Budget Resolution No. 12: Energy (oil and gas) profits levy (increase in rate)
455Ayes
125Noes
Carried · majority 330 · Government won65 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 455 · No 125 · DNV 65 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 6 November 2024 to pass Budget Resolution No. 12, which increases the rate of the Energy Profits Levy, the windfall tax applied to North Sea oil and gas producers. The resolution passed by 455 votes to 125. The vote was a formal parliamentary step required to give legal effect to the tax change announced in the October 2024 Budget. The Energy Profits Levy taxes the profits of companies extracting oil and gas from the North Sea above the standard corporation tax rate. Raising the rate extracts more revenue from fossil fuel producers at a time when those companies have benefited from elevated energy prices. The change affects oil and gas companies operating in the UK Continental Shelf and has implications for investment decisions in domestic energy production. Voting divided sharply along party lines. Labour, Labour Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, and Green MPs voted in favour, giving the government a commanding majority. Conservatives, the SNP, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against. No Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs voted no, and there were no notable cross-party rebels recorded. The Conservative and SNP opposition, while arguing from different traditions, both raised concerns about the impact on investment in North Sea production.
Voting Aye meant
Support raising the windfall tax on oil and gas producers to extract more revenue from fossil fuel profits
Voting No meant
Oppose increasing the levy, arguing it damages investment in domestic energy production or is economically harmful
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 Aye
336
0
25
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
106
10
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
9
2
3
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
4
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
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
The Bill is too soft and contains dangerous gaps compared to terrorism law; 13 amendments would close loopholes on preparatory offences, self-directed actors, propaganda, symbols, asset concealment, and cross-border planning.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (7,570 words) →
The Bill's narrower approach is necessary because state entities cannot be abolished like terrorist organisations, international law and diplomatic relations require different treatment, and the prohibited purpose test protects legitimate activity.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,509 words) →
The prohibited purpose test duplicates the designation process and creates an additional evidentiary hurdle that will make convictions harder to secure, contradicting the Bill's stated intent.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (503 words) →
Supports the Bill but also supports new clause 3 (IRGC designation within a month), amendment 2 (affirmative procedure for removal), amendment 8 (overseas planning), and amendment 13 (lone-wolf actors).Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,452 words) →
Supports the Bill's aims but warns that haste and lack of consultation risk unintended consequences; argues the designation power could be weaponised against legitimate solidarity campaigns; proposes super-affirmative procedure instead of affirmative.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,517 words) →
Amendment 1 should target financial enablers who conceal beneficial ownership of assets for designated groups; cites the case of Iranian-Cypriot banker Ali Ansari as evidence of real-world evasion.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,218 words) →
The prohibited purpose requirement raises the prosecution bar unnecessarily; connection to a designated body should itself be sufficient evidence, without having to prove prejudicial intent.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (319 words) →
Seeks clarification on whether the prohibited purpose test is designed to protect NGOs and organisations like the ICRC that must engage with state actors.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (121 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0