Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 9
181Ayes
335Noes
Defeated · majority 154 · Government won138 did not vote
654 Members · Aye 181 · No 335 · DNV 138 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 13 January 2026 on New Clause 9 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, a Liberal Democrat amendment that would have required the Chancellor to publish a report within six months assessing the combined impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty changes under the Bill alongside wider tax and cost changes introduced since 2020, including higher employer national insurance contributions and business rates changes. The amendment was defeated by 335 votes to 181, Division 407. The vote concerned whether the government should be required to analyse and publish findings on how multiple simultaneous fiscal pressures are affecting pubs, restaurants, hotels, and related businesses. Had it passed, ministers would have been legally obliged to produce that cumulative assessment. Its defeat means no such report is required, and businesses and parliamentarians will have to rely on existing tax impact and information notes rather than a dedicated cross-cutting analysis of the hospitality sector's position. The amendment produced a clear party-line division. All 292 Labour MPs and 34 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against it. The Liberal Democrats, who tabled the amendment, voted unanimously in favour, as did the Conservatives, the SNP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and the three Reform MPs who voted. Five independents backed the amendment and four voted against. The vote sits within a broader pattern of opposition parties using the Finance Bill's committee stage to press the government on the burden of its tax changes on specific sectors, alongside separate related votes in which the government rejected Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill in March 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to assess and publish the combined effect of alcohol duty and wider tax changes on the hospitality sector, holding ministers accountable for the cumulative burden on pubs and restaurants.
Voting No meant
Oppose the reporting requirement, arguing that existing tax impact notes provide sufficient information and that the amendment is unnecessary given the government's stated commitment to transparency on tax changes.
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
292
69
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
89
0
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
34
8
Independent
—
6
4
3
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
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
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
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
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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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