Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13
Tuesday, 25 March 2025 · Division No. 147 · Commons
146 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
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 means
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
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.
How They Voted
Government position: Aye
What They Said in the Debate
Conservative · Thirsk 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.
Voted No
Liberal Democrat · Twickenham
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.
Voted No
Conservative · Fareham 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.
Voted No
Labour · Harlow
Question whether supporting manufacturing through business rates exemptions is the right approach; other mechanisms may be more appropriate.
Voted Aye
Labour · Oldham 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.
Voted Aye
Labour · Leeds 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.
Voted Aye
Related Votes
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B
31 Mar 2025
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2B
31 Mar 2025
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13B
31 Mar 2025
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E
31 Mar 2025
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] Report Stage: New Clause 1
31 Mar 2025
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B
25 Mar 2025
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5B
25 Mar 2025
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 8B
25 Mar 2025
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 21B
25 Mar 2025
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
25 Mar 2025