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

• The Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill aims to introduce permanent lower tax rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure businesses from April 2026, replacing the temporary relief system.
• The Bill proposes a higher tax multiplier for properties valued at £500,000 or more, to sustainably fund the tax cuts for smaller businesses, affecting less than 1% of properties in England.
• The House of Commons discussed and ultimately rejected several amendments from the House of Lords, including:
  • Amendments to exclude healthcare facilities and anchor stores from the higher multiplier, arguing that existing powers in the Bill already allow for such exclusions if needed.
  • An amendment requiring a review of the impact of the £500,000 threshold on businesses, which the government deemed unnecessary due to ongoing business rates reforms.
  • Amendments to change the method of removing charitable rate relief from private schools from a parliamentary decision to a statutory instrument, which the government opposed as it would affect their commitment to raise revenue for state education.
• Opposition and other MPs expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of the Bill, including:
  • The burden on healthcare and high street businesses, particularly those close to the £500,000 threshold.
  • The taxation of private schools, which they argued could disadvantage families, especially those choosing faith-based education, and impact those with special educational needs.
• The government defended the Bill, emphasizing the need for sustainable funding for tax cuts and the broader aim to reform business rates to support high streets and level the playing field with online businesses.
• Despite opposition, the House of Commons voted to disagree with all Lords amendments, maintaining the Bill’s original provisions.

The session displayed a high level of disagreement, primarily centered around the Lords amendments to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The disagreements were evident in the speeches and the subsequent divisions, where the House voted to disagree with the Lords amendments. Here are the key points of contention and examples of disagreements:

1. Healthcare Hereditaments and Higher Multiplier: Lords amendments 1B and 7B aimed to exclude healthcare properties from the higher multiplier. The Minister, Jim McMahon, argued that these amendments were unnecessary as the Bill already provided the necessary powers. In contrast, Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative) criticized the government’s approach, stating that it would burden healthcare facilities and was inconsistent with other fiscal policies. Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat) and Jim Shannon (DUP) echoed these concerns, highlighting the potential negative impact on hospitals and medical schools.

2. Anchor Stores and Higher Multiplier: Lords amendments 2B and 8B sought to exempt anchor stores from the higher multiplier. The Minister argued that these amendments were redundant, while Kevin Hollinrake emphasized the detrimental effect on high streets and the lack of protection for vital retail businesses. The disagreement was clear in the division results, with a significant number of votes against the government’s position.

3. Review of £500,000 Threshold: Lords amendment 13B proposed a review of the impact of the £500,000 threshold on businesses. The Minister dismissed this as unnecessary, citing ongoing government reviews. However, Kevin Hollinrake argued that the threshold could unfairly penalize businesses close to the limit, describing it as a ‘cliff edge’ that could stifle growth. The division showed a strong opposition to the government’s stance.

4. Taxation of Private Schools: Lords amendments 15B to 15E aimed to change the method of removing charitable rate relief from private schools. The Minister defended the government’s approach as necessary to fund education commitments, while Kevin Hollinrake, Vikki Slade, and Jim Shannon strongly opposed the taxation of education, citing its impact on families and faith-based schools. The division results indicated significant disagreement with the government’s position.

The session’s disagreements were not only evident in the speeches but also in the voting patterns, with the government consistently winning the divisions but facing substantial opposition. The level of disagreement was high, as evidenced by the clear and repeated opposition to the government’s stance on multiple amendments, leading to a rating of 4 out of 5.