Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13B
301Ayes
167Noes
Carried · majority 134 · Government won178 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 301 · No 167 · DNV 178 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 31 March 2025, MPs voted by 301 to 167 to reject Lords amendment 13B to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The amendment would have required the Secretary of State to review and consult on the real-world impact of the new £500,000 rateable value threshold, above which businesses face a higher business rates multiplier. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed comfortably. The practical effect of rejecting the amendment is that no statutory review of the threshold's impact will be required. The Bill creates a situation where a business with premises just below £500,000 in rateable value pays a standard multiplier, while one tipping just above it faces a significantly higher rate. Critics argued this could mean a business rates bill jumping from roughly £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of modest investment or expansion. By blocking the Lords amendment, the government resisted a mechanism that would have compelled it to gather evidence and consult sector experts before any further decisions on the multiplier structure. Labour MPs voted unanimously to reject the Lords amendment, with 261 Labour and 36 Labour and Co-operative members voting aye and none voting no. Every voting Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, DUP, Traditional Unionist Voice, and Ulster Unionist MP voted no. Three Independents and all three voting Green MPs sided with the government. No notable cross-party rebels were recorded. The vote followed the same basic partisan pattern as other divisions on the Bill the same day, in which the government successfully resisted a series of Lords amendments on related concerns.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords' call for a mandatory review of the cliff-edge effect at the £500,000 business rates threshold, backing the government's approach to implementing higher multipliers without additional statutory scrutiny
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring the Secretary of State to review and consult on the impact of the £500,000 threshold, arguing it creates a punishing tax trap for businesses that invest and tip just over the limit
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
261
0
100
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
92
24
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
—
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your 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
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Questions the disjointed approach of funding NHS while simultaneously taxing health services through business rates.Unknown · Voted no · Read full speech (62 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0