Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
322Ayes
117Noes
Carried · majority 205 · Government won208 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 322 · No 117 · DNV 208 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, by 322 votes to 117. The amendment, passed in the House of Lords, would have exempted so-called "anchor stores" from the higher business rates multiplier that the Bill introduces for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or above. The Bill creates a permanent lower business rates multiplier for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded by a higher multiplier applied to the largest properties. Rejecting the Lords amendment keeps large retailers, including supermarket chains and other major high street operators, within scope of that higher multiplier. The government argued that carving out anchor stores would reduce the revenue available to fund relief for smaller businesses, which is the central purpose of the legislation. The Commons vote ensures the funding mechanism remains intact as the Bill originally intended. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the amendment, joined by the Greens and three independents, totalling 322 ayes. All 101 Conservative MPs with a vote recorded opposed the motion, as did all five Democratic Unionist Party members, all five Reform UK members, and smaller unionist parties, totalling 117 noes. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote is part of a broader Lords-Commons exchange on the Bill, with several related divisions taking place on 31 March 2025 in which the Commons continued to reject Lords amendments on similar grounds.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords exemption for anchor stores, keeping large retail properties subject to the higher business rates multiplier to fund relief for smaller businesses
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment exempting anchor stores from the higher multiplier, arguing the current approach harms large retailers that drive high street footfall and amid wider concerns about business confidence
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
101
15
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
—
3
4
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 Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
1
0
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
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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) →
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) →
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_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,981 words) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0