🤔 Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

• The Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill was discussed extensively in Parliament, focusing on changes to business rates and the removal of charitable relief for private schools.

• New Clause 1 proposed by Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat) aimed to require a review of the impact of the Bill’s sections on businesses, high streets, and economic growth, specifically considering different types of businesses and economic impacts. However, it was not adopted.

• New Clauses 2 and 3 proposed by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat members sought to mandate a review of the new business rate multipliers’ impacts after implementation. These were also rejected by the House.

• Amendments 1 to 6 suggested by Liberal Democrats aimed to extend lower business rate multipliers to manufacturing businesses. This proposal did not pass, with the government citing other budgetary support for manufacturing.

• Amendments 7 and 8 from the Conservative party aimed to protect schools catering to special educational needs and faith schools from losing their charitable relief. These amendments were not accepted, with the government arguing the need to fund state schools.

• Amendment 9 suggested giving local authorities discretion over the application of higher multipliers, but this was deemed unnecessary by the government due to existing powers.

• Amendment 10 proposed delaying the removal of charitable rates relief for private schools by a year. This was rejected, with the government emphasizing the need to fund improvements in state schools.

• The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon, outlined that the Bill would permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties to support high streets, while funding this reduction through higher rates on properties valued at over £500,000, mainly affecting large online retailers.

• The government defended the decision to remove tax breaks from private schools, stating it would fund enhancements in state education for the majority of schoolchildren.

• Opposition, led by Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative), criticized the Bill for increasing the financial burden on businesses and private schools, labeling it as pursuing “the politics of envy.”

• The Bill passed its Third Reading with a vote of 341 to 171, indicating strong government support but significant opposition.

The disagreement displayed in the session is significant, warranting a high rating of 4 out of 5. The rating is based on multiple instances of disagreement between Members of Parliament from different parties, particularly between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Key areas of contention included the impact of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill on businesses, high streets, and the education sector. Disagreements were evident through several proposed new clauses and amendments that aimed to modify the Bill’s impact on businesses and schools, which were debated and ultimately rejected.

Several Members expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Government’s policies, particularly surrounding business rates and the taxation of private schools. For instance, proposals to review the impact of the new multipliers and amendments to extend tax relief to certain private schools highlighted significant policy differences. The debates often included critiques of the Government’s fiscal policies, with the Opposition arguing that the measures would harm small businesses and unfairly target private education. The House divisions on these amendments further illustrated the strong disagreement, as the majority of amendments were rejected by a significant margin.

Despite the disagreements, the Bill passed its Third Reading with a clear division between the parties, underscoring the political divide and the intensity of the debate. While there was some common ground on the importance of supporting high streets and education, the methods proposed by the Government were heavily contested, justifying the rating of 4 for the level of disagreement observed.