Finance (No. 2) Bill — New Clause 5 — Reviews of Economic Crime (Anti-money Laundering) Levy — 1 Dec 2021 at 17:15
The majority of MPs voted not to require reports on the operation of a tax on financial and other bodies to fund tackling economic crime and on the potential impact that a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property might have on that scheme, and on progress towards such a register.
MPs were considering the Finance (No. 2) Bill.[1][2][3]
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Reviews of Economic Crime (Anti-money Laundering) Levy and stated:
- (1) The Government must publish a review of the operation of the Economic Crime (Anti-Money Laundering) Levy by 31 December 2027.
- (2) The Government must publish on 31 December each year until the establishment of a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property—
- (a) an assessment of the contribution to the effectiveness of the Levy that such a register would make; and
- (b) an update on progress toward implementing such a register.’
The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:
- This new clause will put into law the Government’s commitment to undertake a review of the Levy by the end of 2027, and require them to publish an assessment every year until a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property is in place an assessment of what impact such a register would have on the effectiveness of the Levy, and progress toward the register being established.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] The Finance (No. 2) Bill (as introduced), 4 November 2021, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, Parliament.uk
- [4] Section 269DA of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, Legislation.gov.uk
- [5] Annual Investment Allowance, Gov.uk
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.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 301 (+2 tell) | 0 | 2 | 84.5% |
| DUP | 0 | 4 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 2 | 0 | 40.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 152 (+2 tell) | 0 | 77.4% |
| LDem | 0 | 11 | 0 | 91.7% |
| PC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33.3% |
| SDLP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 36 | 0 | 80.0% |
| Total: | 301 | 209 | 2 | 81.0% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Dehenna Davison | Bishop Auckland | Con (front bench) | both |
| Paul Howell | Sedgefield | Con (front bench) | both |