Finance Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading
112Ayes
333Noes
Defeated · majority 221 · Government won202 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 112 · No 333 · DNV 202 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 27 November 2024, MPs voted on a Conservative reasoned amendment to block the Finance Bill's Second Reading. A reasoned amendment is a formal device that, if passed, would have prevented the bill from proceeding by registering Parliament's objection to it. The amendment was defeated by 333 votes to 112. The Finance Bill gives effect to Labour's October 2024 Autumn Budget. Its key measures include raising Capital Gains Tax rates for individuals to 18% and 24% from 30 October 2024, abolishing the remittance basis for non-domiciled individuals and replacing it with a residence-based regime, removing the VAT exemption for private school fees, and increasing the rate and duration of the energy profits levy on oil and gas companies. Defeating the reasoned amendment means the bill continued its passage through Parliament and has since become the Finance Act 2025. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 296 Labour MPs and 30 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, as did all four Green MPs and two others. All 96 Conservative MPs who voted backed the amendment, joined by all seven Reform UK MPs, two Democratic Unionist Party members, one Ulster Unionist, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and five independents. Two independents voted against the amendment. Twenty Conservatives had no vote recorded.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Finance Bill, arguing Labour's tax rises — including higher CGT, the energy profits levy increase, and VAT on private schools — damage growth, investment, and jobs
Voting No meant
Support the Finance Bill proceeding, backing Labour's Budget measures to repair public finances, close the tax gap, and fund public services through targeted tax changes
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 No
0
296
65
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
—
5
2
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
7
0
0
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government backs all six Lords amendments as necessary clarifications that strengthen the Bill without weakening its core purpose of disrupting hostile state threats; defences prevent chilling effects while the primary purpose rule already excludes genuine humanitarian activity.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,913 words) →
Welcomes the intention to protect humanitarian actors but remains concerned that the wording is too broad and risks creating loopholes hostile states could exploit; notes the independent reviewer recommended narrower language.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (837 words) →
Welcomes the amendments as a step forward but argues a true exemption would better protect humanitarian organisations; calls for clear prosecutorial guidance and meaningful NGO consultation during implementation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,007 words) →
Argues journalists could still face 10–14 years imprisonment and calls for pausing the Bill to redraft it more carefully.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (75 words) →
Strongly supports the Bill and the Lords amendments; emphasises the urgent need to designate the IRGC and highlights the 48% surge in MI5 state threat investigations.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,023 words) →
Accepts the amendments make sense as a precaution against chilling effects, but questions whether the wording is tight enough to prevent hostile actors exploiting the loopholes; calls for urgent IRGC designation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (656 words) →
Welcomes amendments and asks what practical support the government will provide to journalists facing threats in conflict zones.Independent · Voted no · Read full speech (107 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0