Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E
302Ayes
167Noes
Carried · majority 135 · Government won176 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 302 · No 167 · DNV 176 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 31 March 2025 to reject a set of Lords amendments to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill that would have carved out exemptions from a new higher business rates multiplier. The Lords had proposed protecting healthcare premises, high-street anchor stores, and businesses with rateable values close to the £500,000 threshold from the higher rate. The Commons voted against those protections by 302 to 167, passing the government's motion to disagree. The vote matters because it settles the shape of a significant change to business rates in England. From April 2026, properties with rateable values of £500,000 or above will face a higher multiplier, intended to fund permanent lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses below that threshold. By rejecting the Lords amendments, the Commons confirmed that healthcare settings such as medical and dental practices, large anchor stores on high streets, and businesses just above the £500,000 line will all fall under the higher multiplier with no special treatment. Labour voted unanimously in favour of the government's position, joined by a small number of independents and Green MPs. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the smaller Northern Irish parties all voted against. There were no notable rebels on either side. The Bill had already passed through multiple rounds of Lords-Commons disagreement, with the Lords inserting these protections and the Commons repeatedly removing them. This vote resolved that dispute in the government's favour.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position: reject Lords changes and apply the higher business rates multiplier as planned, without carve-outs for healthcare settings, anchor stores, or businesses just above the £500,000 threshold
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendments: protect healthcare premises, high-street anchor stores, and businesses near the £500,000 cliff edge from the higher multiplier, arguing the government's approach is blunt and damaging
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
264
0
97
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
92
24
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
35
0
7
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