PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill) - 25 March 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1 to 12, and 14 to 17. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 3

Application of multipliers

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 19, and Government motions to disagree.

First, I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. Before I address the amendments tabled by the Lords, allow me to remind the House of why we introduced the Bill in the first place. This Government have committed to transforming the business rates system, and the Bill is a first step on that important journey. We want to achieve a sustainable system that is fit for the current economic landscape, and where business growth is supported and ratepayers pay their fair share. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach. I also thank officers of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and my private office for all their work on the Bill.

The Government oppose all the amendments before us today and I will provide further explanation as to why. At the Budget, the Government explained that we wanted to introduce new lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from April 2026 to address the uncertainty of the temporary, stopgap support provided by the annual RHL relief. Business rates represent a stable source of revenue for local government, meaning that this permanent tax cut must be sustainably funded. That is why the Government also announced our intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. This Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of those new multipliers, so this is the first step towards delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is sustainable, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.

On a point of detail, the Minister says the Bill is a “first step”, so will there be further reforms, following these reforms, to the rest of the business rates system to meet his manifesto commitment to replace the current business rates system completely?

I am not going to pre-empt any further decisions on this, other than to say that this represents an important and significant step forward. As a constituency MP, he, like me, will have heard from many small businesses—retailers, hospitality providers or leisure providers—who appreciated the support during covid, but were very clear that there was a cliff edge and that that support was coming to an end. The previous Government did not provide any certainty about what followed, so the Bill ends that uncertainty and hardwires in a permanent relief system to ensure those important businesses that are the foundation of our communities and our economy are supported through the tax system.

The Minister has already said, as he has in previous speeches, that this is a “first step”, but now he says it is a “permanent” measure. I agree with him that business wants certainty, so it is important that businesses understand: is this now a permanent position that will not be changed, or a first step?

The answer is that it is both, as I will go on to explain in more detail. It is an important first step, and the relief that is provided, funded through the higher rate properties, will be hard-baked into the system, notwithstanding any future support that may well follow, which we are not pre-empting today.

Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12 would remove qualifying healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier, and Lords amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 would do the same in relating to anchor stores. Considering the challenging fiscal environment, it is vital that this permanent tax cut is funded sustainably. The Government have been clear that they will do that by applying the higher multiplier to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. That accounts for less than 1% of all properties and is the fairest approach. The impact on healthcare properties is limited. As set out in the other place, of the 16,780 properties at or above the £500,000 threshold based on the current rating list and rounded to 10, only 350 are in the health sub-sector. Of those, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres.

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review. The Government are considering the full range of departmental priorities and pressures as part of the spending review, and that includes any impact of the higher multiplier on public sector properties, such as schools and hospitals. I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.

We recognise the importance of anchor stores, and we are doing a great deal to support the high street in this Bill and elsewhere. While the largest anchor stores may be caught by the higher multiplier, they are often part of large retail chains that will have a number of properties with rateable values below £500,000. Those businesses will, therefore, benefit overall from the lower multipliers.

I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. In Fareham and Waterlooville, we have some fantastic pubs, including the Golden Lion in Fareham, the Chairmakers in Denmead and the Heroes in Waterlooville. Many pubs are hubs of our community and make a valid contribution to the local economy, but they have been trading under challenging circumstances and have been asking for a cut in business rates. What will be the effects of the Minister’s position today?

The Bill provides a cash saving for exactly the types of business that the right hon. Member talks about. We all understand the importance of pubs to our towns, villages and estates, not just as businesses in the economy but as places for the community to convene, to meet and to build relationships and networks. That is exactly why the measures are being brought in, and in a permanent way, because pubs needs certainty. They know the rising costs of supplies, carbon dioxide and energy have put significant pressure on pub operations, and these measures provide long-term stability that bakes in the support the Government can offer into the system.

Many pubs will be free houses and they will be independent. However, a number of pubs will be part of a brewery chain with managers in place. The measures take away the cash cap of £110,000 per business, allowing, for the first time, multiple operators to benefit. That will benefit pub chains, as well as high street stores, such as Home Bargains, Boots and other retailers. Those businesses draw in footfall, which then supports independent retailers as well. The proposals are rounded and provide long-term stability that is properly funded in a responsible way. On that basis, the Government oppose the Lords amendments as laid out.

Lord’s amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 are concerned with bringing manufacturing properties into scope of the lower multiplier. If we widen the scope of the lower multipliers in that way, it will dilute the support available to RHL properties or jeopardise the ability of the Government to sustainably fund the lower multipliers. We need to be clear that this is not a wide-ranging offer, but targeted deliberately at supporting our communities, high streets and town centres. That is why the Bill focuses on RHL support. The Government are supporting the manufacturing sector through other means. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the amendments.

Lord’s amendments 13 and 16 require the Government to undertake a review of how the provisions to introduce new multipliers may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier. The review would need to be put before Parliament three months prior to 1 April 2026 in order for clauses 1 to 4 of this Bill to come into effect. These amendments probe around the way the multipliers in the business rates system currently operate. Those hereditaments on the standard multiplier, or in the future on the higher multipliers, pay rates on that multiplier calculated on all of their rateable value, and not just the rateable value above the threshold. That, of course, generates cliff edges in the rates bills for hereditaments as they move between thresholds, and we acknowledge the presence of those cliff edges—it is a matter of fact.

At the autumn Budget, the Treasury launched a discussion with business on the “Transforming Business Rates” paper. This specifically highlights these cliff edges in the system and considers whether they may act as a disincentive to expand, so I can assure the House that we are already looking at the precise issue identified in the amendment. Reforms are being taken forward through the transforming business rates work and will be phased in over the course of the Parliament. Therefore, we believe Lords amendments 13 and 16 are unnecessary.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to commence a review that examines the merits of creating, within three months of Royal Assent, a separate use class and associated multiplier within the non-domestic ratings for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses in England that do not have a material presence on high streets. The noble Lord Thurlow, who put forward the amendment, made it clear that this use class would apply only to business rates. As he explained in the other place, the key task is to identify those warehouses, as distinct from warehouses used by, say, high street retailers—warehouses that may otherwise look the same.

The Lords amendment would bring together the Government and professional bodies working on business rates to identify those warehouses. We are already exploring that objective through an existing project. The digitalising business rates project will allow us to match property-level data with business-level data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to improve the way in which we target business rates, and to identify property and businesses in the way that the Lords amendment envisages.

I did not intend to intervene, but I was looking through the amendments, and I see that a lot of them focus on exemptions from the business rates. Does the Minister agree that the way to look at supporting businesses in, for example, the manufacturing industry is through other means, not through changing the business rates?

We welcome scrutiny through amendments and the insight that the other place can provide, just as we welcomed scrutiny in the evidence sessions and Committee sittings; it adds value. We need to be honest: it is natural for Members to want to widen the scope of legislation during its passage, and to include more. In Government, we have to deal with the art of the possible, which means balancing a number of competing interests, not least the impact on taxpayers in the round. The Bill is targeted at those who need it the most—communities and local economies—and it is fully funded to ensure that it is sustainable. We cannot draw the legislation so wide that it does not stand the test of time and does not cover its own cost. That would not be responsible, and certainly would not be sustainable.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to implement the recommendations of the review. Given that we do not know what those recommendations would be, I trust the House will understand that we cannot accept an amendment to accept them blindly in advance.

Finally, Lords amendment 15 and consequential Lords amendments 17 to 19 would strike from the Bill the clause that removes charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. We are unable to accept these Lords amendments. This Government made a manifesto commitment to raise school standards for every child, break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. Achieving our ambition involves meeting our commitment to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools; the approach and design of this policy has been carefully considered in the light of that. The measures are necessary in order to raise the revenue to deliver on the Government’s commitment to education and young people, and to improve the state sector, where—let us be clear—90% of children are educated. This Government are prepared to take the tough but necessary decisions to deliver on those bold commitments, so, as with all the other amendments brought here from the other place, I cannot accept these Lords amendments. I hope that the rest of the House follows suit.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Lords amendments. We shall not agree, and I will explain why. I thank the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill; in particular, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and amendments.

The legislation comes at a critical time for businesses. The partial withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief—a policy choice by this Government—is hitting businesses hard. The average pub is more than £5,000 worse off as a result of the Minister’s choices. That, together with the Government’s trash-talking of the economy, the £25 billion annual tax rise for businesses by means of the rise in employers’ national insurance, and the prospect of the job-destroying Employment Rights Bill, has led directly to a massive reduction in business confidence. According to the Institute of Directors, business confidence, which stood at a high of plus 5 in July last year, has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65.

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. What is his advice to the many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville who have told me—I have lost count of them—that they do not know whether they will survive the next few years, particularly because of the rise in national insurance contributions from employers, the Employment Rights Bill and the anti-business rhetoric? Hiring is down, prices are up and many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville are beginning to wonder whether it is all worth it.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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.

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?

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—

60%.

My hon. Friend tells me it was 60%. I cannot do the maths quickly enough—clearly, I need to do maths to 18—

One in five voters—one in seven adults.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she is saying on private schools, and I agree with everything she has said on that point. Does she agree that as well as the damaging effects on children who go to private schools, this will affect children in state schools? In Hampshire, thousands of young pupils attend independent schools, but the state schools are running at nearly 100% capacity. This measure is going to push hundreds, if not thousands, of children into state schools, which are already full, thereby harming and undermining the education of all children. Is that not unforgivable?

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I am aware, from talking to colleagues, that there are real pressures on school places in different parts of the country. Clearly, that is where we will see a negative impact. In my own constituency and, indeed, across London, we are struggling with secondary school places, although rolls are falling in primary schools, which will feed into the secondary sector. These pressures of children leaving the private sector to go into the state sector are different in different parts of the country.

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.

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—

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.

Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.

Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 12 disagreed to.

After Clause 4

Review: threshold effect

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13.—(Jim McMahon.)