Finance Bill Committee New Clause 3
184Ayes
359Noes
Defeated · majority 175 · Government won104 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 184 · No 359 · DNV 104 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 10 December 2024, MPs voted on New Clause 3 to the Finance Bill during its Committee stage. The clause, tabled by the opposition, would have required the government to produce a formal review assessing the impact of the Bill's tax changes on economic growth and public services. The amendment was defeated by 359 votes to 184, with the government's majority holding firm. The Finance Bill gives legal effect to the tax measures announced in the October 2024 Budget. New Clause 3 would have imposed a statutory obligation on the Treasury to analyse and publish findings on how those tax changes affect economic growth and the quality of public services. Its defeat means no such mandated review will take place, leaving scrutiny of the Budget's economic impact to existing parliamentary and independent mechanisms rather than a government-commissioned report with a legal deadline. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government in rejecting the clause. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, SNP, DUP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK all voted in favour of the review requirement, forming a broad but ultimately insufficient opposition bloc. No Labour MPs broke ranks to support the amendment. This vote was the first of several similar divisions during the Finance Bill's passage; related votes at Report Stage in March 2025 followed a comparable pattern, with the government defeating opposition amendments before the Bill passed its Third Reading by 339 to 172.
Voting Aye meant
Support the amendment proposed to the Finance Bill, likely seeking a change to the government's tax or fiscal plans
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment and back the government's Finance Bill as presented, rejecting the proposed change to tax or fiscal arrangements
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
315
46
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
66
0
6
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
34
8
Independent
—
2
6
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
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
3
0
1
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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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