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, MPs voted on New Clause 2 to the Finance Bill, a Liberal Democrat proposal requiring the Chancellor to publish a report within six months setting out the fiscal impact of changes to the Energy Profits Levy's investment expenditure relief, specifically how much revenue would be raised by removing the 29% investment allowance for oil and gas companies. The amendment was defeated by 350 votes to 74. The vote concerned whether the Government should be required to formally document and lay before Parliament the revenue consequences of closing what the Liberal Democrats described as an investment allowance loophole for oil and gas companies. The Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022 in response to record profits in the sector, had included a 29% investment allowance that the Finance Bill now removes, except for decarbonisation investments. A published report would have put a precise figure on revenue raised from that removal, and, by implication, on the value of the allowance over its lifetime. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously for the new clause, joined by Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and several smaller parties. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against it in full, defeating the proposal. The Conservatives do not appear in the voting record, with no votes recorded for them in either lobby.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the Government to publish a transparency report on how much revenue is raised by closing the oil and gas investment allowance loophole, holding ministers accountable for the levy's fiscal effects.
Voting No meant
Oppose the reporting requirement as unnecessary, given the OBR already publishes forecasts on the Energy Profits Levy and the Government considers existing fiscal transparency sufficient.
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
64
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
Your Party
—
1
0
1
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
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