Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 14
320
Ayes
—
179
Noes
Passed · Government won
151 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 25 March 2025, the House of Commons voted 320 to 179 to disagree with Lords Amendment 14 to the Non Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. This meant MPs rejected a change that the House of Lords had inserted into the bill, effectively restoring the government's original version of the legislation. The bill reforms how business rates (the tax businesses pay on non-residential property) are calculated and removes the charitable business rates relief that private schools had previously enjoyed. **Why it matters:** The vote keeps the government's two core policies intact. First, it allows the Treasury to set different business rates multipliers (the figures used to calculate how much each business pays) for different categories of property, which the government intends to use to lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties while raising them for larger commercial premises. Second, it removes the charitable status exemption that had allowed private schools to pay reduced business rates, raising additional revenue that the government says will fund state education. The practical effect is that private schools face higher property tax bills, while many high street businesses may benefit from a reduced rate if the multiplier reform proceeds as planned. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 285 Labour MPs and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted with the government, joined by all four Green MPs and one independent. All 101 Conservative MPs, all 60 Liberal Democrats, all five Reform UK MPs, and all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The Lords amendment the Commons rejected had been an attempt by the upper chamber to constrain the government's approach, continuing a pattern of back-and-forth between the two chambers known as parliamentary ping-pong. The removal of private school business rates relief sits within the broader Labour policy of ending VAT exemptions for private schools, a commitment the party made in its 2024 general election manifesto.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords' amendment and backing the government's original approach to business rates reform and the removal of private schools' business rates relief
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment and oppose the government's version of the Bill, likely seeking to protect private schools' charitable business rates relief or modify the multiplier reforms
499 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 151 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
60
12
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
1
4
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
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
—
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