A divisionDivision No. 157 · Monday, 31 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B

296Ayes
170Noes
Carried · majority 126 · Government won
180 did not vote
Aye298No171DID NOT VOTE · 180

646 Members · Aye 296 · No 170 · DNV 180 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 31 March 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, specifically Amendment 1B, which would have modified how business rates apply to private schools. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 296 votes to 170, meaning the government's original approach to taxing private schools through business rates was maintained and the Lords' modification was overturned. The vote is part of the government's broader effort to remove the business rates charitable relief that private schools have historically enjoyed, ensuring that independent schools pay the same non-domestic rates as other commercial properties. In practical terms, this means private schools will face higher property tax bills, with the government intending the additional revenue to fund state education priorities. The policy affects approximately 2,500 independent schools in England, and supporters argue it levels the playing field between the state and private sectors, while opponents contend it risks increasing fee pressure on families and could destabilise smaller independent schools. The division followed strict party lines. All 295 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while Conservatives (95), Liberal Democrats (61), the Democratic Unionist Party (4), Reform UK (4), the Green Party (3), the Ulster Unionist Party (1) and Traditional Unionist Voice (1) all voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The vote is part of a sequence of ping-pong divisions on the same bill, with the Lords having inserted several amendments that the Commons repeatedly rejected on the same day, reflecting sustained disagreement between the two chambers over this aspect of the legislation.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendments, backing the government's plan to reform business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure without the Lords' proposed modifications (including cliff-edge protections and private school carve-outs)
Voting No meant
Support keeping the Lords amendments, particularly protections against sudden large business rate increases for firms whose property value crosses the £500,000 threshold, and other Lords changes to the Bill
§ 01Who voted how.466 voting Members · 180 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
259
0
102
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
95
21
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
3
1
9
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
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
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0
Your Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.5 principal speakers
Jim McMahonSupportiveOldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Government must reject Lords amendments as they duplicate existing powers and undermine the funding mechanism for permanent RHL relief; the higher multiplier on 1% of properties is necessary and sustainable.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,990 words)
Kevin HollinrakeOpposedThirsk and Malton
Lords amendments should be accepted; the £500,000 threshold is a blunt instrument that punishes aspiration, harms healthcare, retailers and high streets, and creates unfair cliff-edge effects for growing businesses.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (927 words)
Vikki SladeNeutralMid Dorset and North Poole
Support business rates reform but concerned about hospitals and businesses near the threshold being caught; private schools should not be taxed on education.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (575 words)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
Opposes removal of charitable relief from private and faith schools as it unfairly disadvantages parents seeking faith-based education and disproportionately affects faith communities.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (1,130 words)
Robin SwannQuestioningSouth Antrim
Questions the disjointed approach of funding NHS while simultaneously taxing health services through business rates.Unknown · Voted no · Read full speech (62 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