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

The House of Commons voted on 25 March 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 15 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The amendment, inserted by the House of Lords, would have preserved or modified business rates relief for private schools. The Commons voted to reject it by 319 votes to 166, keeping the government's policy of removing that relief intact. The vote is part of the government's plan to end the business rates relief that independent (private) schools have historically enjoyed as registered charities. Removing this relief means private schools will pay full business rates on their properties, generating additional revenue for the Treasury that the government says will be directed toward state education. The change affects hundreds of independent schools across England and Wales, increasing their operating costs and potentially putting upward pressure on fees. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 287 Labour MPs and 28 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported rejecting the Lords amendment, as did all four Green MPs and one independent. All 101 voting Conservatives, all 63 voting Liberal Democrats, all five DUP MPs, all four Reform UK MPs, and one Ulster Unionist voted to accept the Lords amendment. There were no notable cross-party rebels in either direction. The Lords had inserted Amendment 15 as part of a sustained pattern of resistance to this element of the bill, which continued through further ping-pong exchanges on 31 March 2025, when the Commons similarly voted to reject subsequent Lords amendments on related provisions.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach to business rates and private school taxation by rejecting the Lords' amendment
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' amendment and oppose the government's original position on this aspect of business rates or private school taxation
§ 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
63
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
3
8
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
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

§ 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