Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 25

Tuesday, 13 January 2026 · Division No. 405 · Commons

187Ayes

–

351Noes

Defeated

110 MPs did not vote

rightGovernment defeatedAnti Gambling Tax Increase(Yes)Pro Industry Competitiveness(Yes)Pro Fiscal Scrutiny(Yes)Pro Tax Rise Gambling(No)

Voting Yes means

Support requiring the government to assess the economic impact of large gambling tax increases before or after implementation, reflecting concern that the rises are too high and could harm the industry and associated jobs

Voting No means

Oppose the review requirement, backing the government's decision to significantly raise gambling duties as planned without a mandated separate impact assessment

What happened: On 13 January 2026, the House of Commons, sitting in Committee of the Whole House to consider the Finance (No. 2) Bill, voted on New Clause 25. This clause would have required the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House of Commons within six months of the Act passing, setting out the effects of the increases to remote gambling duty and the introduction of a new rate of General Betting Duty. The clause was defeated by 351 votes to 187.

Why it matters: The Finance (No. 2) Bill includes a significant restructuring of gambling taxation, raising remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% and increasing general betting duty to 25%, with the government estimating this will raise more than one billion pounds a year. The revenue is linked to funding the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. New Clause 25 would not have blocked these changes but would have required the government to formally report back to Parliament on their impact, including effects on the illegal gambling market, employment in the sector, and revenue raised. Opponents of the clause argued it was unnecessary given existing consultation and oversight mechanisms; supporters argued accountability was essential given the scale of the changes and concerns about unintended consequences.

The politics: The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All voting Labour and Labour and Co-operative members, totalling 335, opposed the clause, while the Conservatives (96 votes), Liberal Democrats (68), Scottish National Party (9), Democratic Unionist Party (5), Plaid Cymru (4) and most voting Reform UK members (3) supported it. The Green Party voted with the government. Within Labour, two MPs from Stoke-on-Trent expressed notable unease about the impact on bet365, a major local employer, though neither voted against the government. The debate sits within a broader pattern of the opposition challenging the government's autumn 2024 Budget measures through the Finance Bill process.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/298 No

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye

96 Aye/0 No

Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye

68 Aye/0 No

Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/37 No

Independent

3 Aye/7 No

Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye

9 Aye/0 No

Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye

5 Aye/0 No

Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No

0 Aye/4 No

Plaid CymruWhipped Aye

4 Aye/0 No

Reform UKWhipped Aye

3 Aye/0 No

Social Democratic and Labour Party

0 Aye/2 No

Traditional Unionist Voice

1 Aye/0 No

Ulster Unionist Party

1 Aye/0 No

Your Party

0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

James Wild

Conservative · North West Norfolk

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Daisy Cooper

Liberal Democrat · St Albans

Questioning

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.

Voted Aye

Gareth Snell

Labour · Stoke-on-Trent Central

Questioning

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.

Voted No

Dame Caroline Dinenage

Conservative · Gosport

Neutral

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.

Voted Aye

Lucy Rigby

Labour · Northampton North

Supportive

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.

Voted No

Lizzi Collinge

Labour · Morecambe and Lunesdale

Supportive

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.

Voted No

Alex Ballinger

Labour · Halesowen

Supportive

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.

Voted No