Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1B
296
Ayes
—
170
Noes
Passed · Government won
180 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 31 March 2025 to reject a Lords amendment to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, specifically Amendment 1B, which would have modified how business rates apply to private schools. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 296 votes to 170, meaning the government's original approach to taxing private schools through business rates was maintained and the Lords' modification was overturned. The vote is part of the government's broader effort to remove the business rates charitable relief that private schools have historically enjoyed, ensuring that independent schools pay the same non-domestic rates as other commercial properties. In practical terms, this means private schools will face higher property tax bills, with the government intending the additional revenue to fund state education priorities. The policy affects approximately 2,500 independent schools in England, and supporters argue it levels the playing field between the state and private sectors, while opponents contend it risks increasing fee pressure on families and could destabilise smaller independent schools. The division followed strict party lines. All 295 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while Conservatives (95), Liberal Democrats (61), the Democratic Unionist Party (4), Reform UK (4), the Green Party (3), the Ulster Unionist Party (1) and Traditional Unionist Voice (1) all voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The vote is part of a sequence of ping-pong divisions on the same bill, with the Lords having inserted several amendments that the Commons repeatedly rejected on the same day, reflecting sustained disagreement between the two chambers over this aspect of the legislation.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendments, backing the government's plan to reform business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure without the Lords' proposed modifications (including cliff-edge protections and private school carve-outs)
Voting No meant
Support keeping the Lords amendments, particularly protections against sudden large business rate increases for firms whose property value crosses the £500,000 threshold, and other Lords changes to the Bill
466 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 180 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
259
0
103
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
95
21
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
61
11
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
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
0
0
1
Government must reject Lords amendments as they duplicate existing powers and undermine the funding mechanism for permanent RHL relief; the higher multiplier on 1% of properties is necessary and sustainable.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,990 words) →
Lords amendments should be accepted; the £500,000 threshold is a blunt instrument that punishes aspiration, harms healthcare, retailers and high streets, and creates unfair cliff-edge effects for growing businesses.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (927 words) →
Support business rates reform but concerned about hospitals and businesses near the threshold being caught; private schools should not be taxed on education.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (575 words) →
Opposes removal of charitable relief from private and faith schools as it unfairly disadvantages parents seeking faith-based education and disproportionately affects faith communities.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (1,130 words) →
Questions the disjointed approach of funding NHS while simultaneously taxing health services through business rates.Unknown · Voted no · Read full speech (62 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0