vivid picture that she painted in her remarks of the desperation of some parents whose children are struggling in a state-funded school, and who make huge sacrifices to send their child to an independent school. I also thank the Minister for his clarification, as I have understood it, in relation to my Amendment 60. I think he is saying that independent special schools are exempt in this legislation but mainstream ones will not be, because they are extremely unlikely to be anywhere near the 50% threshold in terms of EHCPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I have not added my name to these amendments, but I feel strongly about them. This vital group, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, is directly focused on those in need. I want to consider for a minute this group from a different point of view—the point of view, if you like, of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave the example of five schools by the age of seven—or seven by the age of five, I do not remember. I was one of those children. My parents were civil servants serving abroad, and they chose to keep me at home well into my teens, whereas most in similar positions were sent back to the UK to attend an independent school and be given the continuity of education that is required at home, wherever home may be.

The price I paid was 13 schools through the course of my education. Most of those were attempts to cram or correct for the next stage, because I was always turning up half way through a term, starting on a Wednesday in a class of 25 people—having never seen any of them before—after coming 3,000 miles. Then I was off again two years later, and there was a different syllabus—and a different language in one case. I ended up here in the UK knowing a great deal about Captain Cook, the South Pacific and the Māori but absolutely nothing about English history or any of the other normal curriculum subjects.

I spent my last few years at school on the back foot in a special independent school, trying to catch up. Had I not had that opportunity, I certainly would not be proud or competent enough to stand here today and address your Lordships. It taught me some self-confidence in the absence of any sort of academic success. University was out of the question. I give this example simply because it is terribly important that those serving abroad, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, are given the opportunity to give their children an equal start.

I am very pleased that I had the alternative, because my parents wanted to keep us at home, wherever home was. It did not really do me any harm at the end of the day, but I got no GCSEs, O-levels or A-levels, other than the odd one—usually called something like technical drawing or one of these back-door opportunities. I mention this simply to drive home, perhaps, the importance of what is being discussed, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Let us not destroy the opportunity for those young people.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that very eloquent contribution about the noble Lord’s personal journey. I will talk first to Amendments 63, 64 and 66, which seek to provide carve-outs from the Bill measure: in the case of Amendment 63, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 7% of gross income is spent on means-tested fee assistance; in the case of Amendment 64, for all private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education for gifted arts students, such as those attending specialist music and dance schools or performing arts colleges; and, in the case of Amendment 66, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 10% of students have at least one parent or guardian serving in the military.

The contributions that we have heard today reflect concerns about how the Bill may affect pupils from lower-income backgrounds, including those from military families, or those who are gifted arts pupils. Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. What is more, we do not think that Parliament should be putting in place incentives for charities to act in the public’s benefit in the way that Amendment 63 might encourage. Acting in the public benefit is something that a charity should inherently wish to do. Charitable private schools will continue to operate as charities and this Bill does not make any tax changes affecting their charitable status. For example, they will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus, as for-profit schools are taxed on their profits.

In designing the policy, the Government listened very carefully to representations and reached the view that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools wholly or mainly concerned with full-time education for pupils with EHCPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. This approach was adopted because to carve out some private schools and not others would be unfair. However, the Government listened carefully to concerns raised and, in relation to pupils from military families or those attending specialist arts schools, the Government have taken appropriate steps in relation to two government schemes.

I will elaborate further. The Government offer a means-tested bursary scheme for pupils who attend any one of eight specialist performing arts private schools. The music and dance scheme provides means-tested bursaries and grants totalling around £32 million per year to enable children and young people with exceptional potential to benefit from specialist music or dance training. It is available to qualifying families if their child has a place at any one of the aforementioned eight private schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 is a probing amendment to understand the Government’s thinking in relation to faith schools. As we have heard on numerous occasions in Committee, our concerns about the financial viability of the sector relate to the combination of VAT, the potential increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and now business rates. This combination is potentially most acute for faith schools, for three main reasons.

First, as the noble Lord knows, they often charge lower fees than other independent schools and have less financial resilience. This is particularly true for some Muslim and Jewish schools. Secondly, for parents where choosing a faith school is really important, there will often be no state-funded alternative at all locally, in the case of smaller faiths, or, for the larger faiths, provision with spaces available for these children at short notice.

Finally, if this is the case, we are concerned that this could contribute to an increase in children who are educated at home, which is something I know the Government plan to contain through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Our concern is that the combination of pressures on these schools will cause them to close with the unintended consequences that I have outlined. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what assessment the Government have made of each of these three risks, and how they plan to mitigate them. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 would mean that a private school with a religious or other special character maintained its eligibility for charitable relief where there is no maintained or academy school of the same religious character or other special character within the statutory walking distance as set out in the Education Act 1996. It would create an additional delegated power within the Bill whereby the Government, by secondary legislation, would be able to define what is meant by a special character. While the amendment does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from the contributions made in the other place, as well as from the noble Baroness’s contribution, that this could be used to carve out schools that follow a particular method of education or provide specialist tuition.

Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove the VAT and business rates tax breaks for all private schools. As we have said, removal of the business rates charitable relief is necessary in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state schools. The Government have carefully considered their approach and have decided that private schools that are charities will be carved out from the Bill measure only where they wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs.

It would be inconsistent and unfair to exempt any other types of private schools from this Bill measure. However, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith, ethos or other characteristic, such as following a particular education method. Pupils who follow a particular faith, education method or other characteristic can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs. The Government are not considering further exemptions to this policy, and therefore there is no need, as the amendment attempts, to give the Secretary of State the power to establish and define new designations of schools’ character in order to then exempt them from this measure. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister says again that this undermines the Government’s intention, but then in the next breath says that the Government value parental choice. It is one thing to say that a child can be accommodated in a state school—the Minister knows that there are certain parts of the country where even that is not necessarily a given, where state school spaces are very limited indeed and therefore one is putting pressure on parents and children to travel further than is ideal—but there is not the ability to place a child in a school with a specific faith designation, particularly for smaller faiths, in the way that he suggests. I do not think one can say that one values parental choice and then not offer parents something that they have strived to offer to their children.

Again, as in relation to my earlier amendment, these are schools, as I said in my opening remarks, where the fees, particularly in the Muslim and Jewish communities, are often two-thirds or half of a state-funded place. We are very concerned that this will result in children being educated at home, which carries with it certainly limitations in terms of socialisation for those children, at best, and, at worst, potentially wider risks to those children.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am conscious that the noble Baroness made a strong point; it has just come to my knowledge that I did not address it in my response. We estimate the overall impact to be that business rates changes will lead to around 3,100 fewer places in the private sector. Of those 3,100 pupils, the Government expect 2,900 to move to state-funded schools. The remaining 200 pupils will be international students returning to schools in their home nations, or domestic students moving into home-schooling.

The noble Baroness talked about home-schooling and mentioned the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Government will introduce a duty on parents to inform their local authority when they choose to home-educate their child. Measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that the most vulnerable children do not slip under the radar of the professionals who are there to protect them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene to say that the overall impact of this transition for private schools is on around 3,100 pupils.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that additional clarification, but the reality is that it is one thing if those 3,100 pupils are spread across the country, but quite another if they are in a handful of local authorities that are already full. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it will not surprise the Minister to know that I agree entirely with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan to ensure fairness and clarity in the treatment of private schools in relation to means-tested fee assistance and business rates. My noble friend was so eloquent and knowledgeable about the benefits of sport to all children. I am sure all across the Committee agree that he gave brilliant examples of both the physical and the mental health benefits. As someone who avoided sport at all costs in school and came to it later in life, I agreed with him and felt slightly guilty as I listened.

By preventing these schools being classified as private schools, the amendment highlights the value of their contribution and safeguards them from financial disadvantage. As my noble friend put so clearly, it would allow them to make sure that the sporting opportunities they offer can continue to grow, since they are so vital for our communities.

Amendment 69 addresses the valuation of sports facilities in relation to non-domestic rates and would ensure that the inclusion of sports facilities, which play such a crucial role in the development of young people, does not unfairly increase the business rates burden on schools. I am worried that the Minister will say that this amendment goes against the spirit of the legislation, so I am going to try a different approach to convince him both that this may amendment be one to focus on and to accept my noble friend’s suggestion to meet in order to try to find a way through.

First, as my noble friend said very clearly, whether we are talking about grass-roots local sport for someone as untalented and unable to hit a ball as I was or sport at the highest possible level, these schools provide opportunities in a way that we do not see widely in our communities. Secondly, my noble friend was clear about the importance of dual use for both local pupils in the wider community who do not attend the school and those who do attend the school.

The last thing I would stress is that the Minister has spoken on several occasions about the importance of raising money to invest in our state schools and the 93% of children who attend them. However, if we sat down to do the maths and tried to work out what it would cost to bring our state schools up to anywhere near the standard of what they can access in their local independent schools, I think we would find that, in capital terms, it is many times the amount that will be raised from VAT and the £70 million through this Bill.

I urge the Minister to take up my noble friend’s invitation to explore this issue and see whether we can find a way through. It is entirely reasonable to raise the bar and encourage independent schools to offer that dual use to make sure that their local communities benefit. Whether you take it from that perspective or a purely financial perspective, these amendments deserve great attention from the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendments 67 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I just let him know that I have a great passion for rowing, developed at the time of Redgrave and Pinsent. Unfortunately, I was only two years old when the noble Lord won the silver medal in Munich in 1981, so I cannot classify him as my hero, but I know that he will be a hero to many across the country and the world.

These proposed amendments seek to introduce a carve-out in the Bill for private schools where 10% of students are in receipt of a bursary or scholarship for sporting excellence. I am aware that this type of fee support can be provided to any pupil who meets the requirements set by an individual private school; similarly, it can be provided on a means-tested basis. The other amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks to ensure that no part of a private school that is used primarily for sport is included in the valuation of the school for business rates.

Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way in which charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit—a requirement that accompanies charitable status. As I have stated elsewhere, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and the Government expect them to continue to demonstrate public benefit, whether that is through the provision of means-tested bursaries or through other means, such as sharing facilities or working with state sector schools.

Ending the VAT and business rates tax breaks on private schools is a tough but necessary decision to help deliver on the Government’s ambition to eliminate barriers to opportunity by concentrating on the broader picture and towards the state sector, where over 90% of children in England are educated. Barriers to opportunity also appear in the sporting world, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. The Government are committed to improving access to sports and physical activity for all. Everybody, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible provision of sports facilities and opportunities to get active.

These amendments would reduce the scope of the Bill measure by removing private schools from the definition and thus reducing the amount of revenue raised. This would limit the additional funding secured to help deliver the Government’s commitments on education and younger people. Furthermore, it would be operationally unfeasible to implement requiring local authorities to audit the financial operations of charitable private schools to ascertain whether they meet the threshold, as per the amendments, when calculating their business rates bill for the financial year.

I shall now address the other amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I understand that part of the reason for it is a recognition that some private schools share their sporting facilities with neighbouring schools or the general public. As I have said, the Government expect private schools that wish to remain charities to continue to demonstrate a public benefit, such as by making their sporting facilities available more generally. That will not change. The amendment seeks to remove sports grounds from rating valuations. Exemptions of this nature, where part or all of a hereditament is removed entirely from rating valuations, are the most general and exceptional forms of support in business rates. They are reserved for cases such as agricultural land, places of public religious worship and, as we have already heard during the passage of this Bill, certain property used for disabled persons.

Despite the clear value of shared sports facilities at private schools, I do not think that it would be right to confer upon them such a level of benefit, especially when exemptions of this nature are not available to other sports facilities or even to charities more generally. Although these facilities are being used for sports and may be shared with the community, they remain part of private schools and are clearly used for their purpose; indeed, for many private schools, such sports facilities are a vital part of their offer to parents. It would therefore hardly be consistent with the overall purpose of Clause 5 to exclude them.

This story is very personal to me because I was an aspiring cricketer and did not make it through the system. I know that that was because of a lack of facilities and support at my local clubs and my local school, so I understand entirely the premise of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to do. I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that I will take this matter away and reflect on it; I will speak to colleagues, officials and other colleagues in the Treasury.

Let me let noble Lords know that the Government are committed to improving access to sport and physical activity for everybody. Sport and physical activity are central to achieving our health and opportunity manifesto missions, with the biggest gains coming from supporting those who are inactive to move more. Everyone, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible sports provision and facilities. The Government’s arm’s-length body, Sport England, is investing £120 million between 2025 and 2029 to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give more and better opportunities to all young people to explore and develop their potential. This funding will increase and enhance opportunities for talented young athletes in England to explore and develop their athletic potential, regardless of their background or financial circumstances. Through creating more inclusive talent pathways, the Government want to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give all young people more—and better—opportunities to explore and develop their potential. Sport England also wants to drive greater diversity within national teams, which will in turn demonstrate to the next generation of young people that they could have the same potential to reach the Games.

The PE and sport premium is a ring-fenced grant for eligible primary schools and other educational establishments. In March 2023, as noble Lords will recall, the previous Government announced more than £600 million of funding for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years. Schools must use funding to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of the PE, sport and physical activity that they provide.

I just want to say that this is a vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something interesting: she was not interested in sport early on but got into it in later life. Let me be absolutely clear: I learned to swim only last year. I was taught by my daughter; my 10 year-old daughter taught me to swim. I would have loved to have swum much earlier but I did not have the opportunity, resources or means to do that, so I recognise exactly the sensitive nature of what we are trying to do. The Government are supporting this through their work and funding. In particular, I recognise that the PE and sports premium is a ring-fenced grant. We must make sure that all children are supported. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution but, for the reasons I have set out previously, at this moment in time, I am unable to accept these amendments; however, I hope to go away and reflect on what the noble Lord said. In the meantime, I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with satisfactory information in relation to the difficulties and technicalities in these amendments, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 72A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lexden, are focused on the impact on state schools as a result of the Bill measure. They seek to require the Government to undertake a variety of assessments of the impact of Clause 5, covering between them: pupil movement; the impact on the state sector; partnerships between private and state schools; changes in staffing; and the availability of faith education to families which desire it. Furthermore, Amendment 72A from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that any assessment is conducted in the context of broader tax changes affecting private schools since 1 January 2025, effectively seeking to create an all-encompassing review of the Budget tax changes and their effect on private schools.

The Government carefully considered their approach in designing the policy to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. On 29 July, the Government published a technical note on removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools. The Government received and carefully considered over 17,000 responses to this note from a range of tax specialists, private schools, bodies that represent private schools and others. A detailed government response to this was published at the Autumn Budget. During development of these policies, the Government also met numerous key stakeholders representing schools, local authorities and, in the context of the VAT change, the devolved Governments. Furthermore, at the introduction of this Bill, the Government published a note setting out analysis of the impact of the business rates measure. This is available on the Bill’s page.

Two common themes in the amendments proposed are the impact on the state sector in pupil movements and partnership activity with private schools. As I have said previously, the Government estimate that in the long-run steady state, there will be 3,100 fewer pupils in the private sector as a result of the business rates measure. Of these 3,100 pupils, the Government estimate an increase of 2,900 pupils in the state sector in the long term. This represents approximately 0.03% of the total state sector pupil population.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, talked about the important point of SEND places. The Government work to support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for all children of compulsory school age who need them, and work to provide appropriate support where pupils with SEND require a place at state-funded schools. She raised some really interesting points about reform. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. We are providing an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding in financial year 2025-26.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Barran, both talked about whether regional variation with regard to pupil movement may arise as a result of the Bill measure. They said that some regions may be more affected than others. The Government work with local authorities to support place planning and ensure there is capacity in the state-funded sector to meet demand. We have confirmed nearly £1.5 billion of capital funding through the basic needs grant to create school spaces needed over the current and next two academic years, up to and including the academic year starting in September 2026.

As noble Lords know, all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place, and government support ensures that every local authority has sufficient places for children who need them. The Department for Education monitors place demand and capacity as part of its normal processes and will work with local authorities to meet any pressures. Data on the number of school pupils is published every summer. This provides information on the number of pupils at different types of school, so anyone can see how pupil numbers in state-funded schools and private schools have changed.

There have been suggestions that the cost of pupil moves from the private to the state sector will cancel out the revenue raised from the measure. Based on the average 2024-25 per pupil spending in England, the Government expect the revenue cost of pupils entering the state sector as a result of the measure to steadily increase to a peak of around £20 million per annum after several years. Overall, this means that the expected revenue will substantially outweigh the additional cost pressures.

Pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that. For individual schools, the Government therefore expect changes in pupil numbers caused by these changes to be managed in the usual way.

I have spoken only about business rates as that is the scope of the Bill. Noble Lords may also be interested in the impact of the removal of the VAT exemption, which has been mentioned. I direct them to the tax information and impact note that was produced to accompany the VAT change, which is publicly available on GOV.UK.

During the course of the Bill’s passage, we have heard a small number of examples of schools stating that they will reduce partnership activity with local state schools or will no longer be able to provide fee assistance. It is for individual private schools to determine how they manage any additional costs arising from the Bill’s measure. However, as set out previously, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and they will need to continue to demonstrate public benefit as a requirement of that charitable status.

Data published by the Independent Schools Council indicates that a lot of partnerships relate to the hosting of joint events or providing access to facilities also used by private school pupils. In many of these partnerships, the activity undertaken also benefits the pupils who attend private schools, so it would not be in the interest of the private schools to stop this activity. The removal of charitable relief from private schools does not reduce these schools’ obligation to show public benefit. The Government do not expect partnership activity or fee assistance to decrease significantly.

I will touch briefly on the other areas that noble Lords have suggested should be examined, starting with looked-after children. Local authorities can place looked-after children at private schools where that is in the child’s interest. We do not expect placements funded by local authorities to be impacted by tax changes, as the local authorities can reclaim VAT. As with partnerships, we do not expect charitable schools to stop supporting these pupils as part of their demonstration of public benefit.

Faith has been a common discussion point in not just this group but earlier groups of amendments. As discussed earlier, on a previous group, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. Do I know that? Yes, I am the Faith Minister. Many stakeholders have been speaking to me about this issue. Pupils who follow a particular faith can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one and, as previously stated, all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs.

On the issue of staffing, the Department for Education annually publishes teacher numbers in private schools. Employment of staff is a matter for individual private schools. We do not anticipate that they will substantially reduce staff as a result of the business rates measure.

I appreciate that there is concern in this area, but we should remember that the removal of charitable relief from private schools will raise important revenue that will help the Government to deliver on their commitment to the cohort of the more than 90% of children who attend state schools. This will break down barriers and ensure that all have access to the same opportunities.

I am unable to accept the amendments, but I hope that the further information I have provided, in relation to the analysis and assessment from the Government that have already been undertaken and that we will continue to do, has reassured noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

The Minister has spoken at length about the Government’s hopes, intentions and plans. Surely, having done all that, it becomes more important to find out what happens in reality over the next few years: how independent schools are affected and how many children have their education disrupted. These matters need to be clearly established, and that surely points to a proper and full impact assessment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord had made very strongly and passionately. In relation to this particular aspect and in contrast to the earlier part of our discussion in Committee related to multipliers, this is not a tax-particular perspective, which is why an impact note for the Bill is available. Of course, we are speaking to stakeholders and will continue to do so to ensure that we take everything into account. We have taken everything in account while bringing this Bill forward.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. He made the case for Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friends, I think. When I moved the amendment, I cited the 10,000 children expected to move from the private sector to the state sector, and the Minister cited 3,100. That is a discrepancy. Why? It is because they are both estimates. The Minister’s estimates are based on the Government’s analysis of expectation, but so is the private school sector’s.

The second pair of estimates that were cited related to the cost to the state sector of young people moving to it from the private sector. The estimate by the private sector is £92 million a year, whereas I think I heard the Minister quote a figure of £20 million being the anticipated cost after a number of years. He is not shaking his head—maybe I did not hear that figure correctly. However, the point I am making is that, in both cases, there is a discrepancy because these are estimates, not actual figures.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I just want to clarify the point that I was making: the additional revenue to support the transition to the state sector represents substantially much more revenue than the cost to support that transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendment 74, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and Amendments 75 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook. These amendments seek to delay the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Amendment 74 seeks to delay from 2026 to 2027 the commencement of Clauses 1 to 4, covering the new multipliers. The reasoning behind this proposal, as provided by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to provide more time to allow for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.

As I have set out elsewhere during the course of the Committee proceedings, the Treasury has committed to publishing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget. To clarify, the 2026 re-evaluation of the multipliers is ongoing and is not yet completed. We expect it to be published around the Budget.

As noble Lords will remember, the Bill is the Government’s first step in transforming the business rates system, and to delay it would delay the Government’s progress in undertaking this broader ambition over the course of this Parliament. Furthermore, it would delay the introduction of the new permanent tax cuts for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that those businesses would have to wait a further year for the lower multipliers.

Amendment 75 seeks to delay the implementation of the removal of charitable rate relief from private schools, pending an impact assessment focused on access to university for pupils in private schools in receipt of means-tested fee assistance. Amendment 76 would more generally delay by one year to April 2026 the same measure in Clause 5.

I understand the concerns that the swift implementation of Clause 5 from 1 April this year does not give private schools or local authorities time to prepare for the change—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just touched on. However, the Government announced this change in July 2024, stating then that it would be implemented from April 2025, subject to the passage of legislation. As such, private schools have been aware of this change for some time. Private schools that are impacted by the change already pay business rates. They already have a rateable value, they do not have to register with their local authority, and it is very simple for them to calculate their additional business rates bill. As these schools are already known to local authorities, the removal of the charitable relief should also be straightforward from their perspective. The Government are engaging with local authorities to support them through this change.

Delaying implementation of the Bill would forego approximately £140 million per year in funding, delaying the Government’s intended investment to deliver their commitments to education and young people and to support investment in our state sector, where more than 90% of children in England are educated.

The amendments call for an impact assessment. As Members of the Committee know full well, tax measures are not subject to full impact assessments. I continue to say this to the Committee because it continues to be correct, as it was under previous Governments. Despite this, my department has produced detailed analysis of the impacts of Clause 5, which was published alongside the Bill, as I stated earlier.

Amendment 75 also raises the question of access to higher education. Access to higher education should be based on ability and attainment, not background. Opportunity should be available to all, and it is the Government’s aspiration that no groups are left behind. That is why we are seeking, through this Bill, funding for new investment in the state sector.

I am also aware that there is concern across the Committee that the Bill’s measures may result in private schools that are charities reducing their charitable activity, of which the provision of means-tested bursaries is one such activity. It will be for individual private schools to determine how they will meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill’s measures, but they could, for example, reduce surpluses or reserves, cut back on non-essential expenditure, increase fees or use a combination of different approaches.

It is important to note that the measure does not remove the charitable status of these schools and charitable schools will continue to operate as charities. They must continue to demonstrate that they meet public-benefit tests, and the Government expect all charitable schools to continue to demonstrate this to retain their still very favourable status as charities. No other tax changes specific to their charitable status will affect private schools. They will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus.

As I have said, we cannot agree to delay the implementation of these measures. I hope that noble Lords can see this and will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this final group, and I thank the Minister for offering an opportunity to meet to discuss this in more detail, which I will take up. I remain concerned about the unintended consequences of the rush to get this through, for both schools and businesses but, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.