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

Parliament voted on 25 March 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill that would have exempted large healthcare properties, including NHS hospitals and GP surgeries, from a new higher business rates multiplier. The government motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 passed by 316 votes to 183. The bill introduces a permanent lower business rates multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000, funded by a higher multiplier applied to all properties at or above that threshold. Lords Amendment 1 would have carved healthcare properties out of that higher multiplier. The government argued that removing any category from the higher multiplier would undermine the sustainable funding of the relief below. Ministers noted that only around 350 health-sector properties sit at or above the £500,000 threshold, of which 290 are NHS hospitals and 30 are GP surgeries or health centres, and said the spending review would address any cost pressures on public sector bodies separately. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 314 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. All 102 Conservative MPs who voted, all 64 Liberal Democrats, all five Reform UK members, all five Democratic Unionist Party members and all four Green MPs voted against. No significant cross-party rebellion was visible on either side. The bill subsequently returned to the Lords, where related amendments were again considered and further motions to disagree were voted on in a ping-pong session on 31 March 2025.

Voting Aye meant
Back the government's position that NHS hospitals and healthcare properties should not be exempted from the higher business rates multiplier, keeping the funding base intact for the permanent retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment exempting large healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier, arguing that hitting NHS hospitals and GP surgeries with higher business rates undermines health service funding.
§ 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
63
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
2
5
6
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
Your Party
1
0
1
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

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