Division · No. 146Tuesday, 25 March 2025Commons Taxation

Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

316
Ayes
180
Noes
Passed · Government won
149 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 25 March 2025 to override Lords Amendment 3 to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which concerned the removal of business rates relief from private schools. The motion to disagree with the Lords amendment passed by 316 votes to 180. The result means the Commons rejected a change the House of Lords had inserted into the bill, reasserting the government's original policy position. The practical effect of this vote is to keep intact the government's plan to strip charitable business rates relief from private schools. Currently, many independent schools benefit from mandatory 80 per cent relief on business rates because they hold charitable status. The government's bill would end this exemption, with ministers arguing the revenue generated would help fund improvements to state education, including hiring additional teachers. Blocking the Lords amendment means private schools would face higher property tax bills under the legislation as it progresses toward the statute book. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour of overriding the Lords, providing 315 of the 316 Ayes. All 101 Conservative MPs who voted, all 64 Liberal Democrats, all five Democratic Unionist Party members, all four Reform UK members present, and all four Green Party members voted No, opposing the government. The Liberal Democrats, notably, sided with Conservatives in defending the Lords amendment rather than supporting the government's redistribution argument, reflecting their longstanding concern about the impact on smaller independent schools. This division sits within a broader ping-pong process between the two chambers, with subsequent votes on 31 March 2025 showing the Commons continuing to reject a series of Lords amendments to the same bill.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's plan to remove business rates relief from private schools, rejecting the Lords' modification to that policy
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' amendment, seeking to protect or modify the way business rates changes apply to private schools
§ 01Who voted how.496 voting members · 149 absent
Aye317No182DID NOT VOTE · 149

496 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 149 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
285
0
77
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
101
15
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
64
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
1
2
10
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Jim McMahonSupportiveOldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Government opposes all Lords amendments; higher multiplier on £500k+ properties is fairest, sustainable way to fund permanent retail/hospitality/leisure relief; removing charitable relief from private schools is necessary to fund state education.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,467 words)
Kevin HollinrakeOpposedThirsk and Malton
Lords amendments should be retained; Bill breaks Labour's manifesto promise to replace business rates; higher multiplier will hit anchor stores, hospitals, GPs, and manufacturers unfairly; cliff edge at £500k threshold stifles investment; private school relief removal is ideologically driven.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,479 words)
Munira WilsonOpposedTwickenham
Support some Lords amendments (healthcare, manufacturing, threshold review) for fundamental business rates reform; oppose taxation of education on principle; concerned about unintended consequences for NHS hospitals and manufacturing; question whether raised revenue will actually reach state schools.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,981 words)
Mark SewardsSupportiveLeeds South West and Morley
Bill rightly supports small high street businesses; amendments would reduce revenue and dilute support; anchor store exemptions impractical to define; removing private school relief justified as funding 94% of children in state education.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,320 words)
Suella BravermanOpposedFareham and Waterlooville
Pubs and community businesses face cumulative burden from multiple tax rises; private school measures will push children into already-full state schools, harming education for all; Government policies show anti-business stance.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (349 words)
Chris VinceQuestioningHarlow
Question whether supporting manufacturing through business rates exemptions is the right approach; other mechanisms may be more appropriate.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (76 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