Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 6
105Ayes
314Noes
Defeated · majority 209 · Government won228 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 105 · No 314 · DNV 228 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on New Clause 6 to the Finance Bill on 11 December 2024, during the Committee stage of the legislation. The clause, tabled by the opposition, sought to modify the government's proposals on private school taxation. The amendment was defeated by 314 votes to 105. The underlying policy in this part of the Finance Bill removes the VAT exemption that private schools have historically enjoyed on their education, vocational training and boarding fees. The government argues this will raise approximately 460 million pounds in additional revenue in 2024-25, funding increases to the state school budget including recruitment of additional teachers. Critics argue the change will push pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, out of independent schools and into a state sector that lacks capacity to absorb them. Concerns were also raised in debate about the impact on small rural schools, faith schools, and the children of armed forces personnel covered by the continuity of education allowance. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 309 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, while 96 Conservatives voted for the amendment alongside four Reform UK MPs, four independents, and one each from the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. The Greens voted with the government. The opposition framed the amendment as protection for vulnerable pupils and communities; the government framed resistance to it as defending investment in state education. This division sits within a broader sequence of Finance Bill votes running through to March 2025, when the Bill passed its Third Reading by 339 votes to 172.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring an official impact assessment of how stamp duty changes affect private rents and housing supply, holding the government to account for potential unintended consequences in the rental sector
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a separate impact assessment, arguing the government has already considered these effects and that additional reporting requirements are unnecessary
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
277
84
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
32
10
Independent
—
3
3
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
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
Defends VAT removal as necessary to raise £1.5bn for state education investment; argues schools can minimise fee increases and that government has compensated SEND pupils with EHCPs and military families via continuity of education allowance.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,534 words) →
Opposes VAT on private school fees as a cruel, ideological tax imposed mid-year that will damage education of 37,000 pupils and particularly harm SEND pupils without EHCPs, small rural schools, and faith schools; calls for new clause 8 to review impact.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,696 words) →
Opposes the tax on principle; supports new clause 9 requiring impact assessment on SEND pupils without EHCPs, warning 100,000 such pupils will face fee rises and families may seek EHCPs to avoid VAT, straining the already-failed SEND system.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,053 words) →
Supports removal of VAT exemption as fair redistribution from wealthiest to fund state education crisis; notes private school spending per pupil is 90% higher than state sector and fees have risen 55% since 2003.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (905 words) →
Opposes as bad policy that taxes education contrary to global norm; argues Government's 37,000 pupil displacement estimate is mathematically flawed, ignores capital costs, and will disproportionately displace SEND and faith school pupils.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,799 words) →
Supports as part of philosophy that those with broadest shoulders carry heaviest load; argues 6% at private schools vs 50% using state education justifies the measure to fund prosperity for all.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,027 words) →
Opposes as tax on aspiration that harms ordinary working families (nurses, tradespeople, small business owners) who sacrificed to afford independent schools; criticises lack of proper impact assessment and mid-year implementation.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (674 words) →
Opposes as divisive framing that pits schoolchild against schoolchild; argues Government wrongly suggests not taxing private fees takes money from state schools, when UK spends £1trn+ annually and can choose priorities.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (750 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0