Division · No. 60Tuesday, 10 December 2024Commons Taxation

Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 2

74
Ayes
350
Noes
Defeated · Government won
219 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 10 December 2024, the House of Commons, sitting as a Committee of the whole House, voted on New Clause 2 to the Finance Bill. The new clause would have required the Chancellor to publish, within six months of the Act passing, a report setting out the fiscal impact of changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief contained in Clause 16. The motion was defeated by 350 votes to 74. **Why it matters:** The Energy Profits Levy (sometimes called the windfall tax) is the additional tax charged on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea. Clause 16 of the Finance Bill made changes to investment expenditure relief within that levy, specifically abolishing the core investment allowance that had previously allowed oil and gas companies to offset a substantial portion of their spending against the levy. New Clause 2 would not have changed the policy itself but would have required the government to formally assess and publish the revenue consequences of that change. By voting it down, the government kept the changes in place without being legally required to produce that specific fiscal report. The practical consequences of the underlying policy are significant for the North Sea energy sector, with industry bodies warning of job losses and reduced capital investment, particularly in Scotland. **The politics:** The 74 votes in favour came predominantly from the Liberal Democrats (65 votes), with additional support from Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted uniformly against, providing the bulk of the 350 no votes. The Conservatives, despite being the official opposition, were entirely absent from this division, meaning the only substantial opposition voices in the lobby came from smaller parties. The vote sits within a wider legislative process: the Finance Bill subsequently passed its Third Reading in March 2025 by 339 votes to 172, suggesting the government's Budget tax measures remained broadly intact throughout.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a government report on the revenue impact of scrapping the oil and gas investment allowance, ensuring fiscal transparency and accountability
Voting No meant
Oppose the reporting requirement, likely viewing it as unnecessary given existing scrutiny mechanisms or OBR assessments already covering this ground
§ 01Who voted how.424 voting members · 219 absent
Aye76No354DID NOT VOTE · 219

424 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 219 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
314
48
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
33
9
Independent
1
6
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Tulip SiddiqSupportiveHampstead and Highgate
CGT rate increases (10%→18%, 20%→24%) and carried interest reform are necessary to repair £22bn fiscal gap while remaining internationally competitive; phased BADR increases protect entrepreneurs.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,153 words)
Gareth DaviesOpposedGrantham and Bourne
CGT changes contradict Labour's pro-growth rhetoric, create perverse incentives to sell businesses before April 2025, risk retrospective anti-forestalling rules, and carried interest measure costs £4.5m to raise zero revenue.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,527 words)
Daisy CooperNeutralSt Albans
CGT increase is suboptimal; should instead introduce indexation allowance, three-rate structure, and higher allowance to raise £5.2bn (vs £2.5bn) while being fairer to ordinary savers and long-term investors.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,332 words)
Yuan YangSupportiveEarley and Woodley
CGT increases address tax avoidance gap between CGT and income tax rates; entrepreneurial investment depends on infrastructure/skills not exit taxation; Budget supports that vision.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,352 words)
Bobby DeanNeutralCarshalton and Wallington
While supporting progressive taxation, CGT reform incomplete: should index gains for inflation, target smaller gains, reform reliefs, and close Monaco loophole to truly be fair; cannot support unamended clause.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (894 words)
James MurraySupportiveEaling North
Energy profits levy increase (35%→38%) and abolition of 29% investment allowance necessary to fund energy transition while maintaining decarbonisation allowance; ESIM price floor provides certainty; consultation on post-2030 regime planned.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,593 words)
Harriet CrossOpposedGordon and Buchan
Energy levy increases risk 26% lower capex, 6.3% lower oil and 9.2% lower gas production per OBR; removal of investment allowance jeopardises 200,000 jobs; new clause 3 review essential given Aberdeen warnings.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,463 words)
Dave DooganOpposedAngus and Perthshire Glens
CGT reform is incomplete technocratic fix; should have fundamentally redesigned CGT following IFS guidance on indexation, asset-specific rates, and wealth tax; clauses do nothing for Scotland's economy.SNP · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,243 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