Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 63 Stand part
348Ayes
167Noes
Carried · majority 181 · Government won129 did not vote
644 Members · Aye 348 · No 167 · DNV 129 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 13 January 2026, MPs voted on whether Clause 63 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill should stand part of the Bill, meaning whether the clause should remain in the legislation as it progresses. The Committee voted 348 to 167 in favour. Clauses 63 to 68, considered together, would apply inheritance tax to unspent pension funds and death benefits for deaths occurring after 6 April 2027. The opposition also sought to attach a new clause requiring HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of these changes within six months of them coming into force. The change ends the inheritance tax exemption that unspent pension pots have previously enjoyed. According to the government's impact assessment, cited in the debate, around 10,500 estates will become newly liable for inheritance tax as a result, and 38,500 estates will pay more inheritance tax than under the previous rules, raising approximately £1.5 billion by 2029. The government argues the measure is a fair and fiscally responsible way to raise revenue, reducing the use of pension funds as vehicles for passing on wealth free of tax. Critics argue it could undermine incentives to save for retirement, creates unexpected liabilities for estates, and was not signalled in Labour's pre-election manifesto. Government parties voted unanimously in favour. Conservatives voted entirely against, joined by the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist Party, and two Reform UK MPs. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all voted with the government. No Labour rebels were recorded. The vote sits within a wider pattern of opposition to the government's autumn Budget tax package, which the Conservatives have characterised as an undisclosed and damaging series of tax rises.
Voting Aye meant
Support applying inheritance tax to unused pension pots, arguing it is a fair and fiscally responsible measure to raise revenue and reduce the use of pensions as inheritance tax avoidance vehicles.
Voting No meant
Oppose the inheritance tax charge on unspent pensions, arguing it discourages saving, hits estates unexpectedly, and was not in Labour's manifesto — with estimates showing over 38,500 estates paying more inheritance tax as a result.
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
291
0
70
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
94
22
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
64
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
—
5
5
3
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
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
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Defended pension inheritance tax and gambling duty increases as fair, necessary reforms aligned with fiscal responsibility; rejected Opposition new clauses on grounds that monitoring occurs through normal processes and guidance will be published in spring 2027.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,536 words) →
Opposed pension inheritance tax extension and gambling duty hikes as undisclosed tax increases that penalise saving, add administrative complexity for personal representatives, and risk black market migration; called for proper consultation and early guidance.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (4,937 words) →
Supported gambling duty increases but warned that pension changes create personal liability risks for executors, cause delays in inheritance payouts, and lack proper transitional protections; flagged technical definition mismatch on free bets tax base.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (3,547 words) →
Strongly supported both pension and gambling tax measures as addressing long-standing unfairness; framed gambling companies as exploiting addictive technologies and evading tax through offshoring.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (702 words) →
Advocated for gambling duty increases as fair taxation of harmful online products; argued online sector generates disproportionate profits relative to employment and should contribute to harm costs.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,495 words) →
Supported new clause 25 requiring impact assessment; warned that 40% remote gaming duty risks pushing users to unregulated black market and may undermine gambling harm prevention funding transitions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (925 words) →
Acknowledged gambling harm concerns but warned that tax increases risk significant job losses in constituency home to bet365 (7,500 employees); cautioned against framing as moral crusade when tax revenue goes to general budget.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,632 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0