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 11 December 2024 on a new clause to the Finance Bill that would have required the Chancellor to publish, within six months of the Bill becoming law, a formal assessment of how the increase in stamp duty on additional dwellings was affecting private rents and the supply of rental properties in England and Northern Ireland. The vote was Division 67. The new clause was defeated by 314 votes to 105. The vote concerned sections 50 and 51 of the Finance Bill, which raised stamp duty land tax rates on additional properties such as buy-to-let homes. New Clause 6 would have required the assessment to cover regional variation in rental costs and rental property supply, as well as any other implications of the change. Defeating the new clause means no such statutory review will be published, and the government faces no formal obligation to report on how the policy is affecting the private rental sector. Conservative MPs voted unanimously in favour of the new clause, providing 96 of the 105 aye votes. Reform UK contributed 4, with smaller groupings including the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, and a handful of independents making up the rest. All 309 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed it, joined by all three Green MPs and two independents. The Liberal Democrats recorded no votes either way in the data available. The vote followed broader Conservative criticism of the Finance Bill as a package of measures that would dampen housing supply and raise rents.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to formally assess the impact of higher stamp duty on additional dwellings on private rents and rental supply, reflecting concern that the tax rise harms tenants and landlords.
Voting No meant
Oppose the assessment requirement as unnecessary, arguing that existing public data from MHCLG, HM Land Registry and HMRC already covers rental supply, house prices and property transactions adequately.
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
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
32
10
Independent
—
3
2
9
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
Your Party
—
0
1
1
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
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