A divisionDivision No. 111 · Monday, 3 March 2025· Commons· Taxation

Finance Bill Report Stage: Amendment 67

167Ayes
347Noes
Defeated · majority 180 · Government won
136 did not vote
Aye167No346DID NOT VOTE · 136

650 Members · Aye 167 · No 347 · DNV 136 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on Amendment 67 to the Finance Bill at Report Stage on 3 March 2025. The amendment was tabled by Conservative MPs and sought to remove or modify specific tax increases contained in the Bill. The government defeated the amendment by 347 votes to 167, a majority of 180. The Finance Bill gives legal effect to the measures announced in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's October 2024 Budget, described by the government as a growth Budget. The amendment targeted a range of tax changes that opponents argued would damage the economy, reduce business investment and harm household finances. These included the increase in employers' national insurance contributions, the extension and rate increase of the energy profits levy on North sea oil and gas producers, the removal of the VAT exemption for independent schools, and changes to inheritance tax and business property relief. Defeating the amendment means all these measures remain on course to become law. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 291 Labour MPs and 37 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, as did all seven SNP members, all four Plaid Cymru members and all four Green MPs. On the other side, all 94 voting Conservatives, all 59 voting Liberal Democrats, all six voting Reform UK members and three Democratic Unionist Party members supported the amendment. Three independents voted for it and two against. The Liberal Democrats, despite voting with the Conservatives here, expressed their own distinct objections, particularly on private school VAT and small business impacts, rather than fully endorsing the Conservative position. There were no notable Labour rebels.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a formal review of how the higher windfall tax on oil and gas profits affects UK energy production, security, prices, and the economy
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a separate impact assessment, arguing the government has already assessed the policy and the levy increase should proceed without delay
§ 01Who voted how.514 voting Members · 136 absent

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
290
71
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
94
0
22
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
59
0
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
37
5
Independent
2
3
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
7
2
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
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
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0
Your Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
James WildOpposedNorth West Norfolk
Opposes Finance Bill measures including state pension tax, energy profits levy hike, and VAT on independent schools; seeks impact reviews to expose harm to pensioners, businesses, and energy security.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,995 words)
Dr Jeevun SandherSupportiveLoughborough
Supports Finance Bill as necessary to ensure economic growth benefits are shared fairly across all income levels, demographics, and regions; backs investments in skills, housing, and childcare.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,075 words)
Daisy CooperQuestioningSt Albans
Seeks impact assessments on SMEs, households, alcohol duty impacts on distilleries/wine trade, and SEND pupils without EHCPs; opposes VAT on private schools but requests evidence of harm.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,711 words)
Jim DicksonSupportiveDartford
Defends Finance Bill as fixing an unfair tax system inherited from 14 years of Conservative government; argues most requested data already published; dismisses new clauses as duplicate work.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,061 words)
Sir Ashley FoxOpposedBridgwater
Condemns Bill as breaking manifesto promises, punishing businesses through NI hikes, attacking farmers with inheritance tax, and stifling growth; calls for impact assessments of damage.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,064 words)
Nesil CaliskanSupportiveBarking
Supports Bill's non-dom changes, energy profits levy, and VAT on private schools as fair taxation choices; backs long-term stability in energy markets alongside immediate price relief.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (864 words)
Mr Paul KohlerOpposedWimbledon
Opposes VAT on private schools; warns of adverse impacts on SEND pupils and wine industry; criticises impractical alcohol duty regime creating 30 different duty rates for wine.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,434 words)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
Supports new clauses 2, 7, 8 as impact assessments; warns of VAT harm to faith schools and distilleries in Northern Ireland; opposes NI contributions rise.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,123 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0