Budget Resolution No. 8: Capital gains tax (investors' relief)
400Ayes
122Noes
Carried · majority 278 · Government won129 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 400 · No 122 · DNV 129 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament approved Budget Resolution No. 8 on 6 November 2024, endorsing the government's proposed changes to Capital Gains Tax investors' relief, a reduced CGT rate available to long-term investors in unlisted trading companies. The resolution passed by 400 votes to 122. Investors' relief allows qualifying investors to pay CGT at a lower rate on gains from shares in unlisted trading companies held for a minimum period. The Budget resolution sets out new terms for that relief, and parliamentary approval is required before legislation can follow. Passing this resolution means the government can proceed with those changes as part of its autumn 2024 Budget package. Those who invest in smaller, privately held businesses are most directly affected. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour, joined by the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most independents, giving the government a comfortable majority. All 107 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the resolution, as did all five Reform UK members and the three Democratic Unionist Party MPs present. The vote fits into a broader pattern from the autumn 2024 Budget period, in which the government faced consistent opposition from Conservative and right-leaning parties on tax measures while carrying its own large majority with ease.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's proposed changes to Capital Gains Tax investors' relief, as set out in the Budget
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's changes to CGT investors' relief, likely arguing they are harmful to investment or entrepreneurship
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
335
0
26
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
107
9
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
5
2
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