David Simmonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the Minister’s comments, and extend my thanks to him and his team, the other Members who served on the Committee, and the many witnesses who came in to share their views? It is clear that a lot of the discussion has been on the real-world impact that the legislation will have, rather than on political points, and in that spirit, I will set out my responses, and the rationale behind a number of the amendments that we have tabled, which will be the subject of debate and votes this afternoon. Clearly, legislation is about striking the right balance. This afternoon, we will recognise—as we have done in our contributions to debate on this issue—the impact that the Bill will have on tenants, landlords and the stakeholders whom our amendments seek to protect. I highlight in particular the impact on students; on financially vulnerable tenants, such as those with low credit scores; on tenants who have pets; on small landlords, who are themselves vulnerable to financial shocks; and of course on other groups, such as agricultural workers and those with work-related accommodation, including NHS workers, military families and school staff, all of whom were mentioned in Committee and will, I am sure, be covered again later. All our amendments have sought to address practical issues, such as ensuring that when work is required on a property and a tenant is reluctant to allow the landlord in to carry out that work for whatever reason, there is sufficient freedom and flexibility in the legislation to ensure that the work can take place.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review the impact of home-to-school transport rules on the situation? In Hillingdon, there is around a 20% vacancy rate due to falling pupil numbers. All London boroughs contribute to Transport for London, and therefore transport to school on London public transport is free. However, if Buckinghamshire wished to take advantage of those vacancies, bringing those children to schools in Hillingdon would be a general fund cost to council tax payers. Clearly, in efficiently providing those places, it may well be that by looking at those cross-border transport issues we could produce a beneficial outcome for my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for the schools that would thereby benefit from additional pupils.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about educational need in her constituency. Does she know of the work done by the London borough of Hillingdon in the village of Harefield in my constituency, where, as part of a multi-academy trust, an under-utilised secondary school has slightly reduced in size and the site is now dual-use, with both secondary mainstream comprehensive education and a brand-new SEND school at the same location?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My interest in this all started when I became a governor of the second school ever to become an academy, back in the late 1990s. I then spent some time with the former Director of Public Prosecutions on improving the practice of prosecuting rape gangs and child sexual abusers in the early 2010s. What all that demonstrated to me was that much will revolve around the quality of the professional practice that the Bill leads to, rather than what we put into law in this Parliament. We can debate many things that we want to see improved, but it is important that we recognise and thank the social workers, police officers and medical staff who currently ensure that we in the UK have one of the most effective and safest child protection systems of any nation in the world. It is important to acknowledge that. As many Members have said, there is much in the Bill that Conservative Members will welcome. For example, the implementation of family group decision making, building on the family group conferencing model, and the work to build on the success that virtual headteachers have had in driving up attainment and ensuring that children in care are now among the best school attenders of any group of children in our country, are to be commended. In particular, in the case of proposed new section 16EB on bringing partnerships together, the working together guidance that was last updated in 2023 will have to do a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that the aspirations we set out work in practice, particularly in respect of education. The main purpose of the Bill is to create a responsibility for local authorities to bring education to the table, but it does not go so far as to create a duty or obligation on schools, nurseries and childminders to participate reciprocally. That has been an issue for a long time in our system. It was an issue with area child protection committees, local safeguarding children boards and local safeguarding partnerships, so we must ensure that we get it right. Will Ministers ensure that the guidance makes clear to school leaders, governors and trusts that they have an obligation to ensure that they fully commit to, and participate in, those local safeguarding arrangements? I have two final and important points. First, I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about ending the reasonable chastisement defence in law, and although I understand it is a matter of Home Office legislation, I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State for Education say that she was “open-minded” about the issue. I would like a clear assurance from the Government that they will respond to those calls, and that we will ensure that we close that loophole for good, for children such as Dwelaniyah Robinson and Sara Sharif, whose deaths have occurred with people trying to justify violence on the basis that it was reasonable punishment. We must ensure that all children enjoy equal protection in our country. Finally, let me turn to the call for a national inquiry. The Prime Minister said in response to questions this afternoon that he is open-minded about that, and the Safeguarding Minister has said the same thing. Those of us with experience will know that when we look at publicly available serious case reviews, all of which we can read on the NSPCC website, we see that these cases are often complicated. There are grooming gangs, and there are also drug gangs of people who are both abused and abusers, who coerce boys into sexual activity. There are schoolteachers and clergymen who carry out this activity. We must ensure that, although certain groups of victims and perpetrators may be in the headlines, we recognise the diversity and complexity of this issue if we are to deal with it effectively.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  It is Christmas. The two wise men and the wise woman on the Government Front Bench have arrived bearing their gifts for local councils, but on closer inspection, while the goal is beautifully packaged, the box is somewhat emptier than people had been expecting. It has been a challenging few weeks for local government. We have heard the Government’s plans to take as much of the local as they can out of local government, and it is clear that this statement will leave our local authorities facing further challenges in doing their day jobs and significant uncertainty as we go into the new year. All that comes from a Government who promised just a short time ago that they would end the bidding war, as they called it, among councils. They then promptly started a new bidding war for homelessness funding, rather than addressing it through the settlement given that it is a core statutory duty of local authorities. The consequence of the Government’s approach is that localism, on central Government terms only, represents just in London a £700 million net cut in the funding that councils will have available to deal with homelessness at a time when rough sleeping is at 27%. Councils face uncertainty about the cost of funding elections. The Minister told us just a few days ago that he would be considering whether to cancel local elections in places facing local government reorganisation. Up and down the country in all those local authorities, our returning officers are booking and paying for the polling stations, hiring the staff and carrying out the canvassing. They need certainty as we go into the new year. Of course, our councils face additional and uncertain challenges that were announced in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as well as from various statements made by other Ministers, that clearly imply a significant increase in the cost of new statutory duties coming the way of our local authorities, with no clarity about how those may be funded. All of that is on top of bringing forward local government reorganisation proposals to a deadline early in the new year. It is not clear whose interests that serves, but for all those local authorities that may be considering that, it represents a significant additional cost pressure. As many of our councillors go away for their Christmas break and try to digest the detail of the settlement over their Christmas lunch, they will face rumbling indigestion as they realise that their budget pressures will grow significantly, especially in rural local authorities, which face huge losses from the cancellation of funding that supported the additional and quantified costs of local government services in a rural environment. I will be fair to the Minister: the £2.7 billion black hole that we spotted at the time of the Budget announcement has shrunk by around £700 million, but when it comes to council tax increases that will be announced by our local authorities in February, how much will they have to put up council tax to meet the shortfalls? How much will they have to put up council tax to cover the Government’s new approach to asylum, which is driving up the cost of temporary accommodation? When will the Government provide clarity on the dedicated schools grant override, given the impact it has on our local authority budgets? When will they provide clarity on the election preparation costs? Given that the Local Government Association has identified a £1.766 billion shortfall just from the Government’s national insurance contributions measure, when will they announce further funding to cover those costs? Let us consider this: the cancellation of the new homes bonus means £3 million lost by Birmingham, £3.7 million lost by Buckinghamshire, £4 million from Central Bedfordshire, £5.3 million each from Ealing and Milton Keynes, £3.7 million from North Yorkshire alone, £9.5 million from Lincolnshire, £14.3 million from the rural services grant and an £18 million cut for a rural local authority in this Budget. It is clear there are tough times ahead for local authorities as they begin to look at the detail. The new homes bonus, in particular, means the places that have built the most homes are the ones that lose the benefit. If this is fixing the foundations, I would not want to stay in the tent which is the only thing they would hold up in our local authorities.

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  According to the Ipsos MORI veracity index, 41% of our constituents trust local councillors, with just 19% having the same expectation of Government Ministers. That is a reflection of the value we place on local leaders who know and understand our communities. Those local leaders will be getting a clear message from this White Paper: this Government feel that the men from Whitehall know best what their place needs. This is not bottom-up local leadership, but top-down templates for local government. This is not the chance to flourish as a place and a community with a unique identity and history, but an expectation of being subsumed into an anonymous structure that knows and cares little for local areas, focusing instead on Whitehall targets. Through the back door, by stripping local politicians of a say over important planning decisions and by imposing financial assumptions that further constrain local decision making, our local democracy is undermined. Instead of genuine devolution, this White Paper sets out a reductive approach. It is a mishmash of new tiers and new taxes, taking decision making further away from residents. If the experience in London is anything to go by, it will cost them a fortune at the same time. More concerning still, the approach fails the key test of starting with a clear understanding of what we require our local councils to do. More than 800 services are delivered by each council on average, ranging from education to public health, environmental standards, children and vulnerable adult safeguarding, early years, libraries and museums, not to mention councils’ key regulatory functions, such as trading standards, housing enforcement and acting as the billing authority for billions in taxes. It is hard to see how demanding that all those local officers simultaneously reapply for their own jobs will help them to focus on the needs of their communities, not to mention cope with the huge additional responsibilities heading their way via legislation such as the Renters’ Rights Bill. The approach also does not build on the successes we already see. It is common for councils to share services and staff to reduce the cost to taxpayers. Breckland and South Holland have shared a chief executive for many years. Trading standards has been a shared service across London for a long time. Those measures, driven by local leadership, are what deliver genuine savings and service improvements. Let us look at some of the most serious concerns that the Opposition have arising from the proposals, above and beyond the years of disruption to council services and rising taxes. When Labour councils are telling the Government that they are already failing on their housing targets and that their plans are undeliverable, why would the Government be focusing on removing elected councillors’ say on planning, rather than focusing on building the more than 1 million units that already have planning permission? Why elect mayors to a timetable that is not in any way clear? At a time when our constituents are labouring under a rising tax burden, the Government set out the chilling prospect of mayoral levies. Those are charged at nil rates by Conservative mayors such as Ben Houchen and Andy Street, but now top £471 per band D household in London under Mayor Khan. The black hole in local government finances just got bigger. Imposing mayoral control over grant funding for housing and regeneration, detaching it from the host communities, and moving those decisions to a remote mayoral tier further undermine the concept of local consent for development. Perhaps most worrying for local council tax payers are the plans around Great British Energy local power plans, with the potential for even more local authorities to be taken to the edge of bankruptcy, as local energy companies have already done in Nottingham and Bristol. In conclusion, this announcement could have been so much more. It could have been a chance to rethink from scratch the duties, responsibilities and funding of local government, and to ensure that its form follows its function. Our local leaders, many from my own party, will do their best with what is available, and we will have their backs as they do what they can for the interests of the people they serve, but make no mistake: this is a massive missed opportunity. The White Paper shows that rewiring our state, rethinking our approach to local government and fulfilling the aspirations of local leaders and communities are being put aside in favour of bureaucratic and structural tinkering. The Minister once stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and called for genuine fiscal devolution of powers across things such as education and demanded more say for local people to hold decision makers to account. Whatever happened to that local champion?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have no objection to these measures. Could the Minister confirm, in writing if that is more convenient, that there has been a degree of consultation with the corporation to establish what, if any, impact it would expect on its budget?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I need to be clear that I am not here to act as an advocate for faith education; I am not personally a fan of it. I recognise the Minister’s point, but we need to acknowledge that many Members on both sides of the House, and many of our constituents, believe very strongly that they should be able to access a school of a particular character. There will be some children in the state sector who may be able to access, for example, a specialist sports academy with particular facilities to develop and nurture their talent, but such a school may not be available in all parts of the country. An independent school may be the only one able to foster and nurture that talent, and we would not wish to see any measures taken that would deprive anybody of that opportunity. Once again, however, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Minister once again championing the value of local discretion in decision making; I think we mutually acknowledge that it is incredibly important. I am aware that concern remains, particularly in the SEND sector and especially for residential special schools, about how the change will play out. Local authorities may face a Hobson’s choice between being expected to raise a certain amount of revenue by applying the maximum possible business rate to a setting, and doing what they need to do to support the needs and interests of children in their community—and of schools that may be the only centre nationally that can provide for very special needs. However, again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers to do as they wish, but I am concerned by what the Minister has outlined. This is not simply an amendment about nursery schools, which are a specific thing. It is about nurseries, which provide childcare. For younger children we have the early years foundation stage, which is not compulsory but is provided and followed by the vast majority of childcare settings, and which aims to ensure a level of educational progression that can be measured from the very youngest children to those who are ready to start school. That is provided in a different way from what is provided by nursery schools, which are specific institutions of which there are several hundred in the country. In London constituencies such as the one that I represent, it is quite common to find nursery providers that are run as part of private school institutions in the same location, but that are used by parents who have no intention of sending their child on to that private school. Because the fees charged are in line with the local childcare market, and those fees are significantly supported by measures such as tax-free childcare, those nurseries are an affordable means of securing good-quality childcare. Those children will go on to a range of local provision. I remain concerned about the Bill insisting that a nursery located on a premises shared by a private school within the scope of these measures should be subject to a significantly higher rates bill than if it were located in a physically separate building just down the road. I suspect that that will remain an issue of contention during the passage of the Bill. Clearly, although an impact assessment or a review will not be specifically proposed in the legislation, there will be an opportunity to see its impact in due course. For those reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert— “and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”. This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 15 and 16.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from “persons” to the end of line 38 and insert “who have special educational needs. (5A) In subsection (5) ‘special educational needs’ has the same meaning as in section 20 (when a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.” This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates. We are moving on to a different area. This amendment is designed to address concerns raised in evidence, and by many across the House in debates, about the impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. We recognise that the Government have introduced measures to address some of those concerns, but there have been many changes to the SEND system over the years. In particular, the provision about wholly or mainly providing education to children who are in receipt of an education, health and care plan specifically addresses those at the most significant end of special educational needs and disabilities. The previous Labour Government introduced a system, in the days of statementing, that included measures called school action and school action plus. If a child had a form of special educational needs that was not so severe that they required the statementing process, but needed additional resources in the classroom, that classification triggered additional resources for the school. In the 2014 reforms, that was morphed into SEN support. Beneath the education, health and care plan, for the most significant levels of need, there is an SEN support set-up whereby local authorities direct additional funding towards schools because children are classified at those levels. One of our concerns is that some children who have found their way to an independent school—for example, because it has a reputation for providing a good level of support to children with SEN—have not been through a process whereby they have been formally categorised. Gesher in my constituency is an independent special educational needs and disability school that charges fees. A proportion of its students are there because their parents have made the choice, and have not been through a local authority process. Others are there because they have an education, health and care plan and it is the named school paid for by the local authority. All children attending that school have some form of special educational need or disability and are therefore attending private school. The rationale behind this amendment is that we do not want independent schools that provide education to large numbers of children with SEND but are below the education, health and care plan threshold to be put in a very difficult financial position. Potentially, the Government do not intend to go down that route. Most of us are aware that the extent of SEND provision in the independent sector is very large. Indeed, the amount of money that local authorities have to pay in fees to place significant numbers of children in sometimes very specialist provision is a major concern to them. We also hear from constituents who have identified that a moderate level of special educational needs may be met in the independent sector without the child’s having gone through the process of an education, health and care plan. We are seeking to ensure that schools that educate children with special educational needs, in a broader sense, are not missed. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I am sure the Minister will have more comments to make, further to what he said in the evidence sessions.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 6, line 20, at end insert “, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments on provisions of this Act] is met.” This amendment provides that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the effect of the 2026 revaluation on those provisions.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert “, or (b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school. (5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)— (a) ‘religious character’ has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, (b) ‘other special character’ has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation, (c) ‘specified distance’ is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996. (5B) Regulations under this section (5B) are to be made by statutory instrument. (5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school. On Second Reading, we heard representations from a number of Members about access to faith schools, but those are not the only schools with a special character; there are a number of types of education of a special character. Some schools offer particular sporting opportunities. Organisations such as Montessori provide a particular method of education, and parents may wish to exercise their discretion to access that for their children. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that where the only school that has a particular special or religious character in a given location is an independent school, it is not subject to the measures in the Bill. That will support access to those schools of special character for mums and dads, and for the children who need those schools, across the country. The amendment relates to legislation on the distance travelled to school. There are regulations designed to ensure, in the interests of health, the environment and the community, that children can access sustainable transport—can walk, cycle, or use public transport where possible. We are very conscious, however, that in many parts of the country there is limited access to certain types of faith school and schools of special character. Clearly, it would therefore inhibit parental choice if those schools could not be accessed, if that were the only way for those families to access the type of education that they wished to access.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. You will be relieved, Dame Siobhain, to hear that these are the last of the amendments and new clauses that I will move for debate. The purpose of the new clause is to bring in a measure to support the local retention of additional receipts that come from the measures in the Bill. We know that we have been on a journey with local government finance over many years to ensure a greater degree of local retention of business rate proceeds, something that has had cross-party support. It has been done for a variety of reasons, and partly to encourage local authorities to promote growth in their local business community by growing their business rate base and retaining a greater share of the proceeds. On this specific Bill, the aim is to ensure that the additional revenue derived from the measures is retained by the billing authority, rather than going to another pool elsewhere. The rationale for that is manifold. In respect of the additional proceeds that may come from private schools that are subject to the measures, we know that local authorities may find it challenging, particularly given the timing of the introduction of this legislation, to ensure that there is a place available for any child who is displaced from the independent sector into the state sector—particularly so if that child has significant special educational needs or disabilities. Therefore, ensuring that those resources are retained locally will give some additional element of resource to local authorities seeking to meet that challenge. We know that one particular dynamic is that the areas where the private schools are fullest are often also the areas where the state schools are fullest; although there is overall a declining population of children in our state schools in England as a whole—I know that my own constituency and local boroughs are a particular example of that, having seen a very large drop and a significant vacancy rate—that is not the case at all phases of education or in all year groups. Therefore, there is already a significant challenge for those parents who have to seek an alternative place for their child, where the retention of the resource locally would give some additional support. Further, in respect of the additional revenue that may be raised from a variety of different types of businesses, the retention of that support locally would further enable the local authority to use that money to support its local economy, for example to invest in measures to support employment or the development of new businesses. That would be in line with the agenda being set out by the Government, who wish to see growth as a major priority, and it would create a direct link between the local decisions of the billing authority and the financial outcomes that would follow. For all those reasons, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister and I had the joy of parallel careers in local government for many years. I cannot imagine he spent a great deal of that time looking forward to the opportunity to explain non-domestic business rate multipliers in a Bill Committee. However, as he acknowledged, it is important to ensure that there is a sufficient degree of local scrutiny and flexibility so that those local authorities that are billing authorities are able to exercise their discretion in order to support their local economy. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s intentions in that respect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Special authority multipliers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. We have tabled a number of amendments to this legislation, but I want to be clear from the outset that we are not proposing to press them to a vote. We hope to have a response from the Minister; in many cases, that will follow up on the evidence that we heard in yesterday’s evidence sessions. The purpose of amendment 13 is to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier; the significance of local flexibility and discretion in that was highlighted in yesterday’s oral evidence and in written evidence to the Committee. The amendment would ensure that a billing authority, which is the local authority for the area, has discretion to apply a different figure, where the authority considers that it would benefit the local economy or its residents by doing so. That flexibility has been reflected in the business rate system that has been in operation in England since the 1990s. As we heard yesterday in evidence, the impact of the Bill is considered by most sectors and by most of the witnesses to be moderate. Therefore, the level of flexibility in the Bill does not allow for a hugely different figure from one type of business rate payer to another. However, local authorities are sometimes keen, for example, to support a local business for the purposes of sustaining employment for a period of time or because the local authority believes that the business provides an important local facility. In such an instance, the local authority may see it to be in the interests of local taxpayers to vary the application of the higher multiplier.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert— “(5A) Where a private school offers nursery provision, that school must be considered to be comprised of two separate hereditaments, one of which would be a nursery school.” The question of hereditaments is certainly not one that I remember from English classes when I was at school, but it is quite significant in the context of business rates. The way in which business rate legislation operates is that it designates a given property, which clearly makes it easier to tax, because the ownership or possession of a property is very hard to move or disguise. In respect of schools where, for example, there is a nursery on site as part of the overall premises that are considered to be the hereditament for the purposes of business rate legislation, the Opposition are concerned that such premises that would be exempt from business rates or eligible for relief if they were physically separate from the school to which they are connected will not be eligible for that relief because they are on the same site. We know that the Government are very keen, as we were in government, to see an expansion of access to high-quality childcare, a very large proportion of which is in the private sector. The Government—commendably, in my view—have set out a policy of expecting maintained state schools that have nurseries on site to significantly increase the childcare offer to support local parents, which is a very good thing. In many locations, a nursery connected to a private school may be chosen by parents using tax-free childcare, and there are measures in legislation to support all parents, but primarily lower-income parents, to access that provision. If business rates apply to such premises, however, that would load an extra cost on to them because they are, in effect, co-located and part of a single hereditament. The purpose of the amendment is to separate those premises out. Where there are premises on a site that become subject to business rates as a result of the Bill, but would not otherwise be subject to them because of their purpose, use and location, they should be considered as separate institutions, so we do not apply the measures to those institutions that we seek through other parts of legislation to support and encourage.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4, which stand in my name. They are designed to address concerns raised in evidence which there was some debate about yesterday: the objective of setting out, as far as we can in advance, the impact these measures would have on affected businesses; providing for a review and scrutiny process to follow up to confirm that the assessment had been correct or otherwise; and seeing what lessons can be learned from it. I appreciate that the Government are very keen to press ahead on this and will be reluctant to accept amendments that have that effect. None the less, I am sure Members will recognise that when making decisions it is important to have a sense of what the impact is likely to be, in particular when we know that the impact of some of the measures will affect businesses that may be marginal. In many communities the loss of a large supermarket or warehouse or logistics centre that may be affected will have a major impact on the availability of services and local employment. That is the thinking behind bringing these measures forward. With your leave, Dame Siobhan, I will move them for debate.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for talking us through the complex set of reliefs that are available. It is an issue that colleagues who represent rural areas have been concerned about, because there are often multi-use sites in those areas—a petrol station and a post office, or a banking hub and a small supermarket. Those are potentially larger premises that are critical to the operation of the local community. I am grateful that the Minister has set out how existing reliefs may operate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. In that Christmas spirit, I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement. It is characteristic of several of the Ministers in the Department, and it has been enormously helpful. I put on record my thanks to the Whips; I appreciate that the scheduling of this relatively short piece of legislation meant that it could have taken up a great deal of time. We have recognised the point, which was made impactfully yesterday, that its overall impact is limited and moderate, so we have sought to approach it in the light of that. We may have a fairly significant disagreement with the Government about the intent behind the Bill, in the way that it approaches both local government funding and the situation with independent schooling, but we have to recognise the numbers. I thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for the way in which they have addressed this.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert— “(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, the Government have set out their direction of travel and they are determined to proceed. It is important to acknowledge, given the rationale around diverting funds to the state sector, that our state schools, by all significant measures, are now the highest performing that they have ever been. Although I would be the last to claim that everything in the state sector is perfect—there are significant issues that need to be addressed, as there always are—there has been enormous progress in the last decade or so both in the educational outcomes for children in our state schools and in the opportunities for those young people. That is reflected in that fact that youth unemployment today is half what it was in 2010. I suspect that there will be a degree of disappointment among many state school heads who heard that a tidal wave of money was coming in their direction, because it must be acknowledged that even if all the funds raised by the changes to business rates, VAT and so on were diverted to them, it would amount to less than one third of the cost of a single classroom teacher. We have already seen announcements, however, that that money will also fund a wide range of other activities. Clearly, the purpose to which the Government seek to put the funds is outside the scope of the Bill, but many people will look at the clause and recognise that the significant harm that it does to part of our education sector is simply not justified by the benefit to anybody else. For that reason, I am sure that we will oppose the measure when it finally comes back to the House. I recognise that the Government have the numbers in Committee, however, so I look to them to proceed. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Commencement

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Dame Siobhan, having moved those amendments, I did indicate that subsequent to the debate I would be minded to withdraw them. I have moved them, but I am not aware that we have made a decision on withdrawal.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This group revolves around amendments 14, 17 and 20 and includes consequential amendments on relevant language in further paragraphs. They aim to address an issue that has been raised extensively in public evidence sessions, written evidence submitted to the Committee and the wider debate about measures in the Bill. That is, the circumstances of certain types of businesses, for example those that are unusual in that they are open for very long hours because they may be the only retailer in a location and are therefore of particular significance to that community, or those that are host to a post office. We all hear examples of local post offices co-locating with shops. We are very keen to ensure that those businesses are sustainable for the wider benefit of that community and access, particularly for vulnerable residents, to those services is maintained. Progress has been made in developing banking hubs, often in premises that are co-located, sometimes with post offices. We know that has been important in ensuring access to cash in communities where it might otherwise be lost, as well as access to more general banking services, for both small businesses and vulnerable residents. These types of business can be absolutely critical, especially in rural locations, but sometimes also in suburban areas where elderly residents in particular may struggle to access those types of shops and services if we do not ensure their continued support. The purpose of the amendments is to introduce specific exemptions or provisions to ensure that the measures are enacted in a way that continues to support retailers with long opening hours that provide services that might otherwise not be available, access to a post office or access to a banking hub.