Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 5

Tuesday, 10 December 2024 · Division No. 59 · Commons

105Ayes
340Noes
Defeated

202 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment defeatedPro Entrepreneurship Incentives(Yes)Anti Capital Gains Tax Rise(Yes)Pro Fiscal Transparency(Yes)Pro Government Tax Policy(No)

Voting Yes means

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 means

Oppose the additional reporting requirement, arguing existing annual capital gains tax statistics already provide sufficient transparency on Business Asset Disposal Relief claims

What happened: 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.

Why it matters: 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 politics: 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.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/299 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
91 Aye/0 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/33 No
Independent
2 Aye/5 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5 Aye/0 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3 Aye/0 No
Traditional Unionist Voice
1 Aye/0 No
Ulster Unionist Party
1 Aye/0 No

What They Said in the Debate

Gareth Davies

Conservative · Grantham and Bourne

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Harriet Cross

Conservative · Gordon and Buchan

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Dave Doogan

SNP · Angus and Perthshire Glens

Opposed

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.

Daisy Cooper

Liberal Democrat · St Albans

Neutral

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.

Bobby Dean

Labour · Carshalton and Wallington

Neutral

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.

Tulip Siddiq

Labour · Hampstead and Highgate

Supportive

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.

Voted No

Yuan Yang

Labour · Earley and Woodley

Supportive

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.

Voted No

James Murray

Labour · Ealing North

Supportive

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.

Voted No

Related Votes

Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 5 — Tuesday, 10 December 2024 | Beyond The Vote