Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 14
320Ayes
179Noes
Carried · majority 141 · Government won151 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 320 · No 179 · DNV 151 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The Commons voted on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 14 to the Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 320 votes to 179. The bill concerns business rates, including provisions to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. By voting to disagree with the Lords' amendment, the Commons overturned a change the upper chamber had inserted into the bill. The practical effect is that Lords Amendment 14 will not form part of the legislation. The bill itself is designed to reform how business rates multipliers are set and to end the business rates relief that independent fee-charging schools have historically claimed as charities. Removing a Lords amendment on a division of this size means the government's preferred version of the relevant provision survives. The available data does not include the detailed text of Lords Amendment 14, so the precise change the Lords made cannot be confirmed from the record. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs voted 284 to zero in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, joined by Labour and Co-operative MPs voting 29 to zero, and Green MPs voting four to zero. The Conservatives voted 101 to zero against rejecting it, the Liberal Democrats 60 to zero against, and Reform UK five to zero against. The Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Unionist Party also voted against the government's position. There were no notable rebels on either side.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to remove Lords Amendment 14 from the Bill, backing the original legislation as the Commons passed it
Voting No meant
Support retaining Lords Amendment 14, backing the change the unelected chamber made to the Bill
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
284
0
77
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
101
15
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
59
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
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 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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0