Exiting the European Union (Excise) — 3 Feb 2021 at 17:17

That the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI, 2020, No. 1412), dated 3 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2020, be revoked.
“may have a marginal impact on retailers in Great Britain.”
“believe that this is an appropriate juncture at which to make such an abrupt and significant change.”
“The Finance Secretary’s comments are a timely and welcome intervention in support of city centres…The decision could cost Edinburgh city centre, for example, many millions in lost retail sales, let alone the knock-on impact on tourism…This decision would leave the UK as the only European country not to provide a tax-free shopping scheme to encourage tourism. There is a good reason no other European nation has taken this step, and we urge swift reconsideration.”
“the UK out of step with travel retail systems around the world”
“completely disincentivises tourists to visit the UK and British passengers making purchases as they go on vacation abroad. It puts UK airports and travel retail at a substantial disadvantage against their European counterparts after Brexit. This will lead to significant additional job losses in the travel industry.”
“This could be the final nail in the coffin of several UK regional airports.”
“minded to extend airside tax-free sales”
“the OBR also looked at this package in the round when assessing the indirect impact on the economy”.
“our remit prevents us from considering impacts on disadvantaged groups or particular geographical areas”.
“not too big to fail.”
“the Mayor spends far too much time at the airport spending huge amounts of investment there, trying to bring jobs there”,
“rubbing their hands with glee at this self-inflicted wound”.
“a material impact on jobs and manufacturing”.
“This decision would leave the UK as the only European country not to provide a tax-free shopping scheme to encourage tourism. There is a good reason no other European nation has taken this step, and we urge swift reconsideration.”

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con351 (+2 tell) 1097.3%
DUP1 70100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 000.0%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 46 (+2 tell)0100.0%
Total:353 73067.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Douglas RossMorayCon (front bench)aye
Jim ShannonStrangfordDUP (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive