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
Parliament voted on 10 December 2024 to reject New Clause 5 of the Finance Bill, which would have required the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment comparing the actual number of Business Asset Disposal Relief claims following the rate increase against the number expected had the rate remained unchanged. The motion was defeated by 340 votes to 105. The vote concerned Business Asset Disposal Relief, a capital gains tax relief available to entrepreneurs selling their businesses. The Finance Bill raises the relief's rate from 10 percent to 14 percent in April 2025 and then to 18 percent by April 2026. The new clause would have imposed a specific duty to publish a counterfactual impact assessment, allowing Parliament and the public to judge whether the rate increase had reduced the number of entrepreneurs claiming the relief when selling their businesses. The division was almost entirely along party lines. All 299 Labour MPs and all 33 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the new clause, as did all four Green MPs. The Conservatives provided 91 of the 105 ayes, joined by the Democratic Unionist Party (5), Plaid Cymru (4), Reform UK (3), and smaller unionist parties. Two independents also voted aye, while five voted no. The Liberal Democrats had no vote recorded.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to publish a specific impact assessment comparing actual Business Asset Disposal Relief claims against what would have been expected without the rate increase, arguing greater scrutiny of the capital gains tax changes is needed.
Voting No meant
Oppose the additional review requirement, arguing existing annual capital gains tax statistics and published tax impact notes already make the relevant data publicly available, and that mandating counterfactual comparisons would set an impractical precedent.
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
71
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
Your 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
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