Finance Bill Committee: New Clause 2
74Ayes
350Noes
Defeated · majority 276 · Government won219 did not vote
643 Members · Aye 74 · No 350 · DNV 219 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
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. 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 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
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 No
0
314
47
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped 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 Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0