A divisionDivision No. 400 · Monday, 12 January 2026· Commons· Taxation

Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 62 stand part

344Ayes
181Noes
Carried · majority 163 · Government won
121 did not vote
Aye345No183DID NOT VOTE · 121

646 Members · Aye 344 · No 181 · DNV 121 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 12 January 2026, the House of Commons voted to keep Clause 62 in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, passing the motion by 344 votes to 181. The clause, which forms part of the government's budget legislation, was debated at committee stage, where MPs considered whether it should remain in the Bill as drafted. The government's majority was sufficient to defeat the opposition. Finance Bills translate the government's budget decisions into law, and each clause represents a specific tax or spending measure. By voting to retain Clause 62, the Commons advanced a provision that the government had incorporated into its fiscal plans. Opposition parties voted to strip the clause out, meaning they wished to block or alter this element of the government's tax and spending framework. The practical effect is that the policy contained in Clause 62 moves closer to becoming law as part of the broader Finance Bill package. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs, including those from the Labour and Co-operative Party grouping, voted unanimously in favour, providing the government's winning margin. All Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK and Alliance Party members who voted opposed the clause. A small number of independents voted on both sides. The vote sits within a broader period of contested fiscal legislation, as related divisions in March 2026 show the government also defeating Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, suggesting sustained parliamentary conflict over the government's tax-raising measures.

Voting Aye meant
Support Clause 62 becoming law as part of the government's Finance Bill, backing the Labour government's fiscal and taxation plans for 2026-27.
Voting No meant
Oppose Clause 62, rejecting this element of the government's Finance Bill — likely the Conservative opposition challenging the government's tax and spending decisions.
§ 01Who voted how.525 voting Members · 121 absent

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
302
0
59
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
95
21
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
5
3
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
9
0
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0
Your Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Dan TomlinsonSupportiveChipping Barnet
Government measures are fair, necessary, and progressive; they raise revenue from those undertaxed relative to employees while protecting public services and maintaining lowest borrowing levels.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (11,197 words)
Gareth DaviesOpposedGrantham and Bourne
Bill represents broken manifesto promises and a 'war on landlords,' savers, and small businesses; threshold freeze and asset income tax hikes total £23 billion and will harm ordinary working people and enterprise culture.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (4,456 words)
Dr Jeevun SandherSupportiveLoughborough
Dividend tax increase is right because wealth taxation has not kept pace with economic change; comparative evidence from France shows it encourages reinvestment and is easily implementable.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,788 words)
Daisy CooperOpposedSt Albans
Tax changes add unwarranted complexity, burden small businesses, risk unintended rental market consequences, and strain HMRC resources; impact assessments essential before implementation.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,593 words)
Kit MalthouseOpposedNorth West Hampshire
Changes overtax risk and enterprise, destroying incentive culture; dividend taxation contradicts government's own growth objectives and continues damaging trend of taxing return on investment.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (292 words)
Jim ShannonOpposedStrangford
Tax changes hit lower and middle-income families unfairly; 4.8 million more individuals will pay higher rate and 600,000 will enter additional rate, while millionaires can afford it.DUP · Voted no · Read full speech (505 words)
Sir Julian LewisNeutralNew Forest East
Government claims of fairness contradicted by numerous U-turns since Budget announcement; questions credibility of stated good effects.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (53 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0