A divisionDivision No. 50 · Wednesday, 27 November 2024· Commons· Taxation

Finance Bill: Second Reading

332Ayes
176Noes
Carried · majority 156 · Government won
140 did not vote
Aye332No177DID NOT VOTE · 140

648 Members · Aye 332 · No 176 · DNV 140 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons passed the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 27 November 2024 by 332 votes to 176. Second Reading is the stage at which MPs vote on the general principles of a bill rather than its detailed provisions. The bill gives effect to the October 2024 Budget delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, covering a wide range of tax changes including higher Capital Gains Tax rates, abolition of the non-domicile tax regime, the removal of VAT exemption for private school fees, an increased energy profits levy, and a new duty on vaping products. The vote matters because it cleared the bill's first major parliamentary hurdle, allowing it to proceed to detailed scrutiny. The measures it contains have direct financial consequences for a wide range of people and sectors: investors and business owners face higher CGT rates from 30 October 2024 onwards; long-term UK residents who previously used the remittance basis will move to a new residence-based regime from April 2025; independent schools will charge VAT on fees; and oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea face a higher levy rate. Together, these changes form the fiscal core of the government's plan to raise revenue and reduce borrowing. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 325 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the bill; all 96 voting Conservatives, 57 Liberal Democrats, 9 SNP members, 7 Reform UK members, 2 DUP members, and 1 Traditional Unionist Voice member opposed it. The four Green MPs voted with the government, and two independents also voted aye. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The opposition's case centred on growth concerns and the effect of the energy levy on North Sea investment, while the government framed the bill as necessary repair of inherited public finances.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Labour Budget's tax and fiscal measures, including higher CGT rates, abolishing non-dom status, VAT on private schools, and increased energy levies to repair public finances and fund public services.
Voting No meant
Oppose the Budget's tax rises, arguing they harm growth, damage investment in sectors like North Sea energy, and represent poor fiscal management following an inherited period of economic recovery.
§ 01Who voted how.508 voting Members · 140 absent

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
295
0
66
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
96
20
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
2
3
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
0
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
2
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
1
0
1
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

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Nick TimothyOpposedWest Suffolk
Sexual offenders and rape gang members must be excluded from early release; the Government has caved to Opposition pressure but refuses to specify how it will prevent their release starting in September.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,580 words)
Jake RichardsSupportiveRother Valley
Early release of some offenders is necessary to prevent prison system collapse; exclusions of serious offenders risk creating the very crisis that forced emergency measures; robust licence conditions and probation investment manage risk.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,960 words)
Sir John HayesOpposedSouth Holland and The Deepings
Public expects the state to exact retribution on serious offenders; diminishing sentences erodes faith in the criminal justice system; offers common ground with Government to find a solution.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (420 words)
Sir Julian LewisOpposedNew Forest East
Serious sexual and violent offenders are a minority of the prison population; other categories could be released instead; recall mechanisms are ineffective if breach means a new victim.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (231 words)
Jess Brown-FullerQuestioningChichester
Victims receive impersonal, blanket letters lacking specificity about their perpetrator; victims have been failed at every step and deserve clearer, personalised communication about release decisions.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (375 words)
Esther McVeyOpposedTatton
Ministers previously promised those convicted of heinous crimes would not be released; letters informing victims their perpetrators may walk free contradict that promise and betray victims.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (140 words)
Paula BarkerQuestioningLiverpool Wavertree
Questions whether releasing dangerous sexual predators aligns with the manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (61 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0