Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13
320Ayes
180Noes
Carried · majority 140 · Government won146 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 320 · No 180 · DNV 146 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The Commons voted on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 13 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, passing the motion by 320 votes to 180. The Lords had added an amendment requiring a review of the threshold effects of the new business rates multiplier system. The government asked MPs to remove it, and they did so by a comfortable margin. The amendment would have required an assessment of how the new multiplier structure operates around its key thresholds, particularly the boundary between properties qualifying for lower multipliers and those facing the new higher levy. The government's objection centred on a linked provision: Lords Amendment 14 would have required the government to implement whatever the review recommended, meaning Parliament was being asked to commit in advance to adopting recommendations that had not yet been made. Ministers argued this was fiscally irresponsible given the uncertain spending environment. The vote divided along strict party lines. All 315 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted with the government. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party all voted against. The Greens voted with the government, and two independents also voted aye. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The division is part of a wider ping-pong process between the Commons and Lords on this Bill; related divisions on 31 March 2025 show the Lords responding with revised amendments, which the Commons also subsequently rejected.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords' review requirement, on grounds that binding the government to implement unspecified future recommendations in advance is fiscally irresponsible
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment requiring a review of the threshold effects of the new business rates multiplier system, arguing the reform needs proper scrutiny and evaluation
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
285
0
76
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
101
15
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
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 Aye
3
0
1
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 · 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