Division · No. 109Monday, 3 March 2025Commons Taxation

Finance Bill Report Stage: New Clause 2

113
Ayes
331
Noes
Defeated · Government won
202 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 3 March 2025, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 2 during the Report Stage of the Finance Bill. The clause, tabled by Conservative MPs, would have required the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of increases to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy on domestic energy production, energy security, energy prices and the wider UK economy. The amendment was defeated by 331 votes to 113. **Why it matters:** The Finance Bill implements the October 2024 Budget, including raising the Energy Profits Levy from 35% to 38%, extending it by one year and removing investment allowances, bringing the headline tax rate on North Sea oil and gas activities to 78%. New Clause 2 did not seek to reverse those changes but would have required a formal government assessment of their consequences within six months of the Act coming into force. Opponents of the levy changes argue that the increases risk choking off investment in domestic energy production, threatening tens of thousands of jobs and undermining the UK's energy security, particularly at a time of global geopolitical uncertainty. Supporters of the government's position argue the levy raises necessary revenue and that high tax rates on oil and gas profits are compatible with maintaining a productive energy sector, pointing to Norway as an example. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 323 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted against the amendment, while Conservatives (93 votes), the SNP (7), Plaid Cymru (4), Reform UK (4), the DUP (3) and the Traditional Unionist Voice (1) voted in favour, alongside two independents. The Green Party sided with the government, casting 4 votes against the clause. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The result reflects the government's comfortable Commons majority. The Finance Bill debate also covered a range of related contested measures including the VAT treatment of private school fees, the national insurance contributions increase, state pension income tax thresholds and the impact on small businesses, all of which have been points of sustained Conservative and Liberal Democrat attack since the Budget was delivered in October 2024.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a formal impact assessment of the increased Energy Profits Levy, arguing the government should be transparent about risks to domestic energy production, energy security, prices, and the broader economy.
Voting No meant
Oppose the mandatory impact assessment, backing the government's decision to raise the levy as a legitimate way to fund public services, and arguing scrutiny can happen through existing parliamentary channels.
§ 01Who voted how.444 voting members · 202 absent
Aye115No332DID NOT VOTE · 202

444 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 202 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
286
76
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
37
5
Independent
2
4
8
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UKWhipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
1
§ 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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