Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 86 stand part
344Ayes
173Noes
Carried · majority 171 · Government won131 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 344 · No 173 · DNV 131 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 13 January 2026, the House of Commons voted on whether to include Clause 86 in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, a clause forming part of the government's broader tax and spending proposals. The motion passed by 344 votes to 173, meaning the clause will remain in the Bill as drafted. Clause 86 is part of the legislative package through which the government enacts the tax measures announced in its Budget. Its inclusion advances the government's fiscal programme by giving legal effect to a specific tax provision. The vote confirms that this element of the Budget will proceed into law, directly affecting taxpayers, businesses, or public finances depending on the clause's specific content. Blocking the clause would have removed that provision from the Bill entirely, potentially requiring the government to bring it back in separate legislation. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs provided all 330 government-side votes, with the Green Party adding four more in support. The opposition comprised Conservatives (89), Liberal Democrats (62), the SNP (8), Plaid Cymru (4), the DUP (5), and Reform UK (3), all voting against. There were no notable cross-party rebels on either side. The division sits within a wider pattern of parliamentary conflict over the government's fiscal policy, including subsequent votes in March 2026 in which the Commons repeatedly rejected Lords amendments to related National Insurance legislation, suggesting sustained opposition to the government's tax agenda from both the upper chamber and opposition parties.
Voting Aye meant
Support the clause remaining in the Finance Bill, backing the government's proposed tax provisions for 2026-27
Voting No meant
Oppose the clause, rejecting this element of the government's tax legislation
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
295
0
66
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
89
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
—
7
2
4
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
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
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
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
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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 aye · 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