A divisionDivision No. 144 · Tuesday, 25 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

316Ayes
183Noes
Carried · majority 133 · Government won
146 did not vote
Aye317No185DID NOT VOTE · 146

645 Members · Aye 316 · No 183 · DNV 146 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 25 March 2025, the House of Commons voted 316 to 183 to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have removed qualifying healthcare properties from a higher business rates multiplier that the Government intends to use to fund relief for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. By voting to disagree with the Lords, the Commons rejected the amendment and maintained the Government's original position on which properties would be subject to the higher rate. The vote is one part of a broader package of reforms to the business rates system. The Bill introduces a permanent lower multiplier for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded by a higher multiplier applied to all properties with a rateable value of at least 500,000 pounds, which the Government says represents less than one percent of all rateable properties. Removing healthcare hereditaments from the higher rate, as the Lords proposed, would have reduced the revenue raised and therefore the level of relief available to smaller businesses. The Bill also removes the charitable business rates relief previously enjoyed by private schools, a separate but related measure that attracted considerable debate during this sitting. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 315 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, Green and Traditional Unionist Voice MP who voted opposed it. One Independent MP voted with the Government. The Liberal Democrats, while broadly supportive of making business rates relief permanent, raised objections both to the removal of charitable relief from private schools and to the impact of reduced relief on businesses already struggling with rising costs. The Conservatives used the debate to criticise the Government's wider economic record, including the increase in employers' national insurance contributions. Subsequent divisions on 31 March 2025 show the Bill continued through further ping-pong (the process of amendments passing between the two chambers) with the Commons again voting to reject Lords amendments by similar margins.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of keeping the Bill as originally drafted, rejecting the Lords' attempt to broaden the scope of business rates relief beyond what the government considers fiscally sustainable
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment to extend or expand business rates relief further, arguing more businesses need support given the current difficult economic climate and rising costs
§ 01Who voted how.499 voting Members · 146 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
284
0
77
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
102
14
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
2
4
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Jim McMahonSupportiveOldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Government opposes all Lords amendments; higher multiplier on £500k+ properties is fairest, sustainable way to fund permanent retail/hospitality/leisure relief; removing charitable relief from private schools is necessary to fund state education.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,467 words)
Kevin HollinrakeOpposedThirsk and Malton
Lords amendments should be retained; Bill breaks Labour's manifesto promise to replace business rates; higher multiplier will hit anchor stores, hospitals, GPs, and manufacturers unfairly; cliff edge at £500k threshold stifles investment; private school relief removal is ideologically driven.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,479 words)
Munira WilsonOpposedTwickenham
Support some Lords amendments (healthcare, manufacturing, threshold review) for fundamental business rates reform; oppose taxation of education on principle; concerned about unintended consequences for NHS hospitals and manufacturing; question whether raised revenue will actually reach state schools.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,981 words)
Mark SewardsSupportiveLeeds South West and Morley
Bill rightly supports small high street businesses; amendments would reduce revenue and dilute support; anchor store exemptions impractical to define; removing private school relief justified as funding 94% of children in state education.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,320 words)
Suella BravermanOpposedFareham and Waterlooville
Pubs and community businesses face cumulative burden from multiple tax rises; private school measures will push children into already-full state schools, harming education for all; Government policies show anti-business stance.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (349 words)
Chris VinceQuestioningHarlow
Question whether supporting manufacturing through business rates exemptions is the right approach; other mechanisms may be more appropriate.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (76 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0