Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Clause 86 stand part
344
Ayes
—
173
Noes
Passed · Government won
131 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** 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. **Why it matters:** 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 politics:** 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
517 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 131 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
296
0
66
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
89
27
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
34
0
8
Independent
6
3
4
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
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