Division · No. 83Wednesday, 15 January 2025Commons Taxation

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 1

175
Ayes
342
Noes
Defeated · Government won
130 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 January 2025 on a new clause (New Clause 1) tabled at Report Stage of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. The clause, put forward by opposition MPs, would have required the government to complete a full impact assessment on state school capacity before implementing the bill's provisions removing business rates relief from private schools. The amendment was defeated by 342 votes to 175. The vote concerns a central element of the Labour government's education and tax policy: ending the business rates exemption that independent schools have historically enjoyed, alongside the separately legislated removal of their VAT exemption. In practical terms, the defeated clause would have put the private school tax changes on hold until ministers could demonstrate that state schools had sufficient capacity to absorb any pupils who left the independent sector as a result. By voting it down, the government cleared the way for the business rates changes to proceed without a formal prior assessment of that kind, meaning independent schools face higher costs and the policy's effects on pupil movement between sectors will play out without a pre-implementation review. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against the delay, providing the government's majority. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted together in favour of the amendment, joined by Reform UK, the Greens, and the DUP. Two independent MPs voted with the government, while five voted for the delay. The Bill continued to face opposition in the Lords, with subsequent divisions in March 2025 showing the government repeatedly disagreeing with Lords amendments attempting to modify the private schools provisions, underscoring the persistent cross-chamber contest over this legislation.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a formal government review of how the new business rate multipliers affect small businesses and larger properties, reflecting concern that the changes could harm employers and local businesses
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a statutory review, backing the government's approach to business rates reform without additional review requirements
§ 01Who voted how.517 voting members · 130 absent
Aye177No342DID NOT VOTE · 130

517 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 130 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
303
59
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
98
0
18
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
5
2
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
1
0
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Vikki SladeNeutralMid Dorset and North Poole
Supports permanent business rates reduction for retail/hospitality/leisure but demands impact assessments and broader reform including manufacturing; opposes VAT on private schools.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,142 words)
Daisy CooperOpposedSt Albans
Warns of unintended consequences: small businesses could be 80% worse off while big chains like Starbucks gain 40% under the scheme; calls for differential impact assessment.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (649 words)
Adam ThompsonSupportiveErewash
Supports Bill as common-sense rebalancing favouring local independents over online giants; cites expert evidence that Bill benefits 98% of retail stores and has marginal impact on private schools.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (798 words)
Sarah BoolOpposedSouth Northamptonshire
Opposes removal of private school charitable relief and business rate rises; cites closure of Carrdus school (120 pupils); seeks amendment to delay implementation and protect SEND schools.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (993 words)
Damian HindsOpposedEast Hampshire
Criticises Bill as smoke-and-mirrors: cuts to relief offset by higher multipliers; raises will hit major employers (supermarkets, hotels, NHS); revaluation will compound increases; seeks review via New Clause 2.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,052 words)
Mark SewardsSupportiveLeeds South West and Morley
Defends Bill as essential to support high streets and fund state education; rejects amendments as diluting support; private schools are businesses and should pay rates like any other.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,083 words)
David SimmondsOpposedRuislip, Northwood and Pinner
Argues Bill harms SMEs, data centres, breweries, zoos, and stadiums; contradicts Labour's pre-election promise to abolish business rates; removal of private school relief harms state schools via lost facility-sharing.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,532 words)
Chris VinceSupportiveHarlow
Backs Bill as fair and necessary; private schools are businesses and should contribute; focuses on high street support and equity in education funding for state sector.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,028 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