Budget Resolution No. 13: Energy (oil and gas) profits levy (relief for investment expenditure)
454Ayes
124Noes
Carried · majority 330 · Government won72 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 454 · No 124 · DNV 72 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 6 November 2024 to approve Budget Resolution No. 13, which sets the rules governing investment relief within the Energy Profits Levy, the windfall tax applied to oil and gas company profits. The resolution passed by 454 votes to 124. It determines how much North Sea producers can offset against capital spending when calculating their windfall tax liability, directly shaping how much they pay. The practical effect of the resolution is to confirm the government's proposed framework for investment relief within the levy. Companies that invest in oil and gas extraction can claim a proportion of that spending against their tax bill; the resolution fixes the structure of that relief. The outcome affects the profitability of North Sea operations and, in turn, decisions about future investment in domestic energy production. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, and Green MPs all voted in favour, giving the government a comfortable majority. Conservatives, the Scottish National Party, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against, though from different directions: Conservatives and the DUP have argued the levy damages North Sea investment, while the SNP has criticised the broader design of the tax. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The resolution is one of several Budget resolutions passed that day as Parliament gave effect to the October 2024 Budget, and it will feed into the legislation needed to formally amend the Energy Profits Levy.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's proposed investment relief structure within the windfall tax on oil and gas profits, as set out in the Budget
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's approach to investment relief under the Energy Profits Levy, likely arguing it is either too generous to oil and gas companies or insufficiently supportive of North Sea investment
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
333
0
28
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
106
10
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
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
3
0
1
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