Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 9
Tuesday, 13 January 2026 · Division No. 407 · Commons
138 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
Support requiring the government to publish a formal review of how freezing income tax thresholds and savings allowances affects taxpayers, particularly those on lower incomes and retirees
Voting No means
Oppose the review requirement, arguing the government has already published sufficient impact assessments and that the Opposition's criticism is hypocritical given they also froze thresholds when in power
What happened: On 13 January 2026, MPs voted on New Clause 9 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill during its Committee stage. The clause, proposed by opposition parties, would have amended the government's Finance Bill. The motion was defeated by 335 votes to 181, with the government successfully blocking the addition.
Why it matters: The Finance (No. 2) Bill gives legal effect to the October 2024 Budget, covering a wide range of tax measures including changes to inheritance tax on pension assets, increases to remote gambling duties, and adjustments to employer national insurance contributions. New Clause 9 represented an attempt by opposition parties to modify the government's tax plans. Its defeat means the government's original proposals remain intact, including the application of inheritance tax to unspent pension pots from April 2027, and the near-doubling of remote gaming duty from 21% to 40%, with revenues earmarked in part for lifting the two-child benefit cap.
The politics: The vote divided sharply along government versus opposition lines. All 327 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the new clause. Supporting it were 89 Conservatives, 61 Liberal Democrats, 7 SNP MPs, 5 Democratic Unionist Party members, 4 Plaid Cymru members, 4 Greens, 3 Reform UK members, and 6 independents. No Conservative or opposition party member voted against the clause. The breadth of the opposition coalition, spanning parties from the SNP to Reform UK, reflects the scale of cross-party resistance to the government's fiscal package, though that coalition was not sufficient to overcome Labour's commanding Commons majority.
How They Voted
Government position: No
What They Said in the Debate
Conservative · North West Norfolk
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
Liberal Democrat · St Albans
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
Labour · Stoke-on-Trent Central
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
Conservative · Gosport
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
Labour · Northampton North
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
Labour · Morecambe and Lunesdale
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
Labour · Halesowen
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
Related Votes
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
23 Mar 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
23 Mar 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
23 Mar 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5
23 Mar 2026
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6
23 Mar 2026
Opposition day motion: fuel duty
18 Mar 2026
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 11
11 Mar 2026
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5
11 Mar 2026
Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 6
11 Mar 2026
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Third Reading
11 Mar 2026