A divisionDivision No. 402 · Monday, 12 January 2026· Commons· Taxation

Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 7

188Ayes
341Noes
Defeated · majority 153 · Government won
119 did not vote
Aye190No340DID NOT VOTE · 119

648 Members · Aye 188 · No 341 · DNV 119 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 12 January 2026, the House of Commons sitting as a Committee of the whole House voted on New Clause 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, an amendment put forward by the opposition. The clause was defeated by 341 votes to 188. The government's position was to reject the amendment and maintain the Bill as drafted. The Finance (No. 2) Bill makes significant changes to how income from assets is taxed in the United Kingdom, including a 2 percentage point increase in dividend tax rates and new higher rates applying to property income. New Clause 7 was one of several opposition amendments seeking to modify or challenge these measures. Its defeat means the government's approach to taxing savings, dividends, and property income proceeds without the changes the opposition proposed. The Bill also extends the freeze on income tax thresholds to the end of the decade, a policy known as fiscal drag, under which rising wages push more people into higher tax bands without any change in the headline rates themselves. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines, with all 335 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted opposing the amendment. Conservatives (97 votes), Liberal Democrats (65), the Scottish National Party (9), the Democratic Unionist Party (5), Plaid Cymru (4), Reform UK (2), and the Greens (2) all voted in favour of the amendment. The debate reflected sharp disagreement over whether taxing dividend and property income more heavily discourages enterprise and saving or simply closes a gap between how earned and unearned income are treated. The vote sits alongside a series of related divisions in early 2026 in which the government successfully overturned Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, underlining a broader pattern of the government defending its autumn Budget tax package against opposition from both chambers.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring an annual assessment of uprating the APR allowance to keep pace with rising agricultural land values, protecting family farms from the long-term erosion of inheritance tax relief
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, backing the government's position that the APR changes as designed are sufficient and that a mandatory annual review of the allowance is unnecessary
§ 01Who voted how.529 voting Members · 119 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 No
0
299
62
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
97
0
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
65
0
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
3
5
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
2
0
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
0
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0
Your Party
0
1
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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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