Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 63 Stand part
348
Ayes
—
167
Noes
Passed · Government won
129 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 January 2026, the House of Commons voted to include Clause 63 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill in the bill as written. The clause passed by 348 votes to 167. This was a committee stage vote, meaning Parliament was working through the bill clause by clause to decide its final shape before it proceeds further. **Why it matters:** Clause 63 forms part of the government's broader fiscal programme as set out in the October 2025 Budget. As a component of the Finance Bill, it carries the legal force needed to implement the government's tax and spending plans. Votes on individual clauses at committee stage are the mechanism by which the detailed content of fiscal legislation is confirmed or rejected, so the passage of this clause means its provisions will remain in the bill as it moves toward becoming law. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs, including those listed under the Labour and Co-operative Party designation, voted unanimously in favour, joined by the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted solidly against, as did the Democratic Unionist Party and Reform UK, while Independents split five to five. There were no notable rebels on either side. This division sits within a wider pattern of parliamentary activity around the government's employer National Insurance contribution changes, with related votes in March 2026 showing the government successfully rejecting Lords amendments to associated legislation by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support taxing certain pension interests as part of the government's fiscal package
Voting No meant
Oppose the taxation of certain pension interests, likely citing concerns about impact on pension savers or retirement planning
515 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 129 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
292
0
70
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
94
22
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
5
5
3
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UK
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
—
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
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 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