No carve out for manufacturers or additional special needs schools as business rates bill clears Commons

The Bill passed its report stage and third reading on Wednesday 15 January, following a committee stage of three sittings in December 2024.

Opposition MPs sought at committee and report stage to create exemptions from having the higher multiplier applied (e.g. for manufacturers), and from having charitable rate relief removed (for schools mainly catering for those with special educational needs, with broader qualifying criteria than the Bill as it stands), as well as seeking to obtain reviews of the impact of measures in the Bill.

The Bill passed its third reading with the Commons voting 341 to 171 in favour of the Bill.

This report covers all three committee sittings (the first two of which were dedicated to hearing oral evidence from expert witnesses) as well as report stage and third reading.

Committee stage first sitting – Wednesday 11 December (am)

Gary Watson, Chief Executive, Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation

Watson highlighted the complexity of the current relief system, noting that it can be confusing for both ratepayers and local authorities. “As a professional body, our concern about giving that support to the high street is to do with the complexity in the rating system,” he explained. “At the moment, we have two multipliers, and we are going up to five or six multipliers. That is difficult for people to understand.”

He continued: “Standing back and looking at what our preference would have been, before we saw the Bill, the whole relief system is very complicated at the moment. The reliefs do not interact with each other, and it is confusing for the ratepayer and perhaps for the local authority. We could have looked at the reliefs as a whole and started again. What we have are the multipliers, and that is what we have to work with. If we had the choice at the beginning, we might have looked at some more targeted form of mandatory relief, but we are where we are.”

He emphasized the importance of clear secondary legislation to define the types of businesses the government aims to support with different multipliers and potential exclusions. He also pointed out that the property tax system proved effective during the pandemic, allowing the government to quickly provide targeted support to certain types of businesses. 

Lib Dem MP Vikki Slade noted that the Bill will give the Treasury the power to apply additional multipliers: “Do you feel that should be a local decision? … Would you like to see more regional or local implications, rather than it all coming through the Treasury?”

“Controlling the central rate is right, but making sure that councils have an element of discretion, whether through variance in the multiplier or a particular relief, is something to be considered,” said Watson. “But again you have to be careful, because local government is different in lots of different areas. There are different challenges in lots of local authorities, and you are sometimes trying to have a rating system that fits every part of the country. That is why you need that flexibility there.”

Paul Gerrard, Campaigns, Public Affairs and Board Secretariat Director, Co-op

Gerrard's testimony focused on the implications of the Bill for co-operative businesses. He discussed how changes to non-domestic rating multipliers could affect the Co-op's operations and its members. He emphasised the need for equitable treatment of cooperative businesses in the application of new multipliers and the removal of charitable rate relief.

Edward Woodall, Government Relations Director, Association of Convenience Stores

Woodall said the Bill is “very helpful, because most of [our members’] stores will benefit from the lower retail, hospitality and leisure relief multiplier. Some 71% of our sector are independent retailers, and a large majority will benefit from the lower £51,000 rateable value threshold. In that sense, it is very positive for the sector, but it is also very positive for the places where they trade.”

He said his association has “lots of suggestions about how we might improve small business rate relief in the future, to make it work better for more retailers. With the upcoming revaluation, we are likely to see higher retail prices and, as a result, the thresholds need to index up with that higher cost, otherwise businesses are going to start to slip out of the small business rate relief support. Certainly, as much as we welcome this Bill, we would like to hear more about what we can do to improve small business rate relief, to help the smallest businesses in isolated locations.”

Helen Dickinson OBE, Chief Executive Officer, and Tom Ironside, Director of Business and Regulation, British Retail Consortium

Dickinson highlighted the challenges retailers face with the current business rates system. She welcomed the recognition “that the business rate system as it stands disincentivises investment in communities up and down the country”. “It is also great to see the importance of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in that context and to be thinking differently about the business rate system and how it applies to those businesses, because for many other industries, business rates are a tiny proportion of their cost base, whereas for retail and hospitality, it is a much more significant part of their costs.”

She called for a comprehensive review of the business rates system to ensure it reflects the modern retail environment and supports business growth.

Ironside elaborated on the technical aspects of the Bill, discussing how the proposed multipliers would be implemented and their potential impact on different types of retail properties. He emphasized the need for clarity in the legislation to prevent unintended consequences and ensure that the benefits of lower multipliers reach the intended businesses.

He also observed that the introduction of a new threshold will inevitably create additional tension for companies that sit just above that threshold, and that is likely to increase the number of appeals. “It may also have an impact on investment decisions as you get close to the threshold, because there is a marginal tax rate impact, which could be very significant if you move from being in receipt of a discount for retail property through to seeing an upward multiplier under the existing proposal.”

Stuart Adam, Senior Economist, Institute for Fiscal Studies

Adam provided an economic analysis of the Bill, discussing its potential effects on business investment and economic growth. He suggested that the overall impact of the Bill would depend on how businesses respond to the changes in their tax liabilities.

Responding to shadow minister David Simmonds (Conservative), Adam said the Bill “basically does not do anything about” the IFS’s concerns over business rates. “The discussion paper raises a couple of potential reforms for the longer term that are more related to it. My view is that there is an issue about possibly more frequent than three-yearly revaluations, and particularly trying to shorten the antecedent valuation date period from the valuation to when it takes effect from two years to one year, which would be good.”

He continued: “[B]usiness rates are not what is killing the high streets, and changes to business rates are not what will save it. As a rough first pass… when business rates go up or down, rents tend to go down or up almost pound for pound in the long run, which means that business rates do not have a big impact on the cost of premises. That is much more about the supply of property.

“We expect that, overall, the reduced multipliers would lead to an increase in rents, but a smaller increase in rents for all properties. Retail, leisure and hospitality would therefore become more affordable, but only to the extent that offices, factories and so on become less affordable.”

He said his ideal “would be to move to a land value tax for commercial property, which does not seem to be on the table. Things such as reliefs for improvements for a certain period have been introduced and there is something in there about whether that is working well and should be extended. I have a set of concerns about business rates, but they do not really have much to do with what is in the Bill.”

Adam added that, if you wanted to localise more taxes, business rates would not be a bad choice. “There might be things you can do along the lines that we have seen already about, for example, having a ballot of local businesses as a requirement and that kind of thing.”

Hansard for first sitting

Committee stage second sitting – Wednesday 11 December (pm)

Dr. Malcolm James, Tax and Accountancy Specialist

James emphasised the importance of supporting businesses through appropriate tax measures, noting that the introduction of lower multipliers for retail properties could provide much-needed relief. However, he cautioned that the effectiveness of such measures would depend on their implementation and the overall economic environment.

Kate Nicholls OBE, Chief Executive Officer, UK Hospitality

Nicholls argued that “hospitality is overtaxed when it comes to business rates… If you look at the system without reliefs, hospitality pays around 12% to 13% of all business rates, but represents 5% of GDP. If you look at the system with rate relief, the high street businesses—hospitality and retail—even with those reliefs, pay 34% of all business taxes.”

She welcomed the proposal to introduce lower multipliers specifically for the hospitality sector, but wanted the government to go further. She identified three key areas for reform. 

“First, we in the hospitality sector often get penalised for investing in our premises… The suggestion is for a longer period after a significant investment is made before the Valuation Office Agency can come to do a revaluation and look at taking an additional chunk in business rates. That would be incredibly welcome. We suggest that that should be at least as long as the first revaluation period post an investment being made, so that you do not get that significant change.

“The second element is the interrelation between business rates and other tax factors for investment in the premises… Only about a third of the products that are invested in when upgrading a pub or hotel are capable of being covered by capital allowances… We need to look at other ways—perhaps research and development tax credits or discounts off the business rates for investment in green technology, but things that help to incentivise rather than penalise people for making an investment in their premises.”

Thirdly, rent and rates “are supposed to be self-correcting, [however] in our sector they are not, because rental and lease periods are long, and there are upward-only rent review clauses in most high street and city centre premises… There was an outstanding consultation on commercial leases, which was looking at a ban on upward-only rent review clauses. It would be significantly helpful if the department took that forward separately”.

Steve Alton, Chief Executive Officer, British Institute of Innkeeping

Alton echoed the positive sentiment regarding the direction of the Bill, particularly the introduction of lower multipliers for hospitality. He stressed the need for the Bill to apply the maximum reduction to provide immediate support to businesses facing financial challenges. Mr. Alton also discussed the importance of reducing the overall tax burden on pubs to unlock investment and provide stability for operators committed to long-term ventures.

Sacha Lord, Night Time Economy Advisor for Greater Manchester

Lord provided insights into the challenges faced by the night time economy, emphasising the need for supportive measures to ensure its sustainability. He discussed the potential benefits of the proposed multipliers in alleviating financial pressures on businesses in the sector.

David Woodgate, Chief Executive Officer, and Don Beattie, Technical Rating Expert, Independent Schools’ Bursars Association

Woodgate addressed the clauses of the Bill concerning the removal of charitable rate relief from private schools. He outlined the potential financial impact on these institutions, noting that the loss of relief could lead to increased fees or reduced services. He argued that such changes might affect the accessibility of private education and could have broader implications for the education sector.

“If I were to make a plea,” he said, “it would be to give us some grace on the implementation of the business rate relief, as a way of helping schools to get through an unprecedented number of financial shocks. If it could at least be deferred until April 2026, or perhaps phased in, with a 20% reduction over each year up to five years, that would be of tremendous assistance to schools labouring under a real financial burden that is not impacting on any other section of the economy. No other section of the economy has those four shocks simultaneously.”

Beattie highlighted concerns about the timing of the implementation and the need for transitional arrangements to mitigate adverse effects.

Barnaby Lenon CBE, Chair, and Simon Nathan, Deputy Chief Executive Officer & Head of Policy, Independent Schools Council

Lenon emphasised the contributions of private schools to the broader education system, including partnerships with state schools and community programmes. He expressed concern that removing charitable rate relief could undermine these contributions by straining the financial resources of private schools. He expressed concern that the Bill is inadvertently creating a two-tier charity system.

Nathan raised concerns about the impact on school choice and diversity within the education sector. He questioned whether the financial benefits anticipated from removing charitable rate relief would outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Rachel Kelly, Assistant Director for Tax and Finance Policy, British Property Federation

Kelly provided a perspective on the broader property market, discussing how changes to non-domestic rating multipliers could influence investment decisions. She emphasized the need for clarity and stability in the tax system to maintain investor confidence. She also highlighted the importance of considering the cumulative impact of tax changes on the property sector.

Kelly said the BPF “want to see a functional, fair and responsive tax system, so our two fundamental and long-standing asks of business rate reform are these. First… we have a very high tax burden on property and we would like to see that come down.” Second, “a more responsive tax system, which responds more quickly to changes in the economy and in rent.”

She said introducing new tax rates for different asset classes, and different valuation points, “will add a bit more complexity into the system. It will also introduce new cliff edges into the system, which arguably could create more contention on valuation.” All this “will probably make it even harder to automate, digitalise and reach more frequent evaluations, which we think should be the ultimate goal of the business rate system.”

Professor Francis Green, Professor of Work and Education Economics, UCL Institute of Education

Green commented principally on the changes relating to private schools. He does not think these will have a great deal of effect. “I offer you a small piece of evidence for that, which is the case of Scotland, which took an equivalent measure to this two and a half years ago. There was much protest beforehand from the sector that this would reduce not only the numbers attending the schools but schools’ ability to finance bursaries, which make a small difference, as you know, to making the schools a little bit less exclusive. The evidence to date, however, shows no noticeable difference whatever. It is perhaps too soon to tell, but we have seen no collapse or catastrophes as was predicted beforehand.”

He thought the impact of the change to business rates would be about a tenth of the impact of the VAT change.

Jim McMahon, Minister for Local Government and English Devolution in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

The final witness to be questioned was the responsible minister, Jim McMahon. He said these were measures that businesses have been asking for, “but they have to be self-financing”. Where is it best to take from? “The fairest way is to target those higher-value properties… By and large, that will be warehousing, distribution and the large sheds on the side of motorways, and quite rightly, too, because they are doing well. Their turnover is high, and it can be used to support local businesses on the high street and in town centres.”

Conservative MP Patrick Spencer suggested the Bill was “a bit of a missed opportunity”. “At the end of the day, business rates are not a progressive way to tax individuals and businesses. Taxing capital always allows for businesses that may seem asset-rich or that have asset liabilities to be taxed unfairly. Why did the Government not go further in looking at alternatives, whether it be a sales tax or a land value tax?” (He added that he himself is not a fan of land value taxes.)

McMahon replied that which taxes are fair “is always in the eye of the beholder”. He said business rates and council tax “are established taxes and they are understood. There are definitely views about whether they are up to date and fit for purpose, and whether they should be reformed, but however clunky the system is, very few people have an alternative that holds water, is fair, and produces the same level of income to support local public services.”

Hansard for second sitting

Committee stage third sitting – Thursday 12 December 

The third sitting saw clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill’s seven clauses, and the various amendments and new clauses tabled by opposition MPs. As expected the existing clauses were all passed, while the amendments and new clauses were either withdrawn or not moved.

Debate on Clause 1 (Determination of additional multipliers) saw the Conservative shadow minister, David Simmonds, introduce amendment 13, which sought “to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier… The amendment would ensure that a billing authority… has discretion to apply a different figure, where the authority considers that it would benefit the local economy or its residents by doing so.” 

The minister, Jim McMahon responded that narrowing the scope of the higher multiplier “would inevitably reduce the funding available to support the lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties”. However, he explained, local authorities already have “very wide powers” to award discretionary rate relief. “Those powers already allow local authorities to devise and deliver their own relief schemes without the intervention of central government, where the authority is satisfied that that would be in the interest of its council tax payers.” These powers would remain, he assured MPs.

A majority of the amendments discussed were to clause 3 (application of multipliers). These were attempts by the Conservatives to create various exemptions from having the higher multiplier applied, including for:

• Premises shared with a post office, 
• Premises shared with a banking hub, 
• Premises open to customers for more than 18 hours a day

The minister recognised the value of such sectors, but said that the Government “do not intend to exclude any properties with a higher value, applying the approach in the fairest possible way”. He added that there are practical implications that make it difficult to apply different multipliers to retailers based on their opening hours – namely that businesses can change opening hours at their own discretion, subject to legal requirements, “so this would leave it uncertain which multiplier would be applied to which property ahead of the billing year”. 

Lib Dem Martin Wrigley proposed adding manufacturing to the types of business that could qualify for the lower multiplier: “Manufacturing is a vital area that we have lost too much of in the past however many years. This relief would be a small help to enable manufacturing businesses to recover.”

Replying, the minister emphasised the Government’s support for manufacturing but said that expanding the scope of the support in the Bill to include manufacturing properties “does not match our intended goal of supporting the high street in a targeted way through the Bill. Against the current fiscal backdrop, extending eligibility to other sectors may dilute the support that the Government can offer to retail, hospitality and leisure properties. It may even require a higher rate on properties with rateable values of £500,000 or more to fund the new lower multipliers sustainably.”

MPs next debated a Conservative proposal that the new higher multiplier for businesses with a high rateable value should only come into effect after an independent review has been carried out assessing its likely impact. “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,” explained the shadow minister. “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.”

Debate on clause 5 (removal of relief for private schools) included a Conservative amendment which 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.

The minister explained that the Bill “provides that schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs will remain eligible for charitable rates relief. He acknowledged concerns that there are a small number of special schools that may lose their charitable relief because they are not wholly or mainly composed of pupils with EHCPs, however: “We expect any special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; the number may even be in the single figures.”

The Conservatives proposed an amendment to keep a private faith school eligible for charitable relief if there is no maintained or academy school of the same faith within the statutory walking distance. The minister said that, while the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in schools of a particular faith, “state education is suitable for children of all faiths”.

The Conservatives also proposed that where a private school offers nursery provision that provision should be treated as a separate school and therefore eligible (as stand alone nurseries are) for business rates relief. The minister replied that the Government “have decided that where private schools that mainly provide education for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of a minority of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rate measure. That approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.”

On clause 6 (commencement) MPs debated proposals that the Bill should not take effect until an independent review has considered the impact of the forthcoming 2026 revaluation. 

Finally the committee debated a Conservative proposal “to bring in a measure to support the local retention of additional receipts that come from the measures in the Bill”. “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,” said David Simmonds. The minister argued that not sending a portion of this business rate revenue to central government would result in a less fair and stable outcome for local government.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment.

Hansard for third sitting

Report stage debate – Wednesday 15 January 2025

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tabled a number of new clauses and amendments at report stage including:

• NC1 (Liberal Democrats) - Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth. This new clause would have required a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.
• NC2 (Conservatives)— Review of impact of new multipliers. This new clause would have required the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.
• NC3 (Liberal Democrats) - Sections 1 to 4: impact assessment. This new clause would have required the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site compared with those occupying multiple sites.

The Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Vikki Slade, began the debate by saying that business rate reform is “long overdue”. She expressed concern that due to the cliff edge created by small business rate relief some of her constituents' rates bill will jump from £2,800 to £8,500 per year. She called for “systemic” changes, not “arbitrary valuations”. 

Slade welcomed the proposal to reduce business rates for retail, hospitality, and leisure, but said “any discount is worthless” if businesses don't survive until next year. 

Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, Daisy Cooper, intervened to argue that the 75% relief cap at £110,000 will disappear in two years, potentially making small businesses 80% worse off while big chains such as Starbucks benefit. She said it was “ important that we get the differential assessment set out in new clause 3”.

Slade agreed with her colleague and said that amendments 1 to 6 add manufacturing businesses to the lower multiplier. She observed that the “Made in Britain” tag is valued by consumers and worth £3.5 billion annually to UK exporters, “which is why we believe that the lower multiplier should also apply to manufacturing businesses”. She voiced concern about the Brexit deal and potential tariffs on UK products by US President Donald Trump. 

A number of Labour MPs including Adam Thompson, Paul Davies, Chris Vince and Sureena Brackenridge welcomed the Bill, suggesting that the measures would support businesses and reduce the tax burden on hospitality. Davies believed that private schools “should be taxed” as businesses and Brackenridge thought it “unfair” that state schools pay business rates while private schools get tax breaks.

Sarah Bool (Con) explained amendments 3 and 10 which would require the delay of tax increases for private schools in order to allow financial planning. She argued that the hike would hurt those who save for their children's education, not the wealthiest.

Another Conservative MP, Damian Hinds, criticised the measure and urged the government to delay the changes by a year to give the sector a chance to “cope and plan.” He described business rates as an “unpopular tax” and welcomed the cuts to the multiplier. “There is no such thing as a tax on business—you cannot tax a business; you can only tax people. Any tax on business is ultimately a tax on its employees, its customers or its owners”, said Hinds who claimed that the revenue from business rates is projected to increase from £32 billion this financial year to almost £40 billion in five years’ time. He believed that this was a “massive further tax raid on business, and a brake on employment”.

Hinds considered new clause 2 a “reasonable ask” and emphasised the need to review the “real-life effect” of these changes.

On the contrary, Deirdre Costigan (Lab) believed that the new clauses 1 to 3 and amendment 9 are “all things that are already happening”, and suggested that the Bill levels the playing field between high street and internet businesses. She added: “The one tax that the Opposition do not mention is the 10p crime tax: 10p added to every shopping basket due to the impact of shoplifting. The Tories did absolutely nothing about that, but this is a Tory tax that Labour is getting rid of”.

Hinds challenged Labour MP Mark Sewards about the pros and cons of targeting online retailers with business rates changes versus a direct tax like the digital services tax. Sewards responded that “We know that we have to support these smaller businesses… and the only way we are going to pay for this is by finding the money from elsewhere”. On removing the charitable relief from the private schools, he stated: “Private schools are businesses, and we are choosing to levy the tax on businesses”. 

Conservative shadow minister David Simmonds opposed the Bill, suggesting that changes to the business rate system would increase costs for larger premises, which will provide the source for any reductions for smaller businesses. He said the government often characterise these businesses as warehouses owned by online giants, but data shows firms like Banner, Tygavac Advanced Materials, and Zetex Semiconductors would also be impacted.

The Conservative MP spoke in support of his party’s amendment 7, which 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. He explained that the “wholly or mainly” provision exempts schools with 50% or more students with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), but many children with special needs do not have these plans. 

Responding to the new clauses the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon, said that the government agrees in principle with the points and will consider the effects of the policies on businesses, high street, economic growth, and within different sectors. He continued that the Bill caps retail, hospitality, and leisure multipliers at 20p below the small business multiplier and limits the higher multiplier to 10p above the standard multiplier, applying only to properties valued at £500,000 or more. These are maximum limits, with actual rates to be set at the 2025 Budget, considering the 2026 revaluation and broader economic context.

About the support for the manufacturing sector, McMahon recognised the important role they play but said “the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations”.

In relation to amendment 9, the minister argued that local authorities already have discretionary rate relief powers, so the amendment is unnecessary. He reassured the MPs that the discretionary powers are ‘unaffected’ by the Bill and remain in place.

McMahon did not support amendment 8 either, explaining that “amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools”. He continued that if an EHCP does not name a private school, parents may choose one, but this does not detract from the assessment that the child's needs can be met in the state sector; any disagreements should be resolved through the EHCP system. He suggested that the government believes that most private special schools will not be affected by the Bill.

Daisy Cooper intervened to ask the minister to guarantee that small independents, with a small number of hereditaments, won't end up subsidising big chains. The minister replied that the government aims to support small businesses by targeting higher-value properties, mainly used by big online retailers. He highlighted the permanent relief for retail, hospitality, and leisure businesses and said the Treasury is “committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set”.

Cooper pressed the minister further, saying: “at least do not rule out introducing a new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses”. The minister replied that, as with all tax policies, we will keep this under review.

New clause 1 was put to the vote and defeated 175-342. New clause 2 was defeated 174-340. Amendment 7 was defeated 172-341.

Third reading debate – Wednesday 15 January 2025

Opening the brief third reading debate the minister, Jim McMahon, thanked everyone who had contributed and said that the Bill fulfils the government's pledge to end business rates relief for private schools and reform the rates system.

“We have heard a lot about the change from the covid relief to the permanent, baked-in relief that we are providing through the Bill,” he continued. “The Opposition have said a number of times during the Bill’s passage that it represents a reduction, but a degree of honesty is required. The Opposition know, as do we, that there was no provision… for the continuation of the temporary relief provided during covid on which retailers, hospitality providers and leisure providers were relying.”

In response, Kevin Hollinrake, the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, attacked the government for saying that the fact that business rates or VAT do not apply to school fees is a ‘tax break’: “It is no more a tax break than there being no VAT on housing, children’s clothes or food”. He said that businesses are already suffering due to employer national insurance rises and the withdrawal of business property relief and agricultural property relief. 

The shadow minister accused Labour of breaking their election promises and claimed that the Bill taxes various businesses without changing the balance between high streets and the online giants. He concluded: “It is the tyranny of socialism, and that is why we will vote against the Bill”.

The Bill passed its third reading 341-171 with both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs voting against it.

You can read the full report stage and third reading debate here