Division · No. 86Wednesday, 15 January 2025Commons Local Government

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill Report Stage: Third Reading

341
Ayes
171
Noes
Passed · Government lost
133 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 15 January 2025 to pass the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill at its Third Reading, the final stage before a bill moves to the House of Lords. The vote passed by 341 ayes to 171 noes. The bill does two things: it removes the charitable business rates relief that private schools in England have historically enjoyed, and it gives effect to the government's policy of applying VAT to private school fees. Together these measures form a significant change to how independent schools are taxed. The practical effect is that private schools will face higher operating costs from two directions simultaneously. Removing business rates relief means schools will pay the same local property taxes as ordinary commercial businesses. Adding VAT at the standard 20 per cent rate to fees means families will either pay more or schools will absorb some of the cost by reducing fees, staffing or other spending. The government argues that revenue generated will fund additional teachers and resources in the state sector. Critics argue the policy will push some families out of private education and into state schools, increasing pressure on state provision rather than relieving it. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 301 voting Labour MPs and all 35 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, joined by all three voting Green MPs, the SDLP member, and two independents. All 98 voting Conservative MPs, all 63 voting Liberal Democrats, all five voting Reform UK members, and one DUP member voted against. The Liberal Democrat opposition is notable given the party's general positioning to the left of the Conservatives on many issues; the party has argued the policy is poorly designed rather than wrong in principle. There were no recorded Labour rebels.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a formal government review of how the new business rates multipliers affect small businesses, high streets and economic growth, ensuring accountability for the policy's impact
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a statutory review, likely believing existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient or that the review requirement is unnecessary bureaucracy
§ 01Who voted how.512 voting members · 133 absent
Aye343No173DID NOT VOTE · 133

512 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 133 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
301
0
61
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
98
18
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
63
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
2
6
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
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
1
0
§ 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 aye · Read full speech (1,028 words)
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0