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
On 25 March 2025, the House of Commons voted by 320 to 180 to disagree with Lords Amendment 13 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The amendment in question had been passed by the House of Lords and would have required a review of the threshold effects of the new business rates multiplier system. By voting to disagree, MPs rejected that amendment and kept the Bill on the Government's preferred terms. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour, with Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party all voting against. Three Green MPs and one independent supported the Government. The Bill is a significant piece of legislation with two main purposes. First, it permanently restructures the business rates (the property tax paid by businesses on non-residential premises) system, introducing lower multipliers for retail, hospitality, and leisure premises and funding that cut by applying a higher multiplier to properties with a rateable value of at or above 500,000 pounds, which the Government describes as less than one per cent of all properties. Second, and more controversially, the Bill removes the charitable rate relief that private schools have historically enjoyed, meaning independent schools will pay standard business rates. This is part of a broader Labour commitment, alongside the earlier removal of VAT exemption for private school fees, to redirect tax advantages away from fee-charging schools and towards state education funding. The vote revealed a straightforward party-political divide. Labour and its Co-operative allies voted in a bloc for the Government's position, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and smaller unionist and populist parties all voted against. The Liberal Democrats, despite broadly welcoming business rates reform, opposed the private school provisions and several of the higher multiplier measures. The vote was one of a series during the Bill's passage through a parliamentary "ping-pong" process, in which the Lords and Commons exchanged amendments repeatedly; related votes on 31 March 2025 show the Government continuing to overturn Lords amendments by similarly comfortable margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of a Lords-inserted requirement for a review into the threshold effects of the new business rates multipliers, keeping the bill as the government intended
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a review into how the new business rates multipliers affect businesses at rate thresholds, arguing greater scrutiny and transparency is needed
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
63
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
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
Your Party
—
1
0
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