Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor, a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, and a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. In fact, these are the three bodies referred to in Amendment 32, which is in this group, under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage and for yesterday’s meeting—I appreciate that very much. If it is any comfort to him, that is at least part of the reason why I felt that I should not press these amendments today, most principally because they go to the heart of the philosophy of how the financial backcloth of rating is dealt with. That would be a very diffuse target at which to try to aim at this stage in the Bill.

Before dealing with Amendment 2 and speaking to Amendment 11, which is also in my name in this group, I remind your Lordships how we got here. During our deliberations in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the 2024 Budget, in which the Chancellor set out a Budget to “fix the foundations” and to take

“difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy … Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street”.

The Government’s manifesto pledge did a good deal more than just support the high street: it talked about dealing with the online giants. That is why Amendment 1, which we just voted on, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, causes me to remind your Lordships of what I reminded them of at an earlier stage of the Bill: the very large number of non-target species that are swept up by this particular Bill. I enumerated a significant number of them—not all, I might add—of which hospitals were one.

The Minister went on to say that the Government intended to provide

“a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country”.

He then referred to this whole

“challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited”.

We can fairly say that business ratepayers have been subject to an unsatisfactory means of levying this particular tax for a very long time. I have been on my feet on innumerable cases during the two periods that I have been in this House challenging that perception and showing how this is very negative in its effects on business confidence.

The Minister said that the system

“should work in a sustainable way”.

There are two bits of sustainability: whether the Treasury can balance the books and find the most convenient shortcut through in dealing with its affairs, and what you might call the politically most expedient way. The other way is the one that looks at how businesses make decisions and how the prospect of a surcharge impacts on what businesses do. I have said many times in this House that it is a poor tax that itself starts shifting the dial for people trying to get away from its effects.

The Minister said that

“the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets”.

I find it difficult to relate the benefit to the high street by the means shown in this particular Bill. The Minister also said that the process that the Government has alighted on would be equitable and would

“capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants”.—[Official Report, 24/2/25; cols. GC 444-45.]

Fair enough, but it catches an awful lot else besides, so it is very poorly targeted.

On 17 March, in the other place, in a Written Answer to a Written Question from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Exchequer Secretary commented first on the Valuation Office Agency publishing its official statistics detailing the number of non-domestic properties in England with a rateable value of £500,000 and over, broken down by sector. He then went on to say:

“There is no special category code for ‘internet retail warehouses’. You may find the data for ‘retail warehouses and food stores’, and ‘large distribution warehouses’ helpful”.


I do not find that in the least bit helpful. These are charging people who are not part of the target species. It appears that the Government have no idea how many large warehouses are occupied by the online giants that they claim to be targeting in the first place.

There are lots of questions here, some of which have already been put on previous occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Why was this threshold set at £500,000? What is the metric? How are the Government able to justify this figure? The manifesto said that the reforms would

“raise the same revenue … in a fairer way”.

When the Government are planning to raise an additional £2.65 billion by making businesses pay for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief and discounts, which up to now have been funded centrally, that makes me wonder precisely what the business of raising the same revenue in a fairer way amounts to.

If the intention was really to charge more to online giants, one would have to ask why the 90% of hereditaments to which the supplement might apply—the £500,000 rateable value and above—are dealing also with warehousing and other things that are clearly outside that. Some 90% of what they propose to charge does not fall within the category of online giants. It goes on from there. I have already raised the question as to why we cannot get to a more comprehensive reform of business rates—already referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—because this is starting to be an active disincentive to businesses.

That question is not answered by saying that other variable cost elements for businesses are better in this country than elsewhere. This is a direct, in-your-face fixed cost that businesses have to deal with. I cannot see that this is consistent with a growth agenda that intends to attract inward investment.

My interrelated Amendments 2 and 11 are aimed at not worsening the situation for the large retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the inclusion of which in the supplement cannot be justified on property terms. I would prefer the discounts to be applied to all such RHL properties, but this would be even less acceptable to the Government. However, it involves the removal of less than 25% of the total rateable value to which the Bill proposes to apply the supplement. When one looks at the mathematics of this, it really does not stack up. Even at the maximum level of potential supplement, it is substantially less than the extra revenue that the Government will raise from shifting the costs of the RHL relief from the Exchequer to the business rate payer—so it is not very large beer.

I said yesterday in a meeting with the Minister, and I say again, that I and a lot of rating practitioners, and certainly business rate payers, would be a great deal happier if we could have an assurance that the Government will move at reasonable pace to remedy the deficiencies of the current business rate system by whatever means. There needs to be comprehensive thought about this whole process so that we do not simply drift on and create more and more division and less and less confidence. Even at this late stage in the process, can the Minister give a reassurance that this is forthcoming within the current Government, for the better achievement of their aims on investment and growth? I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have great sympathy with the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and agree with the conclusions that he has so carefully reached. I know that these Benches would support his amendments.

Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, concerns an important issue. The Government promised in their manifesto to make the payment of business rates fairer and more balanced between retail distribution warehouses and high street shops. Indeed, the Chancellor said in the last Budget that she wanted to shift the burden. Yet all the signs are that nothing will happen until next year at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the timing for the outcome of the review that the Government apparently are undertaking. I say that because this is, as the noble Earl made clear, an urgent matter. Business rates are a major burden on retail high street shops. Sainsbury’s said a few months ago that half of its total tax bill is for business rates.

The system needs urgent reform. One step would be to accept the proposals in this group of amendments. In particular, Amendment 32 sets deadlines for when the Government must have acted. I hope that, if there is an opportunity, we on these Benches can support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to talk for more than a moment, as I have Amendment 32 coming in the next group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 in my name and to speak to its consequential Amendments 8, 12 and 16.

These amendments seek to retain the standard multiplier for anchor stores, given their ability to drive business on our high streets. Throughout Committee, there were several noble Lords who acknowledged the importance of these stores and the role they play in the commercial ecosystem of our high streets up and down this country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support on this matter.

As anyone who has worked in local government will know, when you get an anchor store such as a large Tesco, M&S or Primark—or one of those rare but well-loved independent department stores—on the high street, it allows the high street to flourish. I can certainly attest to that from my experience. The importance of these stores absolutely cannot be overstated. Without them, many high streets would seriously suffer due to the reduced footfall.

It is those very shops that draw people to the high street, and their presence encourages people to spend in the smaller, independent businesses. So the reason that these anchor stores should not be subject to the changes in the Bill is due to their role in aiding those small businesses. The Government claim that the Bill helps small businesses because it will leave them with reduced business rates, but if the anchor stores move away from the high street, they will not be able to sustain themselves at all. The Minister has many times continued to state that there are only a few of these stores in number, but if it is your high street that contains one of these, or if you want to bring one into your high street, then it is very important to you.

Not only will this push current stores away from the high street, but it will also mean that in future, when businesses are evaluating where to open new branches, they will be increasingly likely to choose locations out of town, where property costs less and where they will not be forced to pay the new higher multiplier. Large businesses will leave town centres, and I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the future of our high streets and the reduction in footfall that it will cause.

If the Government continue to increase costs on businesses in the same way as they have begun, there will not be any businesses left on our high streets to tax. The combination of the minimum wage, which we support, and the increase in employers’ national insurance has already led to many businesses increasing their costs or reducing their head count. This may well not be the most costly tax they face, but it could end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

My amendments would give the Treasury the power to define specifically what an anchor store is. I am sure we are all aware that it is not the easiest term to specify, as the Minister mentioned in Committee. I understand that it might be difficult but, with the input of or indeed the discretion for local authorities included, I am sure the definition can easily be reached.

In order to safeguard our high streets, we must protect the businesses that allow them to thrive. We understand the need to create a more fair and equitable system, but that is not what the Bill promotes. As such, we are highly concerned about the consequences, whether intentional or not, that it will have.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the topic of manufacturing. It is a sector of huge importance and must be protected.

I hope the Minister will recognise the importance of exempting these stores and will accept these amendments. If he does not, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The issue of anchor stores seems fundamental in increasing footfall into traditional shopping centres, and it is right that there should be a power to exempt those anchor stores from higher rates.

One note of caution that I want to mention is that a Government would need to ensure that there was not a tendency by landlords to try to increase rents in the face of lower business rates. I am sure there are ways in which that can be done. Where councils are the landlord then they would have control of that, but when the landlord is in the private sector we need a mechanism to ensure that that can be done—and it should be done. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am sure she will have the support of these Benches.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned Amendment 4 on manufacturing. My noble friend Fox is in another meeting in the House at this very minute, so I will be saying a few things about that amendment. It is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. There has been a drop in confidence in the sector since the autumn. There is a big increase in manufacturers’ costs. Reductions in markets, making business development more difficult, have become very clear. Orders in general are reported to be smaller in size. The Brexit impact urgently requires a reset with the European Union. Manufacturing industry has high energy costs, and there are now concerns surrounding tariffs which are affecting confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 in my name. I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Lexden for his support. I also strongly support Amendment 30 from my noble friend Lady Barran. I refer noble Lords to my previous declaration of interests.

Let me explain why this amendment is important. Throughout all the debates on independent education that we have had in this House, as indeed they have had in the other place, the Government have shown themselves seemingly impervious to rational argument. Frankly, they have buried their head in the sand, wilfully refused properly to engage with the independent sector and ignored the strength of feeling in this House and the opinion of experts in the field.

The unpalatable truth that they will not acknowledge is that their policies, of which the measures in this Bill are one central strand, simply will not end up benefiting the state sector in any meaningful or visible way. The 6,500 teachers promised are likely to be a fantasy and will end up being just another broken promise. But the policies will end up profoundly impacting the independent sector and the lives of tens of thousands of pupils and their hard-working parents, and that will have far-reaching consequences not just for the schools themselves but in countless other areas.

Heartbreakingly, as we heard in the debate on the previous group, it will impact on the way in which our society cares for vulnerable children, those with special needs and disabilities, and their carers and families. It will impact on local communities that currently benefit from thriving and imaginative partnerships with state schools, on faith communities and on military families. It will impact on gifted children who benefit from bursaries, something that many independent schools are cruelly being forced now to review, and of course it will impact on jobs at independent schools, especially when closures of schools inevitably and tragically happen.

It is crucial that all this is rigorously scrutinised and that Parliament has an opportunity to examine the consequences of the policies contained in the Bill, taken alongside the other tax changes being made on VAT and on national insurance—a combination of measures that the Government’s impact assessment failed to do, as it related only to business rates. That is what we, particularly in this House, are here for: to scrutinise, examine and challenge. But we need a comprehensive assessment of the facts, undertaken by the Government themselves, to be able to do that, and that is what this amendment would deliver. The Independent Schools Council, which does such an exceptional job in championing the sector, and the other associations that form part of it will conduct their own analysis. Ultimately, however, it is the Government who are responsible for the delivery of public policy in these areas and who must be held accountable by Parliament and the electorate.

The Government say that their measures, including those in Clause 5, will raise a certain amount of money to be invested in state education. I doubt it will raise anything like that, but let us see. They say they will be able to recruit additional teachers. I very much doubt it, but let us see. They say there will be no consequences for children with special needs and those in faith schools—let us see. If they are really confident that their policies can deliver what they say without damaging consequences elsewhere, why would they not want to have a review of them to prove the point? What are they fearful of?

Perhaps it is just possible that they might be wrong and will end up undermining and weakening the independent sector, which is the envy of the world, without delivering for the state sector—which means, of course, that they would have to think again. We need answers to that. That is why I believe they must commit to a thorough review of their policies, then Parliament, including our House, can scrutinise it, debate it and make recommendations for change.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with both amendments in this group. If you believe in “education, education, education”, you should not tax independent schools in the way that the Government have decided they want to. The Government have argued that taxing independent schools will increase the number of teachers in state schools, but the Government’s own figures show that they reached only 62% of their postgraduate secondary ITT recruitment target in 2024, so there will be pressure to increase the pay of existing teachers rather than to appoint new ones. In any case, most of the extra £1.5 billion estimated to come per year from this clause will go on special educational needs.

I suggest, very much in line with Amendment 25 from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Government’s priority should be to cut the backlog in assessments for education, health and care plans, rather than taxing parents who want the best for their child with special needs and think it can be delivered only in the independent sector. There is a very basic issue of principle here: the right of a parent to opt out of a state system where they believe their child would benefit from that. When they have paid their share of general taxation and foregone a place in the state system, thus saving the state money, then paid additionally for their child’s schooling, I submit that it is wrong in principle to tax them yet again for that decision to send their child to an independent school.

I have concluded that Clause 5 is a distraction. It will fail to deliver the Government’s ambitions for the state sector, and it is better for our education system as a whole to remove Clause 5.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, again, I support the amendments in this group. Perhaps I should clarify for the Minister that I do so, to paraphrase something said in a different context, on the basis of being without a directly selfish economic or strategic interest in the issue. Let me highlight why I say that, in coming from a background of education in Northern Ireland.

This provision does not affect Northern Ireland, as the Minister rightly pointed out; it is an English-only matter, because all these aspects are devolved issues. Consequently, from that point of view, it will not impact on any of my former constituents in that regard, nor indeed on Northern Ireland. We have a strange patchwork of school types across the United Kingdom in our delivery of education. Northern Ireland’s background is largely one in which the independent sector is extremely small. Indeed, you could make an argument, particularly at post-primary level, that on the definition of what most people would regard as independent schools, there is perhaps one independent school in Northern Ireland that is directly akin to those in England.

I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible, but from that point of view there are three main reasons why these amendments need to be supported. First, the prospect of imposing additional burdens and taxation on schools sits deeply uncomfortably with me. The idea of penalising parents by saying, “Because of the educational choice that you are making, we are going to single out your schools for an additional financial burden to tax education” is fundamentally wrong.

Secondly, there is at least a perception—I am sure the Government would deny it—that this is a highly ideologically driven proposal and part of a wider set of seeming attacks on independent schools, as seen particularly by the changes in VAT. As such, there is a concern that, rather than looking at what is of educational benefit, this is some red meat being thrown out to some ideological Labour supporters. It is an easy target to go after.

The third reason is that of unintended consequences. We are asked to look at different figures and projections as to the impact that these various changes will make. As I highlighted in the previous group, this is perhaps a less significant change than the changes to VAT, but again, it will have a level of tipping impact and lead to the closure of schools. This is not mere theory.

If I may draw on an example of relatively recent history in Northern Ireland, roughly 12 years ago, the then Minister of Education, who was a member of Sinn Féin, made changes to a level of funding that was available to preparatory schools in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the vast majority of fees were paid by parents and the schools were largely supported directly by them; it was at least 70%-plus. The state paid a small proportion of what would normally go to support children in state schools. There was a significant cut made to that. It was not completely wiped off the face of it, for the reason that the then Minister would have had to bring it to get executive approval had it done so. The arguments used were that it was some sort of financial benefit, which could then be ploughed back into state education, so it was an egalitarian move.

What was the ultimate impact of that? For many of those schools which were already under a level of financial burden, it became the final nail in their financial coffin, with the end result that, 12 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has gone down by just over a third and the number of pupils going to those prep schools is down by more than 40%. That single move made a number of those schools unsustainable.