A divisionDivision No. 149 · Tuesday, 25 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15

319Ayes
166Noes
Carried · majority 153 · Government won
149 did not vote
Aye321No178DID NOT VOTE · 149

634 Members · Aye 319 · No 166 · DNV 149 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 25 March 2025, MPs voted by 319 to 166 to reject Lords Amendment 15 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The motion asked the Commons to disagree with a change the House of Lords had inserted into the bill, effectively restoring the government's original text. The government won comfortably. The bill does two things: it reforms the business rates multiplier system and removes the charitable rate relief that private schools in England have historically received. Lords Amendment 15 had sought to alter the private schools element. By voting to disagree with that amendment, MPs cleared the way for the government's original approach to stand. The vote is one stage in the parliamentary back-and-forth between the two chambers known as ping-pong, where each house attempts to resolve disagreements over specific clauses. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 314 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. All 101 Conservative MPs who voted, all 63 Liberal Democrats, all four Reform UK MPs, five Democratic Unionist Party MPs and one Ulster Unionist Party MP voted against. Four Green MPs voted with the government, as did two independents. Three independents voted no. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The division sits within a cluster of related votes: on 31 March 2025, the Commons voted similarly to reject further Lords amendments on the same bill, including a subsequent version of Amendment 15 (numbered 15B through 15E), suggesting the Lords returned the amendment in revised form after this initial rejection.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government overriding the Lords amendment, backing Labour's approach to the Non Domestic Rating Bill as originally passed by the Commons
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment and oppose the government's attempt to remove it, defending the change the unelected chamber made to the bill
§ 01Who voted how.485 voting Members · 149 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
286
0
75
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
101
15
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
4
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
3
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
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
1
0

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