Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: New Clause 26
172Ayes
334Noes
Defeated · majority 162 · Government won141 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 172 · No 334 · DNV 141 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 13 January 2026 to reject a Conservative proposal requiring the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of raising alcohol duty on pubs, hospitality businesses, wine and spirits producers, jobs and the public finances. The vote fell 172 Ayes to 334 Noes, defeating New Clause 26 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill (Division 408). The duty increase of 3.66%, pegged to the Retail Prices Index, was due to take effect on 1 February 2026, adding approximately 2p to the price of a pint. Had the new clause passed, the Chancellor would have been required to lay a report before the House of Commons within six months assessing the real-world effects on the sector. Its defeat means the government faces no statutory obligation to produce such an assessment, and the duty rise proceeds without a mandated review of its consequences for businesses or employment. The vote divided largely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 294 Labour MPs and all 34 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the new clause. Supporting it were 89 Conservatives, 62 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP MPs, 5 DUP members, 4 Plaid Cymru members and smaller groupings. No Conservative or Liberal Democrat voted against. Four independents supported the clause and five opposed it, with two Reform UK MPs also voting Aye. The breadth of opposition parties backing the new clause reflected shared concern about the cumulative pressures on the hospitality sector, though the government's majority was sufficient to see it off comfortably.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to review and publish the real-world impact of the alcohol duty increase on pubs, hospitality businesses and jobs — framing the rise as harmful to struggling communities and high streets.
Voting No meant
Oppose the review requirement, defending the alcohol duty increase as a necessary revenue measure and arguing existing impact assessments are sufficient.
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
294
67
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
89
0
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
34
8
Independent
—
5
5
3
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
—
2
0
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist 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 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