Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 24
184
Ayes
—
331
Noes
Defeated · Government won
136 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 January 2026, the House of Commons voted on New Clause 24 during the Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The clause, tabled by Conservative MPs, sought to add new provisions to the Bill beyond the government's original proposals. The clause was defeated by 331 votes to 184, with the government's position prevailing. **Why it matters:** New Clause 24 was part of a broader set of opposition amendments relating to clauses 63 to 68 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which introduce inheritance tax on unspent pension assets for deaths occurring after 6 April 2027. The opposition sought to expand the Bill's scope or require further review of these measures. The defeat means the government's approach to pension taxation proceeds unchanged, with implications for individuals who have structured retirement savings with inheritance planning in mind, pension scheme administrators, and personal representatives who will face new liabilities under the reformed rules. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 289 Labour MPs and 34 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against the clause, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, and Traditional Unionist Voice all voted in favour. Two Reform UK members also voted aye. There were no Conservative or Liberal Democrat members voting no, and no Labour members voting aye. Five independents voted on each side. This opposition unity reflects a broader cross-party challenge to several of the government's October 2024 Budget measures, including employer National Insurance changes which saw similar voting patterns in related divisions during March 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring HMRC to publish clear guidance and a dedicated helpline to help individuals, pension administrators and estate representatives navigate the new inheritance tax on pension assets
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment as unnecessary, arguing that HMRC already plans to publish guidance before April 2027 and provide interactive tools, making a statutory requirement redundant
515 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 136 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
289
73
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
64
0
8
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
34
8
Independent
5
5
3
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UK
2
0
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
—
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
0
1
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