Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 5
105Ayes
340Noes
Defeated · majority 235 · Government won202 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 105 · No 340 · DNV 202 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 10 December 2024, the House of Commons, sitting as a Committee of the whole House, voted on New Clause 5 to the Finance Bill. The clause, tabled by the Conservative opposition, would have required the government to publish an impact assessment of changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR), comparing the effect of the new rates against the number of claims that would have been expected under the old regime. The amendment was defeated by 340 votes to 105. Business Asset Disposal Relief is a capital gains tax relief that allows qualifying business owners to pay a reduced rate of tax when they sell or dispose of business assets. The government's Budget raised the BADR rate from 10% to 14%, rising further to 18% in subsequent years. New Clause 5 would not have reversed those changes but would have compelled ministers to publish data allowing Parliament and the public to assess how the reforms affected the number of entrepreneurs making use of the relief. The government argued that existing annual capital gains tax statistics published by HMRC would make this information available in due course, rendering a separate mandated report unnecessary. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 299 Labour MPs and 33 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the clause, while 91 Conservatives, 5 Democratic Unionist Party members, 4 Plaid Cymru members, 3 Reform UK members, and 1 each from the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice supported it. The Liberal Democrats, with 4 MPs voting, sided with the government against the clause, though their spokesperson had expressed reservations about the broader capital gains tax approach. The vote is part of a wider pattern of opposition attempts to force reporting requirements onto the government's tax measures, with related divisions at Report Stage in March 2025 showing similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to publish a specific impact assessment on changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief, to scrutinise whether the capital gains tax changes harm entrepreneurship and investment
Voting No meant
Oppose the additional reporting requirement, arguing existing annual capital gains tax statistics already provide sufficient transparency on Business Asset Disposal Relief claims
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
299
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
91
0
25
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
33
9
Independent
—
2
5
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
CGT rate increases (10%→18%, 20%→24%) and carried interest reform are necessary to repair £22bn fiscal gap while remaining internationally competitive; phased BADR increases protect entrepreneurs.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,153 words) →
CGT changes contradict Labour's pro-growth rhetoric, create perverse incentives to sell businesses before April 2025, risk retrospective anti-forestalling rules, and carried interest measure costs £4.5m to raise zero revenue.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,527 words) →
CGT increase is suboptimal; should instead introduce indexation allowance, three-rate structure, and higher allowance to raise £5.2bn (vs £2.5bn) while being fairer to ordinary savers and long-term investors.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,332 words) →
CGT increases address tax avoidance gap between CGT and income tax rates; entrepreneurial investment depends on infrastructure/skills not exit taxation; Budget supports that vision.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,352 words) →
While supporting progressive taxation, CGT reform incomplete: should index gains for inflation, target smaller gains, reform reliefs, and close Monaco loophole to truly be fair; cannot support unamended clause.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (894 words) →
Energy profits levy increase (35%→38%) and abolition of 29% investment allowance necessary to fund energy transition while maintaining decarbonisation allowance; ESIM price floor provides certainty; consultation on post-2030 regime planned.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,593 words) →
Energy levy increases risk 26% lower capex, 6.3% lower oil and 9.2% lower gas production per OBR; removal of investment allowance jeopardises 200,000 jobs; new clause 3 review essential given Aberdeen warnings.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,463 words) →
CGT reform is incomplete technocratic fix; should have fundamentally redesigned CGT following IFS guidance on indexation, asset-specific rates, and wealth tax; clauses do nothing for Scotland's economy.SNP · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,243 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0