Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak on this Bill, which introduces the powers required to reform business rates. The Government are committed to a fairer business rates system that protects the high street and supports investment, and I welcome the fact that, in the Budget, the Chancellor set out her intention to permanently lower rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties that make up the backbone of our high streets, including Queen Street in Morley. Of course, this will be paid for by a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.

However, I want to focus on another aspect of the Bill. I am a teacher, so I will talk about the provision that removes the charitable relief on business rates for many, but not all, private schools. This runs alongside our general election commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which we will be discussing on Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Wednesday. Both measures will, of course, increase funding for state schools.

During the general election campaign in July, and in the years leading up to it, I spoke to many parents in my constituency about the removal of tax breaks for private schools. Whatever their stance was on the policy, it was clear to me that every single parent I spoke to wanted the best for their children. It did not matter whether they considered themselves wealthy or not, whether they earned enough to send their children to a private school or not, or whether they lived in New Farnley or Thorpe. Every single one of them wanted the best education for their children.

Like, I suspect, almost every Member of this House, I want an amazing education for every child, irrespective of where they come from or who they are. That is exactly what Government Members are committed to delivering, using the revenue that this Bill, and the Finance Bill on Wednesday, will raise. We live in a country where 94% of all children attend state schools. I fully accept that the parents of the 6% of children who go to private schools have worked very hard to put them there, but you know who else works hard, Madam Deputy Speaker? The parents of kids who go to state schools. They work just as hard in their jobs and professions, yet some may never be in the financial position to send their children to private schools. Those children deserve the best too, so it falls on the Government to take the decisions necessary to improve our state schools.

State schools were plagued by so many crises under the previous Government. I saw the SEND crisis, the concrete crisis and the recruitment and retention crisis myself. In my previous job as head of maths at an inner-city school, if I put out a job advert I would be lucky if I got one applicant per position, and that was not just because of me. That must change, and we must raise the money to change it. Taken together with our commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which I accept we are not debating today, the extra net revenue raised from this policy will be essential to recruit the 6,500 new teachers we promised the electorate we would recruit in the general election. Every child deserves to be taught by a qualified teacher in every single subject.

Alongside our commitments to roll out free breakfast clubs, invest in SEND provision, rebuild the school estate, and increase per pupil funding in real terms, we are choosing to back our children, back our schools and back our country. Given the crisis in SEND, I welcome that those in private schools mainly concerned with the provision of the education of children with EHCPs will retain their charitable business rates relief. By removing the tax breaks enjoyed by most private schools, however, we can invest in our state schools. I will be able to say to the parents I spoke to in Leeds South West and Morley that we are giving their children the education they deserve. I will be able to say that we took decisive action to break down barriers to opportunity for all, and by voting for today’s Bill and the measures in the Finance Bill, I will be able to say to them that we found the funding to fund our state schools properly.

I know that Opposition Members are opposed to these changes. However, the Leader of the Opposition has also stated that she does not object to the positive parts of the Budget, including our investment in education, so my question to Opposition Members would be: “How are you going to pay for it? What exactly is your plan? We know what you oppose, but what do you support?” I think that the Conservatives have made something like £12 million of uncosted commitments every single hour since they elected their new leader. It is hard not to conclude that we are dealing with the same old Conservative party. It is no longer a serious party of government; however, Labour is.

Education is central to our mission of expanding opportunity, enriching our society and empowering our students to be the best possible versions of themselves. Whether they live in Churwell, Gildersome, East Ardsley or Lofthouse does not matter. This Labour Government are getting on with our mandate of delivering change and ensuring that all our children have the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting)

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mr Gerrard, for coming to give evidence. I want to put on the record my support for the premise of supporting community shops and stores and providing somewhere for people to go to do their shopping, but you mentioned that the provisions in the Bill will make distribution more expensive. Should we not be more concerned that home delivery, which we know is very important to vulnerable customers, will be more expensive as a result of the Bill?

Paul Gerrard: I think I am right in saying that the Co-op has the biggest quick-commerce business in the country. People order through aggregators and their orders are delivered from our stores; that is something that we have within our business model. Clearly, there will be costs going on to some of the depots and distribution centres and, to keep this revenue neutral, that will bring extra costs. I think that is the price of revenue neutrality. In the round, the impact on small stores and local shops will outweigh the potential risk around home delivery. As I said, we have a home delivery business; I think our quick-commerce business is the biggest in the country for small, quick deliveries. You are right to flag the risk, but in balance we would say that it is a positive thing that we are supporting brick and mortar shops as much as we can.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Mr Gerrard, for your answers so far; they have been really insightful. We have Co-op shops in my constituency; the Co-op in New Farnley is virtually the only shop in that community. It was an absolute lifeline throughout the pandemic, and it is still a lifeline today, given that there are not other shops. We have had some questions about consistency. Obviously, the aim of the Bill is to provide consistency for businesses—especially those in retail, hospitality and leisure—by providing lower multipliers. You have said how beneficial it will be for about 92% of your properties. Can you talk more broadly about the potential benefits for other retailers?

Paul Gerrard: Certainly. I will make a couple of points. The last time I looked, about 95% of retail was microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. From the data I have seen, 98% of retail stores have a rateable value below £500,000. So this helps 92% of the Co-op but, from what I have seen, it helps 98% of the broader retail sector.

In my experience and the Co-op’s experience, high streets and precincts are not made by one business, but you often get one business beginning to drive vibrancy in that place. If one business can make it work, you attract custom and those customers might want to buy other things, so you will get a ripple effect from that. I think this will help communities, because it will make it much more viable for those small stores—either independent traders, or small stores of national businesses like the Co-op—to be in communities. I think the ripple effect will be significant. As I said before, there is a commercial thing there, but, as you alluded to, there is a hugely important social and community perspective as well.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Mr Gerrard. I am the Member of Parliament for cities and towns such as Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and we have a number of Co-ops and similar stores. I hear today that the Bill brings a welcome certainty and that the majority of Co-op stores will benefit from it. Co-ops and similar stores are important local employers and have been for generations within the community. I wonder whether you could share your thoughts on the impact of that.

Paul Gerrard: As I said before, local stores, of which the Co-op is an example, play a hugely important social role. They are also economic and commercial entities. We employ 55,000 people. The vast majority of my colleagues are either in stores—as in your constituency—or in our funeral care homes or our legal services business, so they are customer facing. What the Bill does is make our business model of small shops more viable, which means that we can continue to employ people.

It also means that we can continue to behave in line with our co-operative values and principles. As I said before, we have always paid the real living wage, with rates set by the Living Wage Foundation, and we have always sought to have a different kind of product in store, in terms of its ethical roots. The Bill will help us to continue to do all those things. On 21 December we will have done it for 180 years. The Bill will play a role in helping us, as will other measures that the Government have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

Q Have you asked your members that question?

Edward Woodall: We talk to them all the time about such questions. Perhaps it is something we can address in our written evidence to the Committee.

[Mr Sewards]

Q I will be brief. We have heard a lot about the cost of measures in the Budget, including in the Bill. Do you accept that there is some positive benefit in providing certainty to business—certainty that has been missing for a while? The measures in the Bill are designed to provide certainty over a longer period, but the measures in the Budget were designed for that as well.

Edward Woodall: On the Bill, I think I have said on a number of occasions that we welcome the fact that it brings more structure and that the overall principle is about long-term support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and the areas in which they trade. In terms of that principle, we very much welcome the Bill; overall, businesses welcome greater certainty about how they invest into the future, so I welcome that in the context of the Bill.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for this witness. I thank Mr Woodall for his evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Helen Dickinson OBE and Tom Ironside gave evidence.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q My constituency of Wolverhampton North East does not have a city centre, but we have lots of cafés, brilliant restaurants, microbreweries and pub chains. What benefits will the Bill provide to those small businesses?

Kate Nicholls: If the deduction is applied to the maximum, it will result in a significant reduction in bills for all small hospitality businesses in suburban, neighbourhood and community locations such as your constituency, not just those subject to a cap and getting up to £100,000. Every single hospitality business in your constituency below £500,000—forgive me; I did not double-check, but I do not think you have any over that—will benefit from a permanent reduction in their business rates bills, which will help to redress the balance of their overall tax burden.

Sacha Lord: I would say that this really is a substantial lifeline for all those businesses. My concern is the period between April and when this legislation comes into force.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Q I have a brief question for Kate Nicholls. You mentioned earlier that business rates always come up as a barrier to extra investment. Please can you talk more about that?

Kate Nicholls: I chair the Mayor of London’s tourism recovery taskforce, to get London tourism going, and as part of that we look at foreign direct investment and real estate coming in. More broadly, the top 20 restaurant, pub and hotel chains are all private-equity backed, and most of that is FDI. The subject of business rates always comes up. Every single time you talk about inward investment into the UK, into property-based businesses, and about whether they should come here or go to mainland Europe or America, business rates are an inhibiting factor.

[The Chair]

Order. I am told that I have to cut you off. Sorry about that. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for this set of witnesses, so we will do a changeover. I thank the witnesses from this panel, and we will move on to the next one.

Examination of Witnesses

David Woodgate, Don Beattie, Barnaby Lenon CBE and Simon Nathan gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Q I was specifically asking for a comparison with the state sector. Do you think that redundancies will have a similar impact, a worse impact, or less of an impact in the private sector than in the state sector?

David Woodgate: Inevitably, if pupil-teacher numbers change, that will have a negative impact.

[Mr Sewards]

Q I understand that the Minister wanted to move on from this, but on your comments about aspirational parents, the simple fact is that all state school parents are aspirational, and in many cases they will never be in a financial position to send their kids to private school. I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify that. Secondly, given that over 1,000 private schools closed between 2010 and 2024 without much media attention, how many private schools do you estimate will close as a result of the Bill?

David Woodgate: On your second point, we estimate that somewhere between 200 and 250 of our 1,300 schools are vulnerable to closure. They may look at mergers or other options—some might academise, for instance—but that is the kind of figure that we are looking at. I take your point about aspirational parents. We have to ensure that this does not impact on the bursary funding that is available for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds to get a place at one of our schools if they wish to go there. We have to ensure that, as far as possible, given these threats to our income, the funds available for bursaries are maintained.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

Q Thank you for coming and sharing your views and experiences. Business rate relief is in the scope of the Bill. I am a former deputy headteacher who worked across state secondary schools. Private schools, I say, are businesses. I had to juggle reductions and constraints across the budget, with departments such as the science department struggling to ensure that children have the full, hands-on experience—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Welsh]

Q Can the Minister set out the scheme that the Government are proposing to ensure that schools that principally deliver education for pupils with special educational needs will not face any additional burdens?

Jim McMahon: That is entirely the point, although perhaps it did not come out in the evidence sessions. A lot of the debate can be quite polarised—whether you are for or against private schools and the rest of it. When I was on the other side of the table, I was clear that I wanted to pull away from that and say, “Well, let’s just have a conversation based on the evidence.” What the evidence says is that there has been provision to ensure that those schools that are mainly or wholly for pupils with special educational needs will not be affected by these measures at all. Why? It is because we recognise that, within the wider school ecosystem, that provision is important in many communities and that many local authorities will support it. That is being provided in the Bill.

In the end, though, I would say that we need to rebuild mainstream provision. We all have constituents at their wits’ end because, after 14 years, mainstream provision has been allowed to erode to such a point that, in some places, it barely exists. We need to rebuild it, and the investment through the autumn statement begins that rebuilding work. It will take time. There is no button to press that resets 14 years in six months, but in terms of a statement of intent, £1 billion through the local government finance settlement for SEND provision is the start of that rebuilding process.

[Mr Sewards]

Q Queen Street in Morley is a fantastic high street, but it has a number of empty shops. I tried to acquire one of them when I was setting up my constituency office, but I was told, “No, no, no—they are about to be occupied.” Six months later, they are still not occupied. I promise it is not just that they did not want me; other people have approached them and had no luck. Please can the Minister shed some light on how we might use multipliers to get these properties occupied?

Jim McMahon: I definitely cannot guarantee that the landlord did not have a view about the tenants in that situation, but I think we all know of examples in which businesses have been frustrated when they have tried to get hold of the landlord of prime retail properties on the high street, sometimes in fantastic historical buildings. When they eventually get a response—if they get one at all—it is like the one my hon. Friend got: it does not bear truth, as the building is still empty six months down the line.

There is a wider issue here about the powers that the community has to take over assets and turn them into something for the public interest, not just distant investor interest. Measures in the Bill will go a long way to ensure that, when those premises are occupied, the occupant gets the support they need to be sustainable in the long term.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the sitting. I thank all the witnesses for their evidence and all the members of the Committee for their patience.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Jim McMahon]

Clause 5 removes charitable rate relief from private schools. Under the current law, all charities are entitled to 80% charitable relief on any properties that they occupy and use wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. That rule is found in paragraph 2 of schedule 4ZA to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and clause 5(2) amends it to exclude private schools from that rule. Proposed new sub-paragraph (3) removes from charitable relief hereditaments wholly or mainly used to carry on a private school. That will ensure that ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.

The policy to remove the eligibility of private schools that are charities from charitable rate relief is a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help to deliver the Government’s commitment to education and to young people.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Yesterday, we heard plenty of evidence from lots of witnesses, specifically about private schools. We also heard from Professor Francis Green, who stated that the measure would have a negligible impact on private schools. At the same time, as the Minister stated, it will raise much-needed funds to support the policies that we promised in the build-up to the general election. Does he agree that although this is a tough choice, since the Bill’s impact on private schools is relatively negligible, it is a necessary measure to raise the funds that we need to deliver our policies?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Ward]

All parents work hard to support their families, and all parents want the very best for their children. Hon. Members would do well to remember that.

The additional £1.8 billion a year, which will be raised by ending tax breaks for private schools, allows us to increase per-pupil funding in real terms and helps to deliver the record budget settlement of an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government. I find it strange that the Conservative party, which in the last Parliament promised to level up the country, should be so opposed to measures that will do exactly that. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said that her first act as Prime Minister—I am not sure how many Conservative Members actually believe that the day will ever come—would be to restore tax breaks for private schools. She is obviously not here to defend that statement, but in recent months I have heard little from the Conservatives about what they would cut to pay for that policy. Would they make teachers redundant? Would they cancel breakfast clubs? Would they cut mental health support and careers advice?

At the last election, I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to break down the barriers to opportunity. As a state-educated MP, I am also proud to deliver this speech in a Parliament in which 63% of its Members were educated at state comprehensives, with 85% of my party’s MPs being state educated. Indeed, only 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools—even fewer than the 7% in England.

The needs of our students are greater than ever. Young people in Scotland face an annual marking saga, decreasing teacher numbers and a deepening mental health crisis—something that I have raised in relation to my own constituency. It is more crucial than ever that we intervene now to prevent those crises from deepening, and that is what these revenue-raising measures will help to fund. I am glad that this Labour Government have introduced protections for SEND children and military families, but it is necessary for private schools to contribute towards improving educational standards across our country. Let us not forget that they have raised their fees by 75% in real terms since 2000.

I know that parents in my Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy constituency want to see their children benefit from the kind of education that their ingenuity, creativity and innate talent deserves. They will be crucial to our future society and economy, and to the kind of country that we want to be. We must make the most of their potential.

In this matter, I take inspiration from Jennie Lee, who attended Beath high school in my constituency and went on to set up the Open University. Her picture hangs in my office. She knew the value of ensuring that high-quality education was available to all, no matter their background and where they lived. If we are to provide that, it has to be paid for, and that is why these measures are so important.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in favour of this Bill, having been involved in its scrutiny at most of its stages. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) in thanking all the witnesses who came forward to give evidence to the Bill Committee. I thank them for the evidence they gave and for the useful insight from their respective sectors.

We on the Government Benches are clear that small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors should pay lower business rates. The Bill establishes two new multipliers that are lower than the current standard business rates multiplier. In order to pay for these changes, we must ask larger businesses to contribute their fair share so that our smaller businesses can thrive. That is because we on this side of the House know that when we have tax cuts, we need to pay for them with revenue-raising measures—something the Opposition have not quite realised yet. This is a good mechanism that the Government are deploying to save our high streets, to incentivise local investment and to support entrepreneurship. As all Members will know, high streets are essential to local towns and should be given the support they need. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill will benefit smaller local businesses such as those on Queen Street, which sits in the centre of Leeds South West and Morley.

In Committee, we heard from Paul Gerrard, who is the board secretariat director at the Co-op. He told the Committee that these changes will help 92% of the Co-op’s retail properties, but he also estimates that they will help 98% of retail businesses because they will have a rateable value that allows them to benefit from these changes. That has to be welcomed. As for those that will pay more to make these changes possible, the higher multiplier will apply to properties with a value greater than or equal to £500,000, including large warehouses that are often used by online giants. They will pay their fair share, and we can start to level the playing field so that essential community high street businesses are on a level playing field with multinational corporations.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a challenge in making sure that things are fair, and we all support a level playing field between the online world and bricks-and-mortar businesses, including in our town centres. There is a thing called the digital services tax, which was conceived while we were in government. Will he say a word about the relative advantages and disadvantages of trying to go after online retailers with business rates changes, which will also affect all manner of other organisations, including bricks-and-mortar retailers, and doing it a different way through a more direct type of tax?

[Mr Sewards]

I return to the point I made earlier. We know that we have to support these smaller businesses—these bricks-an-mortar businesses, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them—and the only way we are going to pay for this is by finding the money from elsewhere. We have chosen to cut business rates for smaller businesses, and we are choosing to raise the revenue from the larger businesses and corporations that have been getting away without paying their fair share for far too long.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Member will recognise that it is the Government’s intention to reduce business rates for the smallest businesses, but as I have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, House of Commons Library research shows that if we compare this year to two years’ time, small businesses will end up 80% worse off, whereas the big chains will end up 40% better off. I believe that this is an unintended consequence. Will he urge the Minister, as I am doing, to address that point in his wind-up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sewards]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course I have read the House of Commons Library research into this. I also took time to listen to all the witnesses who came forward in the Bill Committee, and they made it clear that the changes in this Bill will benefit small businesses in the long term. I am quite happy with the evidence that they provided to support the changes that the Bill makes.

[Daisy Cooper]

rose—

[Mr Sewards]

I will move on to the next part of my speech, but I am happy to take any further interventions that might be relevant to that point. I am going to talk about the amendments now.

I think new clauses 1 to 3 are unnecessary. The Government will monitor the effects of the new multipliers and, as we know, they will show what those effects have been in Budget 2025. They will do the same in all future fiscal statements, so the monitoring is already going to take place. The hon. Member refers to the impact these changes might have in two years’ time, and the Government will comment on that in all future fiscal statements.

Amendments 1 to 6 are noble, but they would significantly affect and reduce the support that the Bill is able to provide to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.

[Victoria Collins]

The hon. Gentleman mentions leisure businesses, and I have been contacted by several soft play facilities. They talk about the importance of play to children’s wellbeing, but they are not sure whether they will be entitled to the lower rate. Even Parliament’s experts are not sure. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in calling on the Government to clarify that soft play will be included in those lower business rates?

[Mr Sewards]

Yes, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity. As someone who uses soft play—[Laughter.] Not personally, enjoyable though it is. I am sure that my sons Oscar and Arthur, who is six months old and not quite ready to take advantage of soft play, will also be keen to know, so perhaps the Minister could offer some clarity in his closing remarks.

Although amendments 1 to 6 are noble, this Bill is about the high street, and we know just how much our high streets have suffered. This does not mean, for one second, that we are backing down from the challenges facing manufacturing businesses, which amendments 1 to 6 aim to help with. The Budget announced over £3 billion to support the manufacturing sector, including £520 million for a life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, but the changes to business rates in this Bill are primarily about supporting our high streets.

As someone who was teaching on this date a year ago, I am particularly interested in clause 5, which removes the charitable relief enjoyed by some private schools. I welcome this, along with the Budget’s broader measures to remove tax breaks from private schools so that we can fund state education properly. A vote for amendment 10 would delay this funding for state schools by another year.

It is estimated that, of the 2,444 private schools in England, only 1,040 will be impacted by the change. The measure will raise around £70 million, which, when taken together with the other revenue-raising measures we have announced, will increase per pupil funding in real terms to benefit the 94% of students who attend state schools. We must give every child the chance to succeed in life, and that is exactly what this Bill and the other measures we have announced are doing.

[Damian Hinds]

It is worth reflecting that the education budget goes up every year. It does not go up because there has been a change to business rates, VAT or anything else, which is the logic we sometimes hear from Labour Members. If the revenue from those things is slightly smaller than expected, does that mean less money will go into education? Of course not.

We keep hearing about hiring 6,500 more teachers. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many more teachers were hired in the last Parliament?

[Mr Sewards]

I heard the right hon. Gentleman put that question to the Minister in last Monday’s Westminster Hall debate but, just to go back to his original point—I will come to the 6,500 new teachers—we are deliberately taking these decisions in order to increase the amount of money that state schools have to teach the 94% of students who enjoy state school education.

As a basic principle, all Members of this House can get behind the idea that it is a basic function of the state to provide a well-funded, excellent state school place for all students, whether or not parents choose to take advantage of it. That is exactly what we are doing with this Bill and the other measures we have announced.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Talking of basic principles, does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe it is right to tax education—yes or no?

[Mr Sewards]

I believe it is right to tax businesses. Private schools are businesses, and we are choosing to levy the tax on businesses. We are not choosing to levy the tax on state education, because as I was just setting out, it is imperative on us to make sure there is an excellent and well-funded place in state-funded education for all students, should parents choose to take advantage of it. It must be remembered that not all parents have the choice of private or state education. The reason why 94% of students are in state education is because that choice does not exist for most parents in this country. That is why we will take the necessary action to fund state schools properly.

I will make some progress because I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to—oh, she is being quite generous with her time. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In which case, I will take more interventions.

Some Members have raised concerns about whether the legislation adversely affects the private schools that are primarily concerned with teaching students with EHCPs. I am pleased to report that it does not. The Government have clearly set out that private schools that teach 50% or more students with EHCPs will continue to be exempt from business rates, which is exactly the right approach. There are therefore no concerns there.

Amendment 8 seeks exemptions for certain kinds of schools. We have talked a little bit about faith schools, and we talked about that a lot on Second Reading. I cannot support the amendment given that we are ending the tax breaks to support the 94% of students who attend state schools. If we dilute the measures in the Bill for that exception, it is easy to make an argument for the next exemption, the one after that and the one after that as well. Our guiding principle should be that every child is entitled to an excellent, properly funded state school place, as I think I have said repeatedly.

Amendment 9—the last one I will speak about—gives local authorities discretion over whether the higher multiplier will apply. As many hon. Members will know, local authorities already possess wide-reaching powers regarding discretionary rate relief. Given that the Bill does not affect those powers at all, I do not think the amendment is required.

To conclude, the measures in the Bill are vital to bring about the restoration of our high streets, support local businesses and give state schools the funding they desperately need. Those are the priorities of this Labour Government and my priorities too. If Conservative Members claim to represent the party of business again, if they ever hope to seize back the mantle of being the party of opportunity, I hope they put their money where their mouth is and join us in voting for this unamended Bill today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thought it very sensible for the hon. Member to clarify that it is young Arthur, not himself, who enjoys soft play. I call the final speaker, Chris Vince.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. These are difficult times. As she knows, I was in business for 30 years, and we go through some difficult times. Many people think that business is easy, but it is not, particularly at times like this, when confidence, including consumer confidence, has gone so low. It means that people are not coming through the door. My advice to businesses is to batten down the hatches and get through this where they can, but inevitably the consequence of these choices will be less employment, lower salary increases and higher prices in shops, public houses and other places. That is the consequence of the choices that this Government have made. The real-world effect of this historic drop in confidence is a 20-year high in business closures. Over 220,000 businesses closed their doors in the last three months of 2024.

When considering the Lords amendments, it is important to remember that the Labour party promised to abolish business rates—another broken promise. The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, talks about the art of the possible; what he is saying is that a promise that he and his colleagues made to the electorate in the run-up to the election has been broken. In its manifesto, Labour promised to

“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.

That is not what the Bill does, so that is also a broken promise. The reason I challenged the Minister a couple of times during his remarks is that I do not understand how the Bill can be both a first step and a permanent change. That makes no sense, and if I were one of the business people for whose rude health we are all responsible, I would like to know exactly what the Government have planned beyond these changes. That is not clear.

I turn first to Lords amendment 14, which would require the Secretary of State to review

“the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets”—

in other words, online giants. It is worth noting that the rates regime proposed by this Bill will mean that only around 10% of businesses paying the higher rate will be the warehouses of online giants. In reality, shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise as a result of the higher multiplier. We would support a rates regime that would genuinely level the playing field between online retailers and the high street, but this Bill does not deliver that. We therefore support amendment 14’s requirement that the Secretary of State conduct a review on introducing a higher multiplier for fulfilment warehouses. Such a multiplier would mean that important anchor stores for high streets would not be punished.

That brings me to Lords amendments 1, 5, 8 and 11. We all know from our constituencies how important anchor stores, such as supermarkets and department stores, are for attracting footfall and supporting local economies. When people come into the town centre to use an anchor store, they might stop for lunch in a local café or pop into an independent business. Key anchor stores in the Secretary of State’s constituency will be hit by this Bill: Sainsbury’s in Ashton-under-Lyne has a rateable value of £1.24 million, while Marks and Spencer next door has a rateable value of £770,000. These decisions have real-world effects on companies that are not online giants.

We have seen the impact on our communities when anchor stores leave a town. For many anchor stores, being dragged into the higher multiplier by this Bill could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; those shops have already been hit by the jobs tax, and will be tied up with even more red tape through the Employment Rights Bill. In fact, the British Retail Consortium has warned the Government that

“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

That contrasts with my party’s proud record of supporting businesses, including small businesses, on the high street by cutting business rates, as well as providing billions of pounds of support throughout the pandemic.

While we are talking about high street businesses, can I once again push the Minister on a very important point—the retention of small business rate relief? Many businesses’ livelihoods depend on that relief, so will he say at the Dispatch Box that it will be continued? I have not had clarity, and clearly I will not get clarity today. Is that relief also on the chopping block, maybe at the Chancellor’s emergency Budget tomorrow? Let us see what that brings; we may get clearer answers then. Tomorrow’s last-gasp attempt to go for growth comes after GDP falling by 0.1% in January. That was largely attributed to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output.

That brings me briefly to Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10. They would make manufacturing hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers when it comes to local ratings lists. That comes at a particularly important time for our manufacturing sector, which is a crucial part of our economy, whether we are talking about automotive manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing or precision engineering. As we boost capital defence expenditure, it is important that we have a strong and resilient manufacturing base that can supply our brave armed forces. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the impact of the new rates system on manufacturing, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s responses on this issue.

Turning to Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12, given that the Government are raising taxes to invest in the NHS, it seems perverse for them to levy higher business rates on the hospitals and GP practices that provide the services that so many of our constituents rely on. It is just weeks since the Government shamefully voted to impose a jobs tax on hospices, pharmacies and GP practices—another double whammy. Labour is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Before we get to the real sting in the tail of this Bill, I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 13 and 16. Like Members of the other House, we have concerns about the cliff edge that the Bill will create in the business rates system, which the Minister referred to. A business crossing the £500,000 threshold, even by £1, could see a near 20% increase in rates payable. For instance, a business with a hereditament of £495,000 invested in their property—just enough to push them over the threshold—would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of this Bill. The legislation will stifle investment and growth even further.

Finally, Labour’s education tax—the spiteful and ideologically driven decision to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities—sits alongside the utterly wrong-headed policy of charging VAT on private school fees. Regardless of people’s views on private schools, it is the view of the Opposition that we should never tax education. We are already seeing the gates of independent schools being locked indefinitely. That pushes more children into state education, increases class sizes and puts more pressure on the public purse, and on councils trying to find placements for students with education, health and care plans. Lords amendment 17 would retain rates relief for private schools in England, sparing them part of a cumulative burden that would otherwise send many of them beyond the brink.

It is not just education that is affected. Since the introduction of this Bill, we have learned that the Government will also levy business rates on nursery schools and sports facilities used by the general public if they are on the site of a private school. That regressive decision will jack up the cost of swimming lessons, and the costs for Sunday league clubs and cadet units. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. That is a record that this Government seem determined to trash. Years down the line, Government Members will regret having voted for this Bill as they walk down the high street, passing boarded-up shops, school gates locked shut and a local that called last orders for the final time years ago. I urge the Government to consider and agree to the amendments from the Lords to safeguard businesses, schools and communities across the country from more business-damaging and job-destroying tax hikes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Bill is necessary to support our high streets. It strikes a fairer balance between small businesses and large, and I am pleased to have contributed during most stages of its progress. I rise to address some of the amendments put forward by the other place, which would reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.

Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 seek to exempt anchor stores from the higher multipliers, thus reducing the revenue raised by the Bill overall. By reducing that revenue, the amendments reduce the support available to smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, when providing that support is the entire purpose of this legislation.

I also fear that the definition of an anchor store could create problems for our high streets and town centres. During the debate in the other place it was said that the Treasury could decide what constituted an anchor store, but it was also admitted that it would be a difficult term to define. It is not uncommon, and not untrue, to say that several shops in a high street can indeed lay claim to that title, and I foresee difficulties in this regard if the amendment is passed.

It is also true that anchor stores are often the largest stores in town, usually part of a big chain, supermarkets being an obvious example. The effect of this amendment would be to exempt those larger businesses from the higher multiplier, again reducing the support available to smaller businesses. The entire purpose of the Bill is to support our smaller retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, paid for by that higher multiplier on larger businesses. Unlike the Opposition, we like to ensure that our numbers add up.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to businesses that are trying to make their numbers add up? In its manifesto and previously, the promise—the commitment—of the Labour party was to level the playing field between online giants and small businesses, but, as the hon. Gentleman can see, that is not what is happening here. Many different premises, including manufacturers and large bricks-and-mortar retailers, are being hit by these increases. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those businesses, given that while there is currently no sign of any increase in their rates, that is exactly what they will see as a result of the Bill?

[Mark Sewards]

The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.

Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.

Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.

On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.

To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

[Mark Sewards]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that this Government won an election on the basis of a promise that we would introduce VAT on private school fees, so it is incumbent on us to deliver that manifesto pledge?

[Munira Wilson]

I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week.

[Mark Sewards]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The simple fact is that we have the electoral system we have, and it is incumbent on whomever wins a majority to deliver their manifesto pledges to govern the country. She may take issue with the electoral system, but it is the one that we have, and we must deliver our manifesto pledges.

[Munira Wilson]

I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing.

[Mark Sewards]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier.

Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

As a result, many state schools across the country, which are already feeling the pinch, will have a shortfall in funds. Schools in my constituency already run Amazon wish lists for things such as glue sticks, whiteboard markers and tissue boxes. They are relying on Parent Teacher Associations to buy new furniture. Our state schools are already struggling, but the money that the hon. Member says will be raised will not go to them; they will not be funded sufficiently. Therefore, this nirvana of state schools that he claims we will have simply does not exist.

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Member has been very generous with her time. On the points that she made about funds for state schools and about the other difficult decisions that this Government have had to make, does she not accept that when we came to power, we found an economy that had been absolutely ruined by the Conservative party? We found every Department in reserves and a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled, because we are the party of economic responsibility.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—