Budget Resolution No. 7: Capital gains tax (business asset disposal relief)
400Ayes
120Noes
Carried · majority 280 · Government won127 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 400 · No 120 · DNV 127 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 6 November 2024 to approve Budget Resolution No. 7, which covers changes to Capital Gains Tax and Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR). The resolution passed by 400 votes to 120. BADR is a relief that reduces the rate of Capital Gains Tax paid by qualifying business owners when they sell their businesses. The resolution advances the tax changes announced in the October 2024 Budget. By backing it, the government secured parliamentary approval for its proposed adjustments to BADR, including changes to the rates at which the relief applies. Business owners who sell qualifying assets will face a higher tax burden as a result. The changes form part of the government's broader effort to raise revenue through the tax system. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 337 Labour MPs and 37 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted in favour, alongside the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens. All 108 voting Conservative MPs opposed the resolution, joined by four Reform UK MPs and three Democratic Unionist Party MPs. No party produced notable rebels. The vote reflects the wider parliamentary battle over the October 2024 Budget, in which the government has consistently defeated opposition attempts to block or amend its fiscal plans, as seen in subsequent divisions on National Insurance and business rates in December 2024 and January 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's proposed changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief as set out in the Budget, including any adjustments to the relief's rates or qualifying conditions.
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief, likely arguing they harm entrepreneurs and business owners by increasing their tax burden on business sales.
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
337
0
24
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
108
8
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
7
3
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
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
The Bill is too soft and contains dangerous gaps compared to terrorism law; 13 amendments would close loopholes on preparatory offences, self-directed actors, propaganda, symbols, asset concealment, and cross-border planning.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (7,570 words) →
The Bill's narrower approach is necessary because state entities cannot be abolished like terrorist organisations, international law and diplomatic relations require different treatment, and the prohibited purpose test protects legitimate activity.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,509 words) →
The prohibited purpose test duplicates the designation process and creates an additional evidentiary hurdle that will make convictions harder to secure, contradicting the Bill's stated intent.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (503 words) →
Supports the Bill but also supports new clause 3 (IRGC designation within a month), amendment 2 (affirmative procedure for removal), amendment 8 (overseas planning), and amendment 13 (lone-wolf actors).Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,452 words) →
Supports the Bill's aims but warns that haste and lack of consultation risk unintended consequences; argues the designation power could be weaponised against legitimate solidarity campaigns; proposes super-affirmative procedure instead of affirmative.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,517 words) →
Amendment 1 should target financial enablers who conceal beneficial ownership of assets for designated groups; cites the case of Iranian-Cypriot banker Ali Ansari as evidence of real-world evasion.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,218 words) →
The prohibited purpose requirement raises the prosecution bar unnecessarily; connection to a designated body should itself be sufficient evidence, without having to prove prejudicial intent.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (319 words) →
Seeks clarification on whether the prohibited purpose test is designed to protect NGOs and organisations like the ICRC that must engage with state actors.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (121 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0