Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

We support the principle of stamping vapes, but the Government must ensure that we have a workable, affordable and effective scheme that deals with illicit activity and fraud without making compliance too costly. We will continue to hold the Government to account on achieving that balance and, hopefully, moving towards a fully digital system.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury back from her visit to China, which I am sure was slightly more exciting than the Thursday we had in Committee in her absence—although obviously we will never be short on excitement.

Duty stamps are proven anti-illicit trading measures. Digital tracking can enable supply chain monitoring, support enforcement and ensure that black market products are easier to identify, which makes it easier for trading standards officers and consumers to catch illegal products. However, as we have seen with duty stamps on spirits, there is significant counterfeiting within the market, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister and the Government have learned from duty stamps on spirits that they have been able to apply to duty stamps on vaping products.

It is interesting to see, in clause 118, the potential cost that will be associated with these duty stamps. We have already debated the additional duty that would be applied to vapes and the closing of the gap between the price of vape liquid and the price of cigarettes in our discussion on previous clauses. How much further does the Minister think that gap will close?

Additionally, on duty stamps and being able to track sales from a specific product or potentially even from specific stores, many people in this House and among the wider public believe that quite a lot of vaping shops have links with money laundering scams. Does the Treasury have an understanding of how tracking could be used to compare the money going through on the duty stamps with the store data to see if any money laundering is going on? That may be able to help trading standards in future.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, for their comments. I think we are all aiming for the same thing: a robust and tight enforcement of all the measures. On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about moving towards a purely digital system, the reality is that that would be harder for consumers and for trading standards officers to use on shop floors, and consultation responses highlighted that it could impose greater burdens on small retailers than a visible stamp.

The scheme is designed to have a physical label with embedded digital features, and that two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy. A visible, secure stamp gives retailers, consumers and enforcement officers an immediate way to spot non-compliant products at a glance, without the need for specialist equipment. As I said, however, the digital element is very important; it is similar to a secure QR code, allowing stamps and products to be scanned and verified in real time. That two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy.

On the question of fees, they have been set to cover the cost of operating the scheme. The Government conducted a competitive tender process for the broader scheme. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is absolutely right that HMRC has promised clear guidance in this area, and that will be published in due course.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson fairly raised a comparison with alcohol duty stamps. HMRC consulted the alcohol industry and enforcement authorities and determined that alcohol duty stamps now play a minimal role in tackling alcohol duty evasion and that more effective controls now exist. HMRC is introducing duty stamps alongside the vaping products duty because of the distinct and significant non-compliance risk associated with the vaping market; it is about the utilisation of modern technology and digitalisation to support the delivery of the vaping products duty. I hope I have explained to him that we have examined the alcohol duty comparison and do not see a direct read across.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also raised an important point about money laundering and anti-money laundering, which the Government take extremely seriously—in fact, we are reforming the supervisory function and compliance on AML.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Forfeiture

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The provisions in clauses 121 to 125 give HMRC significant powers over forfeiture and civil penalties. The aim is obviously to deter illegal activity and maintain the integrity of the new vaping duty regime. As I said in the debate on an earlier group, the challenge is to ensure that that is done in a proportionate way, tackling the illicit market without penalising legitimate businesses seeking to comply. I welcome the Minister’s response to the various points I have made.

[Mr Reynolds]

I have few points to make about clause 122, which refers to a

“person who sells…unstamped vaping products”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that person is the shop owner, the shop manager or the shop worker who is physically behind the till on that day. Could an 18-year-old shop assistant be charged the £10,000 fine? The phrase “a person” needs a definition. If that person leaves the business in which they serve, will the fine stay with the individual, or will it be on the business? Could somebody get around this clause by closing down their limited company and opening a new one tomorrow, so the offence would then be their first?

[Lucy Rigby]

The comments of the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, refer to the deliberately tough nature of the enforcement regime; there is a real emphasis on deterrence, and there are penalties that apply. It includes the forfeiture powers, which are targeted at serious non-compliance. Where retailers are found selling unstamped products outside duty suspense or breaching key obligations under the scheme, HMRC and Border Force will have the power to seize associated vaping products, including legitimate duty-paid stock. As I said, that is part of a deliberately tough enforcement regime and is a strong deterrent aimed at those who choose to mix illegal products with legitimate ones on the same premises. I am sure we all understand that without such powers, rogue traders can treat penalties as simply a cost of doing business while continuing to profit from illicit trade, and I am sure we all want to avoid that.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary made a number of points about ensuring that the use of powers is proportionate. Given the judicial or criminal processes associated with the use of these powers, it is entirely fair to say that all the usual processes around charging, in a criminal sense or otherwise, will apply. Inherent within those processes are balance and fairness, including taking into account the rights of the accused.

It is good to mention the draft guidance, which will be shared with HMRC-run industry groups well ahead of the go-live date on 1 April, which I hope is sufficiently specific for the shadow Exchequer Secretary. He will be pleased to know—he may already know—that the interim guidance is already on gov.uk, if he is stuck for things to do this evening. I think I am right in saying that the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, as to liability under these offences will be made explicitly clear in the guidance, such that there is no doubt in those circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 122 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Dealing in duty stamps

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

The £50,000 threshold imposed as part of schedule 16 is incredibly low. It catches small construction firms importing tonnes of cement or steel, materials that could be consumed in one single medium-sized building project. The businesses importing such volumes will lack the resource of dedicated compliance teams and environmental consultants for quarterly emission verification. Meanwhile, large industrial importers, responsible for the vast majority of imported carbon emissions, face identical per unit compliance obligations, giving them a competitive advantage through their economies of scale.

CBAM introduces entirely new foreign concepts to normal commercial activities, such as calculating the emissions across international supply chains, determining whether carbon prices were paid in origin countries and applying complex fee allocation formulas. A family-run metalworking shop that has successfully filed VAT for 20 years must suddenly become an expert in lifetime emission methodologies and international carbon-pricing verifications. I do not believe that the Government have published any analysis comparing the £50,000 threshold to alternatives such £100,000 or £250,000 thresholds. I am interested to hear from the Minister what verification and changes have been made, and what assessment has been made of the compliance costs for various businesses.

Schedule 16 also introduces a £500 fixed penalty plus a £40 daily charge for failure to notify a change of circumstances, and a £500 penalty for record-keeping failures. While paragraph 40 of schedule 16 includes a reasonable excuse defence, HMRC interprets that quite narrowly as applying to circumstances such as illness, postal strikes or computer failures. The idea that the system or methodology was confusing or, “My supplier could not provide the data,” typically do not fall within the reasonable excuse defence.

The problem here is timings: the comprehensive penalties for CBAM take effect on 1 January 2027, so businesses navigating entirely unprecedented requirements are going to have a challenge. I note that the EU’s CBAM began with a transitional reporting period before enforcement ramped up, whereas the UK’s has no such mechanism.

These are not familiar tax concepts for lots of businesses. They involve new software, new tracking and international verification. These things have not been done in British business before, and I believe that small importers will face penalties while genuinely trying to comply with the regulations. The Liberal Democrats are not against the concept of a CBAM, but we take issue with the way that it has been put together.

Has the Minister considered a 12-month transitional period during which full penalties for deliberate avoidance are maintained but an allowance is given for honest compliance?

[James Wild]

I share the hon. Member’s concerns about the £50,000 threshold. Has he considered what might be a more appropriate level, in order to reduce the impact on smaller producers?

[Mr Reynolds]

The EU, for its CBAM, has not set a specific number in that way; it has set a number of tonnes of product. I would be interested to hear from the Government what work has been done to analyse the different impacts of £50,000, £100,000 and £250,000. The Treasury must have done some work on this, but I could not see any. We need the answer to that in order to find out where we stand.

Let me finish by saying that a transitional period may be quite beneficial. It would make sure that we are not setting our small and medium-sized enterprises up to fail and penalising them when they try to do the right thing but unfortunately, because of the complications in the system, they are unable to.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary’s points about the criminal offences are similar to some of the points that were raised earlier in relation to other criminal offences set out in the Bill. I made the point in relation to those other offences, and I make it again here, about the standards that the CPS, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, has to meet in satisfying both the evidential test and the public interest test. I am not sure that I need to take up the invitation to liaise with the Law Officers in that regard.

Questions were fairly raised about proportionality and the burden on businesses. The UK CBAM will operate like a conventional tax, in order to simplify the administrative and compliance burden for those who need to comply without, we think, undermining the environmental integrity of CBAM. However, the Government recognise that alignment with existing regimes—the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, referred to the EU CBAM and, indeed, to the ETS—can reduce administrative burdens, so where possible we will align with and build upon existing methodologies for calculating embodied emissions, as well as rules for monitoring reporting and verification under the ETS.

As hon. Members know, CBAM is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts or a significant impact on prices for individuals, households and families. CBAM imports make up only around 1% of average UK industry input costs. Therefore, as the Exchequer Secretary said, the Government do not expect CBAM to have a material impact on food prices, and the impact on farmers would be modest.

On the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s point about thresholds, the threshold will retain over 99% of CBAM imports while removing 80% of otherwise registrable businesses, and over 70% of those removed from CBAM altogether by the threshold will be micro, small and medium-sized businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 148 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 150

Supplementary amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

I may not have read that manifesto as closely as the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] For the record, I did not say that. I think the record will also prove that that measure was not put into effect. We continued the winter fuel payment. The issue is that the Chancellor came along. She was given advice by Treasury officials—no offence to the Treasury officials in the room—suggesting this was a simple way to save some money and fill a fictional black hole. Foolishly and regrettably, she went along with that advice; happily, she is now correcting her mistake in part.

I am looking to press amendment 41 to a vote, because it is important that we give pensioners certainty that the threshold will be protected.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I rise to speak to clause 55 and new clause 27, but I can tell the hon. Member for North West Norfolk that if he does press amendment 41, he will have the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating last year while the Government buried their head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who really were suffering. The Government’s changes to winter fuel payments only added to those people’s worries. The delay to the warm homes grant scheme has meant that no household has benefited from support that could have made their homes more sustainable and cheaper to heat over the last winter.

The Liberal Democrats opposed the announcement to cancel winter fuel payments, which caused many millions of the most vulnerable residents in our society to lose out on vital support. We welcome the fact that those over state pension age in England and Wales with an income of £35,000 or less will now receive their winter fuel payment. However, as new clause 27 lays out, we have some serious concerns. Quite simply, it aims to review the practical impact of the winter fuel payment changes, especially on those individuals who exceeded the income threshold by only a small amount.

The cliff edge of £35,000 means that someone on that income will keep the entire payment, but someone at £35,001 will have the entire amount clawed back. We would like to examine the behavioural effects and whether the charge and cliff edge will discourage additional work, savings or income reporting. Would it be fairer to have the amount tapered so that we can get to a fairer place?

We also want to consider the implications of making the charge a notifiable tax liability, including penalties for a failure to notify, and how that would interact with PAYE and self-assessment rules. Right now, most people, especially pensioners, do not have to actively tell HMRC about certain things, because tax is sorted through PAYE or the benefits system. If winter fuel payments become notifiable, individuals would be legally responsible for reporting to HMRC. Evaluating the effectiveness of these measures will help to ensure that we have a smooth and fair process for taxpayers overall.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 74, page 91, line 20, leave out from “(1)” to the end of line 25 and insert-

“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”

This amendment would require that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 48, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—

“(6) Before laying regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations made under this section meet the following objectives—

(a) that no infected or affected person, or their family, will be subject to inheritance tax in respect of infected blood compensation payments under the regulations,

(b) that the regulations provide fair and consistent treatment for all victims regardless of when their compensation was paid or when deaths occurred,

(c) that the relief provides compensation for physical harm and psychological trauma experienced by affected family members, and

(d) that administrative processes established for the purposes of implementation of this section will not create additional distress or burden for bereaved families.”

This amendment would require that, prior to making regulations under the section, the Chancellor should make a statement on the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives in respect of the treatment of victims and their families.

Amendment 46, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—

“(7) The Treasury must make regulations under subsection (1) within 60 days of the passing of this Act.

(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must consult—

(a) organisations representing infected and affected individuals,

(b) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and

(c) bereaved families of victims who have died awaiting compensation.

(9) The regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for identifying and assisting the estates of deceased victims in claiming inheritance tax relief, including—

(a) outreach to known affected families,

(b) assistance with evidence gathering where medical records have been destroyed,

(c) clear and accessible guidance in plain language, and

(d) a dedicated helpline staffed by trained caseworkers familiar with the infected blood scandal.

(10) The Treasury must, within 6 months of regulations under this section coming into force, and every 6 months thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the number of victims who have died since the previous report while awaiting compensation,

(b) the number of estates that have received inheritance tax relief,

(c) the average time taken to process claims for relief,

(d) any identified barriers preventing families from accessing their entitlement, and

(e) steps taken to expedite outstanding infected blood compensation claims.”

This amendment requires the Chancellor of Exchequer to make regulations under this section within 60 days of Royal Assent. It requires mandatory consultation with those directly affected, and a support service to help bereaved families navigate the system. It also places a six-monthly reporting requirement on the Government.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Reynolds]

The infected blood scandal represents one of the greatest treatment disasters in NHS history: more than 3,000 people died, and thousands more live with HIV, hepatitis C or lifelong trauma. Yet even now victims’ families face the indignity of inheritance tax on compensation payments meant to acknowledge that profound suffering. The clause gives the Treasury the power to provide inheritance tax relief where victims or affected persons have died before compensation payment was received. That policy is intended to develop fair and consistent treatment for grieving loved ones, but it is entirely discretionary, with no timeline, no consultation requirements and minimal parliamentary oversight.

Amendments 47, 48 and 46, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, look to fix that. First, amendment 47 would ensure that all the regulations face proper parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, ensuring that they get the correct amount of parliamentary oversight and the scrutiny that is required.

Amendment 46 would require the Chancellor to make regulations within 60 days mandating consultations with victims’ organisations and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—people who actually understand what the families are going through. Crucially, it would establish practical support, dedicated helplines and assistance in evidence-gathering through outreach to bereaved families. That matters not just because of the number of people who have died while waiting for compensation, but because their families have already endured decades of suffering, medical records lost and destroyed, and broken promises. They should not also have to face the labyrinth of the tax system without the support they need.

Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to demonstrate how it meets key objectives: that for any victim faced with inheritance tax on their payments, the treatment is fair, regardless of the timings; and that administrative processes do not create additional distress. These amendments are not intended to distract from the clause, which we support; however, without the safeguards that they propose—without timelines and the correct accountability—we will see delay and delay. The families have waited decades for support, and the amendments aim to help to get them that support and the fair treatment that they deserve.

The Government’s policy paper was unequivocal that compensation must be a matter of entitlement rather than charity, and our amendments 47, 48 and 46 would ensure that those promises were kept and not kicked into the long grass. I hope that the Committee will support them when we press amendments 47 and 46 to a vote later.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The clause, as has been discussed, introduces a power to extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments. I worked closely on this measure with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget. It is an important measure for the victims of this scandal and their families. I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, supports the clause—I am sure that all Members will do so—and I of course welcome the challenge and the scrutiny.

Amendment 47 would require all regulations made under the new powers to be subject to an affirmative procedure, but the clause already provides that, if the future regulations do not amend primary legislation, they can be made under the negative procedure. That is consistent with the existing regulation-making powers for compensation payments under schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2020. The clause already provides for using the affirmative procedure, should the future regulations amend primary legislation.

The Government’s objective here is to ensure that we can introduce regulations, which will come later this year, as soon as possible to help further to clarify the inheritance tax position for all those impacted. I am sure we all agree that we want to ensure as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible, for those who are affected and might be impacted by this change, which has been welcomed.

Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives. I have already issued a written ministerial statement, on 18 December, setting out in detail how the changes to the existing relief from inheritance tax for compensation payments made from the infected blood compensation scheme and the infected blood interim compensation payment scheme will be made.

Amendment 46 would introduce proposed new subsections (7) to (10), which set out various new introductory, consultation and reporting requirements. I understand the desire for prompt clarity on the inheritance tax treatment of compensation payments, and the Government are committed to delivering the regulations as quickly as possible. I also recognise the importance of consulting with relevant stakeholders; officials have worked very closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and the Government will continue to engage with stakeholders ahead of laying regulations.

The clause introduces a power to make a sensible and compassionate change, ensuring that those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal can choose how to pass on the value of any compensation received without incurring inheritance tax. Although I welcome the engagement from the Liberal Democrats on this matter, I hope the Committee agrees to clause 74 standing part of the Bill and rejects amendments 46 to 48.

[James Wild]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead for bringing forward these amendments to what is a very important clause, one that honours a commitment; I remember sitting in the main Chamber when a number of colleagues from across the House were pressing Ministers to introduce such a change, and it is very welcome that the Government have brought it forward in the Bill. I believe a similar treatment applies to the Horizon IT scandal. It is a common-sense clause. Fundamentally, the victims of this appalling scandal deserve compensation and their families deserve to then benefit in due course.

I put on record my tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, as well as to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) when he was in the Cabinet Office, working particularly with victims’ groups. The clause will help to provide the remedy that victims and their families have been seeking.

I have said that a similar treatment applies in the Horizon case, but I should mention to the Minister that the Hughes report on the valproate and pelvic mesh scandal is still outstanding. It was published two years ago and recommended that interim compensation payments should be made. I have raised the matter with the Health Secretary on a number of occasions; I ask the Minister to take that issue back and to consider, as the compensation scheme is designed, whether that sort of provision can be built in from the start.

We support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which seek to ensure that Government regulations around the issue reach the right objectives, as well as supporting victims and their families. Amendment 46 would establish a mechanism to support families to navigate the system. I think that is very important and, if the hon. Member for Maidenhead chooses to press the amendment, I assure him that Conservative Members will support it.

[Mr Reynolds]

The Minister used the words “as soon as possible”. The amendments that we have tabled would hold him and the Government to account on that. They show the seriousness of this issue, and would allow parliamentary oversight, accountability measures and a clear deadline.

I am glad that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk mentioned the Hughes report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned the Hughes report in an oral question to the House yesterday, and the response was not particularly forthcoming. I urge the Minister to consider how this clause could apply to the Hughes report and others in the future.

Without these amendments, the clause gives a number of empty promises and more regulation in due course. That mean more waiting and more families navigating complex tax systems alone, while grieving loved ones are left in limbo. Infected blood victims were actively misled by the responsible authorities, then they were ignored, then they were told help was coming. In many tragic cases, that help is too late. The amendments would ensure that grieving relatives do not face additional challenges in receiving compensation. I hope the Minister changes his mind and supports amendments 47 and 46.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister for their contributions.

I want to reassure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in particular that these are not empty promises. The Government take this matter incredibly seriously. When it was raised, we worked hard to engage constructively and productively, and we brought forward this legislation in the Budget. I was glad that we were able to do so for those impacted by the scandal. I put on the record that these are deep and full promises, and the Government will make the progress that needs to be made for the victims.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

At present, when a disabled person uses their mobility benefits, such as the mobility component of the personal independence payment or disability living allowance, to lease a vehicle under the Motability scheme, that lease is zero-rated for VAT. Let us remember why Motability was created: it was established to help those with serious, long-term physical disabilities to access independence and mobility, not to provide subsidised cars for people with minor or temporary conditions. However, the numbers show that the scheme has expanded far beyond its original purpose. Last year, 815,000 people were using Motability vehicles, an increase of 170,000 in a single year.

For many participants, their benefit covers the full cost of a three-year lease, so they pay nothing beyond their benefit entitlement. However, when someone chooses a more expensive model, such as a larger or higher-spec vehicle, they must make an up-front top-up payment. Until now, the entire lease, including that top-up, has been VAT-free, but clause 77 changes that. Under the new rules, only the proportion of the lease funded by the qualifying Motability payment will remain zero-rated, and any additional amount paid voluntarily will be subject to the standard rate of 20%. That is a fair and balanced reform that we wholeheartedly support.

Clause 78 narrows the insurance premium tax relief for vehicle insurance linked to disability schemes. IPT is a 12% tax on most general insurance premiums. Many cars that are leased to disabled people currently benefit from that relief, even when the vehicles are standard, unadapted models. We welcome that the clause limits the relief to applying only to contracts for vehicles that are specifically adapted for wheelchair or stretcher users; for example, vehicles with ramps, lifts or structural changes supporting wheelchair access. If a vehicle has no such adaptation, premiums will rightly be subject to the 12% charge.

Conservative Members have long argued for tighter focus and accountability in the Motability scheme, and I welcome the Government’s decision to act— we have been pushing them to do so. Sadly, we read in The Times this morning that the Prime Minister has apparently ruled out any wider reforms to welfare in the King’s Speech. Some of the growth we have seen in the Motability scheme, which the clauses will hopefully address, reflects genuine need, but much of it does not. That expansion raises questions about the eligibility standards and on whether taxpayers’ money is being used as intended. Motability should not be a back-door subsidy for people who do not meet the scheme’s original intent, which was to help those with serious disabilities.

As the Minister said, over the scorecard this measure makes a significant saving that is a meaningful contribution to public finances, which we welcome and support. Taxpayer resources should be targeted more effectively to ensure fairness. However, the measures in the Budget overall raise people’s taxes to pay for more welfare spending. We consider that to be the wrong choice. We welcome the fact that the clause mitigates some of that additional welfare spending, but overall, this is a welfare spending Budget.

[Mr Reynolds]

I will speak briefly to clause 78, and then I will ask the Minister some questions, specifically on the definition of “substantially and permanently adapted”, which is slightly lacking in the Bill. Disability is not just about wheelchairs and stretchers; many individuals use and require adapted vehicles that may not be seen as substantially or permanently adapted.

The Liberal Democrats do not aim to change or amend the clauses, but some clarification would be helpful. Could the Minister clarify the definition of substantially adapted vehicles, and confirm what consultation has happened with disability groups about those definitions? Could he also confirm what impact assessment has been done on the additional costs for individuals who will no longer receive insurance premium tax relief?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will somewhat disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead: the words that Ministers say in Committee are sometimes powerful and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to be more expansive on the definition. I ask him and others to rely on the words in the existing legislation, which I think are relatively clear and strong.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend, like me, has a very rural constituency that spends tens of millions of pounds on this. I think Norfolk spends around £30 million or £40 million a year on taxis to transport pupils with special education needs to school. That is a huge proportion of the money that is spent on special educational needs, and potentially adds to the burden and costs of councils who are struggling, particularly in rural areas. They have been—I will be polite—disadvantaged by the latest local government settlement and the way that the Government have skewed the formula against rural areas, having already removed the rural services grant, which we had come to rely on.

What is the Government’s estimate of the average fare increase for passengers as a result of this measure? How can the Treasury justify raising the transport costs at a time when families are already struggling and the Government claim that the cost of living is their priority?

The charge in this clause will not only hit passengers. Operators will face new administrative burdens as they try to account for VAT under far more complex rules. That creates uncertainty—this Committee has discussed the need for certainty on many occasions—and increases the costs for local businesses that operate on relatively small margins. As one operator of a private hire vehicle firm said, rather starkly,

“a 20% VAT hike would hit the elderly, disabled and rural passengers hardest. Businesses cannot plan, invest or grow while uncertainty remains.”

The places most exposed are those with limited public transport networks and a consequently high reliance on the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. That is why we have tabled amendment 42, which proposes to exempt rural communities. It is a simple and fair way to protect those most affected. It would amend clause 79 so that the charge does not apply to journey by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.

If the Minister refuses that limited relief, will he at least commit to supporting new clause 14? It would require a proper impact assessment of the effect of the measure on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.

There is a practical problem with clause 79, as with so many clauses that we have debated. Some major operators, including Uber, have reclassified themselves or are exploring ways to reclassify themselves as technology platforms rather than transport providers. That seems to be happening in cities outside London already. If they succeed, the VAT liability would shift from the company to the individual drivers, many of whom are not VAT-registered owing to their earnings level. What is the Minister’s response to that shift, which is already taking effect in parts of the country?

Concerns have also been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that the list of qualifying services in proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is too narrow. The institute contends that the list excludes other key designated travel services, most notably trips, excursions and the services of tour guides. That creates a genuine issue for tour operators who supply day-trip packages, whether to the coast of North West Norfolk or to other parts of the country. A lot of small, often family firms provide these services.

For example, if the package consists of a private car transfer, picking up someone from King’s Lynn station and taking them up to sunny Hunstanton, and that is combined with a professional tour guide or excursion ticket, under the clause the private hire element will fall out of TOMS while the guide or excursion will remain in it. What will that do? It will add considerable complexity, forcing the unbundling of a single commercial package. It will require changes to systems and changes to invoicing.

If the intent, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, is simply to go after taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a glaring example of where the drafting is wrong and goes too far. The ICAEW contends that the existing ancillary tests are robust enough to avoid any obvious attempt to dodge paying the tax that is due.

This is a tax rise that will increase fares, hurt rural and vulnerable passengers and create fresh uncertainty in a vital sector. In my constituency, the funding that has been provided for buses is reducing in comparison with the funding provided by the last Government. I expect that that position is being replicated across the country. People in my constituency do not have the luxury of the regular services that I am sure the Minister has in his Chipping Barnet constituency, with maybe three an hour. In parts of my constituency, three a day would be frequent.

I hope that the Minister recognises the points that are being made on behalf of rural areas; I am sure that other hon. Members who represent rural areas will not sit silently when the issue is being discussed, but will speak up for their constituents.

As I say, this is a tax that will increase fares, hurt rural areas and vulnerable passengers and create uncertainty. It will also add to the cost of living. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real living standards will increase by 0.25% in each year of this Parliament, which is a staggeringly low figure when the average has been 1% in each of the past 10 years. That is not a great record—no wonder the Government are cancelling elections left, right and centre.

If the Government are intent on pressing ahead, the very least the Minister can do is agree to review the measure, looking at fare levels, passenger numbers and any reduction in service availability. Otherwise, I look forward to pressing to a vote my amendment, which would protect rural areas.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber

“has swerved paying millions of pounds”

by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts

“as an agent, rather than as the supplier”

outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares.

Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change? Why are we now in a position where we have an absurd two-tier system in which identical journeys are taxed differently depending on whether they take place inside or outside London? I note that no Government amendment to the clause has been tabled. Has the Treasury accepted that because of Uber’s decision, this policy has failed before it has even begun?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On reading the clause, I too was concerned about the costs for SEND. Devon, which is a very rural county, spends something like—from memory—£50 million a year on taxis to move children across the county who require special schools in different areas. A 20% tax on that would equate to £10 million. Will the Minister clarify whether taxis used for SEND transport by councils are included? If so, will the Minister please negotiate the extra money that will be required, so that we do not have our SEND budget in Devon cut by £10 million?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government are, of course, aware of the pressures on local council finances as a result of the growing number of children with additional needs who require transportation or other support. It is important to note that the clause does not seek to apply additional VAT to those who are not already seeking to make use of the TOMS. The vast majority of taxi services across the country are not using the TOMS and will be unaffected by this change, but we think it right to ensure that this particular use of the TOMS cannot continue, in order that we can raise revenue.

[Mr Reynolds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have given way multiple times, but I am happy to do so again, because we are in Committee and it is good to have thorough scrutiny.

[Mr Reynolds]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. Will he confirm that if any local authority sees an increase in its spending on SEND transport because of the 20% VAT, the Treasury will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those authorities are paid back in full for that extra cost? That reassurance would help to put our minds at ease, along with council leaders and council chief executives across the country who are worried that they might have a hole in their budget come the next financial year.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Local authorities have usual and long-standing mechanisms for handling their VAT liabilities, including reclaiming the VAT where permissible.

I hope that I have responded with sufficient thoroughness to the points that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge that amendment 42 be withdrawn and new clause 14 be rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Having debated so many clauses that tighten the rules and put up taxes on individuals and businesses, we finally reach something unusual for the Chancellor: a tax break. I will speak to the amendment—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—and to the clause. The clause addresses a long-standing phenomenon in the VAT rules governing the donations of goods to charity.

In the present situation, when a VAT-registered business donates stock, those goods can sometimes be treated as if they were sold, triggering a VAT bill on a notional supply that never took place. Sensibly, the clause corrects that anomaly. It provides that qualifying charitable donations of goods will no longer count as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. In practical terms, that means that no output VAT charge will be liable simply because a business chooses to donate stock to a charity, provided that it meets the conditions and value limits set out in the legislation.

I acknowledge that the change has been warmly welcomed across the charity sector, unlike some of the other provisions about which concerns have been raised. It represents a small but meaningful step towards encouraging more corporate donations. The Opposition, however, have tabled amendment 43, which would ensure that the £200 cap set out in the legislation would increase by the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year—as with amendment 41, that would mean that the measure would retain its value over time.

The Opposition support the principle behind the measure. It is right to remove a barrier that discourages generosity and adds unnecessary complexity to charitable giving, but the Association of Taxation Technicians has already cited concerns. In its view, the changes do not fully match the existing relief for goods donated for resale. Businesses will still face different VAT treatments, depending on how a charity uses the donated items.

Clause 80 adds yet another outcome, meaning that the system remains complex for what is, in simple terms, the same act of giving goods to charities—the charities across our constituencies. Practical guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will therefore be vital, because businesses need to understand exactly when the new relief applies, how the value limits work and what evidence they must keep to stick on the right side of the rules. Without that clarity, many could decide that donating just is not worth the administrative hassle. Will the Minister commit to providing such guidance and working with the sector to produce it?

According to the Budget documents, the measure will cost around £10 million to the Exchequer, which is a small price to pay for allowing more goods to reach charities and the communities they serve. However, amendment 43 would ensure that the measure retains its value over time. The current £200 limit risks eroding year by year as inflation drives up the cost of goods. Our amendment would simply link that cap to CPI, so that it keeps pace with prices, rather than becoming less generous each year. I think the Minister would have to agree that this is a modest and practical suggestion that would ensure the relief continues to operate as intended, so I hope he might agree to accept the amendment.

To conclude, I will ask the Minister three things. What estimate has the Treasury made of the additional volume and value of goods expected to be donated following the change? Secondly, will HMRC commit to publishing clear and accessible guidance for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can use the relief with confidence? Finally, if the Government will not support our amendment, will they at least agree to review the £200 limit within a year or so, listening to evidence from charities and donors about how the policy is working in practice?

In the end, the change is about making generosity easier, not harder. If we can make the tax system work just a little better for those who give and those who do so much vital work on the ground in our constituencies and communities, that is something that all members of the Committee would want to support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to what is a very modest and helpful amendment.

[Mr Reynolds]

The Liberal Democrats fully support clause 80 and would support amendment 43 if it were pushed to a vote. When I worked in retail, including in grocery retail for a significant number of years, I saw time and again that goods were going in the bin that should have been going to a good home, such as a charity, but that was not happening because it was cheaper to dispose of those goods than to donate them to a worthwhile cause. That is an unacceptable position, and one that we should not be in, so I am really glad that the Government have brought forward clause 80 to help change that.

Clause 80 explicitly names the household goods to which the £200 limit applies—household appliances, furniture, flooring, computers, tablets and phones. As someone who is renovating a house at the moment, I am not sure whether many household appliances can be bought for £200 or less, and I do not know whether the Treasury has set that limit deliberately. When buying a tablet or phone, there are very few options under that £200 limit, and I wonder whether the limit has been drawn too narrowly to ensure that the majority of products donated will not fall under it. I would welcome the rationale from the Minister as to why £200 was chosen as the appropriate number, and what consideration the Treasury has given to widening that limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I thank the Minister for that very succinct description of the clause. He will be pleased to hear that I have only a few points to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley says, “That’s good.”

The clause allows newly created combined county authorities to reclaim VAT incurred on non-business activities, such as statutory public functions. At present, established local authorities can recover VAT on such activities under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act, but the definition does not explicitly include combined county authorities. We understand that that change took effect last year.

The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is intended to ensure fiscal neutrality for the new governance arrangements. Combined county authorities should be no worse off than traditional counties because of their form, but of course the beneficiaries are the combined authorities that are being formed under the Government’s local government reorganisation plans.

My own county of Norfolk is set to be joined with Suffolk in one of these combined county authorities, with a mayor sitting across the two counties. People in Norfolk and Suffolk were looking forward to that mayor being elected in May, until the Government cancelled our election as a late Christmas present in December. As a result, we will not have a combined county authority mayor in place and we will lose out on the £40 million that the mayor was meant to have through the investment fund.

The county council elections for the authority that will make way for the combined county authority, which will then benefit from this VAT exemption, were also cancelled. So there is more delay and uncertainty, and a loss of funding, as people look at the creation of these combined county authorities, which are the subject of the clause, and the refund that they will be able to get. The clause is sensible, but the Government’s wider plans that sit behind it are somewhat chaotic, and cancelling elections is undemocratic.

[Mr Reynolds]

Balancing VAT refund rights to ensure fairness for CCAs is, of course, welcome, and we support it. We support the idea that VAT refund rights should be balanced across groups and institutions that are similar and have a similar purpose. That is why I hope you will allow me to share some surprise, Mrs Harris, that the Government have not gone further in balancing refund rights. For example, a school with a sixth form attached can claim its VAT back, but a sixth form college cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has been campaigning on that for a significant time. In answer to a written question, the Minister confirmed that the Government are not planning to extend the VAT refund right to sixth form colleges, but they have done so for combined county authorities. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that? We all support the idea of balancing VAT refund rights, so we should surely be extending that to other situations.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am glad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead is aware of the answer to the written parliamentary question. I have also responded in writing to Members who have written to me about this issue, and the rationale has been set out in that correspondence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

UK listing relief

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effect of these clauses on putting up costs and potentially adding to inflation, which as we know has almost doubled from the rate that the Government inherited. Of course, that is partly due to the decisions that the Chancellor has taken and the huge amount she is borrowing and spending, which was not mentioned in her party’s manifesto.

To my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister must tell us what assessment has been made of the knock-on impact on consumer prices, particularly for essentials such as food that depend on road freight to get to our supermarkets and local stores. This is a time when we should be backing British logistics, not burdening it. I therefore hope that, on reflection, the Minister will accept new clause 18 as a sensible one that will help him provide that information to our constituents, to the public, and—importantly—to the logistics sector, transport operators and supermarkets.

[Mr Reynolds]

The haulage sector has seen significant challenges in recent years: increases in fuel prices, increases in wages and significant changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025, business rates and vehicle excise duty, as we see here. I would not be the investment and trade spokesman for the Liberal Democrats if I did not mention another challenge for the road haulage sector in recent years, which is the significant amount of red tape involved in Brexit, and the cost of that.

The Government’s EU reset has not touched the sides, as haulage associations have been telling us recently. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about some goods moving from the UK to France that required 29 different stamps on their paperwork. If one stamp goes in the wrong place, the vehicle gets stuck in France or sent back. That is an additional cost for the road haulage sector, on top of all these extra costs and the vehicle excise duty increases.

For example, we were told on the Business and Trade Committee about a vehicle that was sat in France for almost one month because of paperwork that was not quite correct and small technical challenges. That vehicle being sat in France for one month meant consistent driver changes and meant the freezer compartment having to be kept on to ensure that the goods did not spoil. There was a £6,000 cost to the business because of two stamps being in the incorrect place. If we add that to the £2,000 cost per truck of the changes to vehicle excise duty, we see very clearly that the significant changes that the Government are making in quick succession are not helping the sector, which needs all the support it can get.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his romantic invitation to King’s Lynn; I may be otherwise engaged on that date, but I thank him for it all the same. I am interested to see whether any Members wish to intervene to say whether they will be taking up the invitation, but it is good to hear that he is an active constituency MP.

We do, of course, look at measures in the round, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk implored me to. We did so ahead of the Budget, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on tax policy in the run-up to the Budget at the end of the year. We are providing stability this year for the private sector and for individuals by moving away from the relatively chaotic approach under the previous Government of having multiple tax events with big swings and roundabouts twice a year, so future tax changes will not come until the end of the year, but that will give me more time to consider things in the round.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I rise to speak to clause 94 and new clause 19, which stands in my name. Clause 94 makes changes to the expensive car supplement in vehicle excise duty, as the Minister referred to, specifically for zero emission vehicles. This is an extra £425 charge that applies to most cars with a list price above £40,000. Under the clause, the Government propose to increase the threshold to £50,000, but only for zero emission vehicles. That means that buyers of higher-value electric vehicles will avoid paying the charge, while the £40,000 limit still applies to petrol, diesel and hybrid cars. This change is due to take effect from April 2026.

Let us recall that, back in the Public Bill Committee on last year’s Finance Bill, one of the Opposition’s “review” new clauses called for an independent assessment of the £40,000 threshold and its impact on consumers, particularly for electric vehicle sales, because we said that it was not at the right level. The Minister’s predecessor rejected that idea, and now here we are: the Ministers have quietly decided to raise the very threshold that we urged them to raise a year ago. They are playing catch-up, but they get there in the end. Is the Minister willing to admit that they have been a bit slow to follow the points that we made? Maybe we will be here in Committee next year, talking about other clauses on which the Minister has rejected things and reversed his position.

That brings me to the hybrid point. The Government now seem to have decided that hybrids no longer warrant support, despite the fact that they are critical in bridging the transition to fully electric vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded at length on the reasoning behind that decision, and on how many jobs in the UK are dependent on the manufacture of hybrid models when a lot of our electric vehicles come from China, where the Prime Minister is now.

We are broadly supportive of the measure, having recommended it a year ago, but let us be realistic: it will not do anything for most of the households in our constituencies, who simply cannot afford a new electric vehicle, especially one that costs £50,000. That is completely out of reach for people in my constituency. I do not know whether that is also the case in constituencies nearer to London, but it is certainly the case in mine.

How does this increase fit with the wider EV policy and charging infrastructure and its roll-out? To support ordinary people up and down the country, we should be joining countries such as Canada—along with the EU, or so it looks—in scrapping the mandate forcing manufacturers to produce EV vehicles and ending the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.

New clause 19 would require a proper review of the policy, its effects on the automative sector and the impact on the sale of hybrid cars and on vehicle excise duties. It would ensure a consideration of whether the threshold remains appropriate as market prices shift.

I hope that the Government will accept this accountability and transparency in policymaking, which will benefit everyone. Will the Minister at least commit to reviewing the threshold in future, particularly if it turns out that it needs to be adjusted? Will he also look at the hybrid point?

[Mr Reynolds]

We welcome the uprating of the expensive car supplement for EVs to the value of £50,000, supporting EVs and EV take-up. However, we are surprised that during the Committee’s first sitting on Tuesday, when I asked about extending zero VAT for charging infrastructure beyond 2027, the Economic Secretary declined to do so. I am aware that the Minister who is present today was not there, but that is slightly confusing. Here, we see the Government supporting electric vehicles and increasing the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000, but not applying the same policy by supporting electric vehicles post 2027 in other clauses of the Bill.

The Economic Secretary, who was in the Minister’s place on Tuesday, is now in China; I do not know whether I should commiserate with the Minister for not being invited on that trip. We are concerned about floods of electric vehicles that are coming in from China, undercutting European and British competitors. We are worried that they will be impacted by that £50,000 change, but several British vehicles will not be. I am sure that we do not want a world in which the Government are unintentionally encouraging British residents to buy electric vehicles made in China rather than electric vehicles from Britain. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for us.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am sorry to report to the Committee that when the Chancellor and I made the decision to increase the threshold ahead of the Budget, I was not aware of the representations that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk had made in last year’s Finance Bill Committee. If I am still in my role in the run-up to the Budget later in the year, of course I will bear in mind everything he has said today. I have already taken some notes that I will take back with me.

The hon. Member is right to note the important role that hybrid vehicles play in the transition. Ultimately, however, to move towards our goal of net zero by 2050, we need to move to a fully clean vehicle fleet over the coming decades, so we want to particularly encourage fully electric vehicles.

We will keep this measure under review; it is important that we do so. This has been an ask of the car manufacturers here in the UK that we want to support. I take the points from the hon. Member for Maidenhead about making sure that consumers can buy vehicles that are produced here in Britain. I hope that a change such as this, which shows the Government’s intent to support the electric vehicle transition, will be a consideration for vehicle manufacturers as they choose where to produce new EV cars in the years to come. Along with other measures that we set out in the Budget, this shows our intention to work alongside the industry to support that transition.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised a point about how high the supplement is. He said that many constituents in rural Norfolk, but also in north London, will find it very challenging to afford to buy a new car that costs between £40,000 and £50,000. That is true in lots of parts of the country, but as I am sure he is aware, it is important that we seek to encourage those who can afford such a car to do so, because they will then sell their cars on at a cheaper value that people may be able to afford. It supports the general health of the car market overall if we can increase the affordability of these—granted—relatively expensive vehicles. That is why the Government have brought forward this change: to support the transition and to reduce the cost of purchasing new vehicles within the £40,000 to £50,000 bracket.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Clause 98 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax from 1 April, uprating them in line with the retail prices index. In practical terms, that means the standard rate will increase to £130.75 per tonne, with the lower rate applying to less polluting materials increasing by the same cash amount.

Landfill tax, as the Minister said, is intended to discourage disposal in landfill and promote recycling and recovery, and of course we support that aim. However, it is also right that we scrutinise the real-world effect of these changes on business costs, recycling rates and wider environmental outcomes. That is why we have tabled new clause 22.

According to the Budget 2025 costings document, the measure is expected to raise £35 million in 2026-27, increasing to £130 million by the end of the decade. Members will remember the intense speculation ahead of the Budget that the Government might move to a single landfill tax, and the Minister referred to a consultation. The speculation did not come from nowhere; it came from a Government consultation that proposed to do precisely that.

As such, the Minister could have been a bit more up front that this is something the Government were consulting on, presumably because they thought it might be a good idea. Indeed, I recall raising this directly with the Chancellor at Treasury questions earlier last year, where she accused me of scaremongering when I spoke about her own consultation, so I am glad that she has dropped her proposal to move to a single rate. Had she gone ahead with it, material such as topsoil could have faced a thirty-onefold increase.

The Minister kindly referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne and his video; he led a determined campaign alongside the industry to stop the reckless proposals put forward by the Chancellor. They could have added £28,000 to the cost of a new home and increased road construction costs by up to 25%.

When we asked what discussions the Treasury had had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government before coming forward with its proposal for a thirtyfold increase in the tax rate, it was clear that there had not been any. There was then a sudden panic that the 1.5 million new homes target would be sunk by the Treasury’s actions. I welcome the rethinking of this policy—I will be generous to the Minister on that—to spare the sector yet another unnecessary blow that could have worsened house building numbers and jeopardised the key infrastructure upgrades that we all want to see across the country.

So far, so good, but—and there is always a “but”—the Government’s retreat on that issue does not mean all is well with these proposals. The long-standing exemption for dredging material and its removal has caused deep concern, if the Committee will accept the pun, in the ports and water sector.

The British Ports Association, I believe, has written to the Minister as well as the Chancellor, warning that if these changes proceed unchecked, we may see

“the collapse of major industrial and development projects, particularly in ports, rivers and canals”.

I declare an interest, as King’s Lynn in my constituency has a fine historical port. Indeed, the wealth of King’s Lynn was built on our trading links with the Hanseatic League in medieval times. The knock-on effects of removing the exemption could be significant; delayed waterway clean-up projects, increased flooding in vulnerable areas, and reduced investment in our ports, which keep our country trading.

New clause 22 seeks a proper assessment of how these tax changes will affect construction and infrastructure projects, investment in ports, recycling levels and illegal dumping rates, and progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives. The Minister needs to set out how the Government are responding to address the serious concerns raised by the British Ports Association, which, if correct, could have a very damaging effect on major infrastructure. We welcome that the proposals put forward in the consultation have been ditched, but there are concerns that the Minister now needs to address.

[Mr Reynolds]

I am very glad that the Government have ditched the plan to converge the rates of landfill tax and to massively hike the charge for inert waste, adding tens of thousands of pounds to the cost of a new build home at a time when the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes. That was not joined-up government, and I am concerned at the lack of joined-up thinking when the Treasury put forward this proposal.

There are a number of gravel quarries in my Maidenhead constituency, and converging the rates would have meant that a significant number of those quarries would have gone unfilled, resulting in more quarry lakes in our town. We know that quarry lakes are dangerous: they are quite shallow until they suddenly become incredibly deep. That is dangerous when young people are out on the water or swimming, and in areas not too far from my own we have seen some unfortunate deaths as a result.

I am glad that the Government have decided to back down on this and are not going to burden the quarry sector or developments with that proposal. However, can the Minister confirm what the cost would have been to UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, and what the additional cost to the taxpayer would have been?

[Martin Wrigley]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We have a number of quarries in Newton Abbot, and the same principles apply. I am, however, doubly pleased that the extensive increase was not included in the Budget. I was taken to a local factory in Newton Abbot that makes high-value, high-performance propellers that it exports all over the world. The factory was to be put out of business, because it pours the metal into moulds of sand, and the cost of disposal of that sand would have been more than it could have borne. That would have shut down a £20 million-a-year business. I am extremely grateful that the increase has not been implemented, but I draw the Minister’s attention to such side effects when considering future proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Clause 99 will increase the aggregates levy—the tax on commercially exploited rock, sand and gravel—from April. The levy, charged per tonne of primary aggregate, is intended to encourage efficient use of materials. As colleagues will know, aggregates are fundamental to almost every form of infrastructure: they are the foundations of our roads, our concrete structures and our coastal defences. They are the essential components in so many products, from ready-mixed concrete to asphalt, lime, mortar and countless others. As the Mineral Products Association puts it so aptly,

“Aggregates provide the backbone of our world”,

and in the UK we use around 250 million tonnes every year.

New clause 23 would require the Government to assess the impact of clause 99 on the construction industry and key national infrastructure products. Although roughly a quarter of aggregate comes from recycled sources, the overwhelming majority still comes from primary extraction. Around 90% is used by the construction industry itself. While we obviously support the principle of encouraging sustainability that is behind the levy, the construction of a single home requires, on average, around 200 tonnes of aggregate and associated materials, from the foundations to the roof tiles. At a time when the Government are looking to accelerate house building, has the Minister looked at the impact of this measure on housing delivery and cost? We will not oppose clause 99, but new clause 23 would require the Government to assess its impact on construction and infrastructure projects.

The Minister set out that clause 100 and schedule 23 will simplify things for the introduction of the new Scottish aggregates tax, reducing the number of businesses that would otherwise need to account for the levy. That is a perfectly good and common-sense measure, so I have no further comment on it.

[Mr Reynolds]

Clause 99 introduces a very small increase in the rate of aggregates levy, but a small increase when dealing with massive numbers is still quite a large increase. High Speed 2, for example, is predicted to use 20 million tonnes of aggregate during phase 1. That means that the measure will add about £3.2 million to the bill for HS2, which we know is already significantly over budget. Has the Minister worked out the cost associated with money being passed from the Government to HS2 and then from HS2 back to the Government through things like the proposed aggregates levy increase?

[Dan Tomlinson]

On the question asked by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and implied in the specific question about HS2 impacts from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, the key thing is that the aggregates levy provides a price incentive to use more recycled aggregate, which we would all support, rather than virgin aggregate. Increasing the aggregates levy rate in line with inflation will ensure that the value of that price incentive does not fall in real terms.

It is important for administrative reasons and for our ability to collect tax without undue complexity that, even where services are provided ultimately for the benefit of the public sector, the taxes apply in a uniform way. It would become more complicated than it would be worth to apply the tax differently to parts of different industries, or to different contracts, depending on whether they were being used for HS2 or something else.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 23

Aggregates levy: amendments relating to disapplication of levy to Scotland

Amendments made: 27, in schedule 23, page 535, line 22, after “from” insert “premises in”.

This amendment together with Amendments 28 and 26 revises the inserted sub-paragraph (za) of regulation 13(2) of SI 2002/761 to accommodate expected changes to provisions of the law relating to Scottish aggregates tax.

Amendment 28, in schedule 23, page 535, line 23, after “Ireland” insert

“operated or used by a person registered under section 24 of the Act for any purpose specified in subsection (6) of that section”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.

Amendment 26, in schedule 23, page 535, line 24, leave out from “waters” to end of line 25.—(Dan Tomlinson.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.

Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,

That Schedule 23 be transferred to the end of line 5 on page 468.—(Dan Tomlinson.)

Clause 101

Rate of plastic packaging tax

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. It is good to converse with a new Opposition spokesman and I look forward to more conversations and discussions with him—though I do not have favourites. I want to be really clear—and I am glad to have the chance to be so—that the UK will continue to champion the free and fair trade that has benefited us so much in our history as a small, independent trading nation. We will always look to work with international partners to protect the rules-based international trading system. With this measure, we are not lapsing into protectionism and we will always make sure to balance the need to use these powers when and if they may be required in individual circumstances, with a continued focus on the need to be open because that is the route to sustained and long-term prosperity for a country with an economic and geopolitical position such as ours.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107

Dumping and subsidisation investigations

[Mr Reynolds]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 107, page 129, line 32, at end insert—

“(10) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact statement setting out—

(a) the evidence on which the Secretary of State has concluded that the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) have been met,

(b) an assessment of the potential impact on consumer prices and UK supply chains,

(c) the reasons why a direction is considered necessary in the circumstances, and

(d) whether coordination with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, has been considered.

(11) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect if, within the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement under sub-paragraph (10) is laid, either House of Parliament resolves that the direction should be annulled.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an impact statement before directing the TRA to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation, and would give Parliament the power to annul such directions within 21 sitting days.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 45, in clause 107, page 129, line 43, at end insert—

“(6A) In paragraph 17, at end insert—

‘(11) Before making a recommendation under paragraph 17, the TRA must prepare and publish an assessment of—

(a) the likely impact of the proposed anti-dumping amount or countervailing amount on consumer prices,

(b) the effect on UK businesses that use the goods subject to investigation as inputs in their production processes,

(c) the overall impact on the UK economy, including benefits to UK producers and costs to UK consumers and supply chains, and

(d) whether a lower duty than the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy would be sufficient to remedy any injury to UK industry.

(12) The Secretary of State must have regard to the assessment made under sub-paragraph (11) when making a decision on whether to accept the TRA's recommendation and at what level to set any anti-dumping or countervailing duties.’”

This amendment would require the Trade Remedies Authority to assess and publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties.

Clause stand part.

Clause 108 stand part.

[Mr Reynolds]

Amendments 44 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and I, strengthen the democratic accountability in our trade remedies system. Trade remedies exist to protect British businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition from goods dumped below cost or artificially subsidised. Since Brexit, the Trade Remedies Authority has operated as our independent investigation body. That independence matters, because trade remedy decisions affect jobs, consumer prices, business costs and our international relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will not expound on the detail of the clauses, but I will explain why the Government cannot accept the amendments.

On amendment 44, any public disclosure of evidence before an investigation is formally launched risks undermining it. The formal initiation of an investigation is a defined procedural step, and once an investigation has been formally initiated, the TRA may recommend the imposition of provisional duties. If there was a gap between publicly disclosing evidence and initiating an investigation, it might incentivise exporters to increase shipments of the goods concerned into the UK to avoid potential future duties. It would also risk contravening our international World Trade Organisation obligations. The rules are clear that authorities must avoid publicising the application for an investigation before a decision has been made to initiate it. To our knowledge, no such parliamentary veto exists in comparable trade remedy systems internationally, but I assure the House that the process will remain transparent and led by the evidence.

On amendment 45, the Trade Remedies Authority is already required by our domestic legislation to publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties. As part of its dumping and subsidisation investigations, the Trade Remedies Authority must advise the Secretary of State on whether and how any recommended anti-dumping or countervailing duties would meet the economic interest test as set out in legislation. The Secretary of State must then have regard to that advice when considering whether to accept or reject the recommendation. This advice is included in the TRA’s published reports across the case life cycle, including a statement of essential facts, which is included on the public file ahead of a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

Since he has given me leave to do so, I will write to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, on his specific question.

[Mr Reynolds]

It is important to remember that one can support both free trade and protection against unfair dumping—they are not mutually exclusive—and I think the amendments strike a balance between them transparently. Amendment 44 gives Parliament meaningful oversight of ministerial decisions to initiate investigations, and amendment 45 ensures that decisions account for impacts on consumers and businesses relying on imported inputs. Together, they strengthen democratic accountability while maintaining our ability to act against unfair trading practices. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thoughts on amendment 44 when we push it to a vote.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and on the Committee considering this 536-page doorstop of a Bill. We are grateful for the written contributions and evidence provided to the Committee, but I think the usual channels should consider having oral evidence sessions for future Finance Bills, so that people can make important representations on significant pieces of legislation.

I will turn to clause 13 and new clause 24 tabled in my name. We need to have an enterprise economy that incentivises investment. The tax regime clearly has an important role to play in helping to achieve that, and in doing so, backing much needed growth in the economy. Clause 13 amends the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 to expand the enterprise management incentives scheme. That scheme helps attract, keep and motivate staff by allowing employees to buy shares in the company with tax advantages. That includes no income tax or national insurance contributions at the time of grant and exercise, with gains eventually being taxed under the more favourable capital gains regime, rather than as income tax.

The changes in the clause should make it easier for start-ups and growing companies to use the enterprise management incentives scheme, helping them reward staff and link employees’ success to the company’s growth. That is something that we support and the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association has also welcomed the change. The clause increases the company options limit from £3 million to £6 million, raises the gross asset limit from £30 million to £120 million, and doubles the employee limit from 250 to 500. It also extends the exercise period to 15 years. These are all welcome changes.

However, one important element that is not due to change under these provisions is that the scheme allows qualifying companies to grant employee share options up to a maximum value of £250,000 per individual. Has the Minister considered going further and raising the cap beyond £250,000 to attract the brightest and best to grow businesses?

In its report on competitiveness, published yesterday, TheCityUK states that,

“the UK’s tax schemes such as…Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI) offer lower relief thresholds and tighter eligibility than international equivalents such as the Qualified Small Business Stock regime in the US, weakening incentives to scale and retain activity domestically.”

I have tabled new clause 24, which would require the Government to assess and report to Parliament on the impact that the changes have on the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative companies and on the Exchequer.

The Minister referred to the tax information and impact note, but clearly that is a forecast of what the Government hope will happen, not a review of what has actually happened. I think that will be a debate that we have many times as we consider the Bill: a TIIN is not a review of what has actually happened. The numbers that the Minister gave may be higher or lower, but we need to have a post-implementation review.

According to the Budget 2025 policy costings, the objective is to increase eligibility to allow scale-ups, as well as start-ups, to access the scheme. That is, of course, something we support. Will the Minister commit to keeping the scheme under review to ensure it is delivering on its aims to support high-growth firms and to consider whether further action, such as on the individual threshold, is needed?

Given the substantial investment, can the Minister clarify what behavioural assumptions underpin these projections? How many companies just above the existing threshold are expected to utilise these expanded limits? The BVCA has said that the enterprise management incentives scheme is

“long overdue for reform: high growth companies are often unable to grant EMI options due to the constraints of the £30m gross assets and 250 employee limits.”

Does the Minister have figures showing how much these limits have actually restricted growth?

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, on what is not only my first Finance Bill Committee, but my first Bill Committee—a nice, simple one to start me off. The Liberal Democrats welcome the changes made by clause 13. We need to support our British start-ups and British start-up culture to grow and develop.

We would of course like the Government to go further than clause 13 in what they promise. We need to ensure that we have a British start-up culture where start-ups do not, after five or 10 years, head off to the United States, taking that capital and leaving the UK with a brain drain. I have only one question to the Minister: how can we go further to ensure that once we have implemented the Bill, we will be in a position to say that fantastic UK companies will not head overseas, taking that capital and culture with them?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a series of important points. I come back to the fact that the Government have opened a call for evidence on tax in this area. The Committee will come to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, which the call for evidence also covers. Importantly, the call for evidence covers the changes we have made to the enterprise management incentives scheme. All of those changes, as well as the clauses we are about to discuss, are important to the Government’s objective of making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and I encourage any views to be fed into that call for evidence.

The hon. Member referred to an important report from TheCityUK and PwC; I attended its launch yesterday. I am pleased to tell him that the Government’s objectives on the growth of financial services very much align with that report. Our objectives and the report have much in common, but most importantly, we share the sense of urgency and ambition that it outlines.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to his desire to see more companies remain in the UK. That is imperative, and it is behind the Government’s reforms to a series of tax incentives in this area. We believe that the UK is already the best place in the world to start a company, and we have to make sure that it continues to be, but it must also be the best place to scale and to list a company. That is why the reforms are so important—so that companies stay.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Amendment made: 38, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, for “(7)” substitute “(8)”.—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment is consequential on the addition of a new subsection by Amendment 37.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Enterprise investment scheme: increase in amounts and asset requirements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister for her comments, but we are concerned about the unintended consequences of the three clauses.

We are concerned about how clause 17 will affect automotive industry jobs and vehicle sales. Approximately 76,000 workers use ECOS, across 1,900 medium-sized and large businesses. Those workers have utilised ECOS for essential, affordable and reliable personal transport. We believe that the clause risks making ECOS vehicles unaffordable for the workers who currently use them. In fact, using the scheme arrangements and paying tax from 2030 to 2032 onwards means that such workers face, in effect, a pay cut. That is especially unfair because those people who most use the schemes rely on a vehicle for their job much more than those in most other industries. There is a risk of further knock-on effects on the automotive industry if workers abandon ECOS completely.

The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Mike Hawes, who is one of the leading voices in the automotive industry, has expressed strong disapproval of the Government proposal to change ECOS. That is because 100,000 cars are provided through the schemes each and every year, which alone amounts to 5% of the new-car market in the UK. The SMMT predicts that changing the schemes will endanger 5,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK; it claims that that will bring about a loss of half a billion pounds a year due to fewer sales, lost VAT and lost vehicle excise duty receipts. That more than outweighs the £275 million in revenue that the Treasury predicts it will take within the first year of the tax changes taking effect.

We do not feel that clause 18 adequately protects the automotive industry and its workers. Under current ECOS arrangements, employers can sell a vehicle to an employee below market value, at a discounted price. For many employers, that has acted as an additional benefit to form a competitive employee recruitment package and has helped to improve staff retention. These criteria effectively stipulate that vehicles must be sold on the same terms as in the open market. Although exempt employers will not pay benefit-in-kind tax, they will inevitably have to pay a higher price for the vehicle itself. The SMMT estimates that that could become unaffordable for its members’ staff and automotive workers. The knock-on effects outlined in the discussion of clause 17 will remain. Fewer employees will be attracted to purchasing a vehicle. That will lead to fewer employers purchasing vehicles from car manufacturers, and the risk to manufacturing jobs and lost revenue will therefore still apply.

Clause 19 aims temporarily to ease the benefit-in-kind tax treatment for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. We understand the intention behind this legislative change. We want people to take up low-emission electric vehicles, and the taxation system is an effective tool to encourage that. We are also conscious that stricter emission tests will be implemented over time. That could push plug-in hybrid emission vehicles into higher emission bands, and more tax will therefore be paid on them in the future. The knock-on effects on electric car manufacturers and the environment could be stark.

Clause 19 is part of the same package that endangers jobs in the automotive manufacturing industry, which will lead to a loss of about £500 million in VAT and vehicle excise duty receipts. Automotive News has reported on the progress of electrified vehicle registrations: it says that in October 2025 PHEV registrations rose by 27.2%, and that electrified vehicles represented the majority of new car registrations, at 50.8%. The SMMT says that in 2025 the new car market reached 2 million units for the first time since 2019. It predicts that the removal of ECOS could undo the progress that electrified vehicles, including PHEVs, have achieved by denying workers affordable access to new and increasingly zero emission vehicles.

CBVC Vehicle Management has said that these measures continue to make PHEVs look attractive in the short term, but the chief executive, Mike Manners, has advised people considering a PHEV to look at the benefit-in-kind tax implications and avoid their lease running into the tax year 2028-29. The benefit-in-kind easement is temporary until 6 April 2028.

Anthony Cox of RSM UK says that manufacturers do not expect that the reforms will push people into using electric cars. He states that employees of manufacturers and retailers could instead seek out older or less clean cars to purchase, outside any employer or employee management arrangements.

The point is that there are unintended consequences to the clauses. Although we will not oppose them, we want the Minister to take into account the fact that the Government may not get what they want out of them.

[Mr Reynolds]

The Liberal Democrats share the concerns of the SMMT. Given that the sector is struggling with severe uncompetitiveness across the country, anything that undoes the progress that the Government are seeking to make would not be welcome. Nissan tells us that its plant in Sunderland is the most expensive for electricity of any of its plants worldwide. That is not good for British business or for British car manufacturers. The SMMT worries that these proposals will not be good for British car manufacturers either.

On clause 18, we would like some draft guidance on proposed new section 116A to be published this year and consulted on. A number of the definitions could be clarified to give the industry some certainty about what will and will not be included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to make a short contribution while you are in the Chair. On clause 20, I will not echo the point that has just been made, but the Minister will have seen the written evidence submitted by the Association of Taxation Technicians, which discussed potentially widening the new initiative of including flu vaccinations in expenditure deductible from employment income, so that it also includes covid vaccinations. Has the Minister given that any thought?

On clause 22, it is a pleasure to see the Employment Rights Act being enacted and to address shifts being missed by people on zero-hours contracts, such as those in my constituency. It probably takes us into a wider debate that the Opposition have raised about having oral evidence sessions. It is clear from the evidence pack that the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Association of Taxation Technicians and other taxation professionals have quite a lot of comments to make. If submissions on the clause were opened to my constituents, I am sure that there would be mass evidence from the public saying how much of a good thing it is. Does the Minister have any comments on that?

[Mr Reynolds]

Clause 21 will increase unfairness. Those required to work from home are currently divided into two groups: one group who receive reimbursement for costs without incurring income tax but are not reimbursed by their employer, and another group who take that via a taxation route. This measure will exacerbate that split and create a greater divide between the two. Where two employees hold exactly the same position or role, but in different companies, one may receive the payment and the other may not. The figures suggest that about 300,000 people will be affected by this measure. Can the Minister comment on how we can be in a position whereby two employees in the same job, but with different employers, are treated differently for tax purposes?

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to vaccinations and asked about the extent to which covid vaccinations might be part of the scheme. We are limiting relief to flu vaccinations because employers have consistently highlighted them as a common relief in relation to which reimbursement would be helpful. Flu vaccinations are low in cost, seasonal and widely offered by employers as part of routine health support to employees. By contrast, other vaccinations vary significantly in cost and frequency. Importantly, however, many of them can be accessed free through the NHS.

As you might expect, Sir Roger, I completely reject the shadow Minister’s assertion that any of these measures is an attack on private sector workers. Not at all—far from it.

It is important to be clear that clause 21 will not impact employers’ existing ability to reimburse employees for costs relating to home working, where eligible, without deducting income tax and national insurance contributions.

The question of national insurance was raised in relation to clause 22 on payments for cancelled shifts. These payments will be subject to national insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was entirely right to refer to the Employment Rights Act and its significance. I think I am right in saying that a question was also raised about the taxable nature of payments for cancelled shifts. I can confirm that payments received for short-notice shift cancellations or changes are regarded as earnings. They are paid in lieu of the payment that workers would have received had they completed the shift, and as such they are taxable in all relevant scenarios, irrespective of the arrangement or the employment structure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Umbrella companies

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

The Conservatives welcome the independent review and the thrust of clause 25. If we were to have a criticism, it would be to do with fairness, on which we had concerns shared with us by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. A key objective of the McCann review, which the Minister referred to and which was set up by the Government, was to ensure fairness for all taxpayers. However, by not extending the more generous settlement opportunity to those who have already fully settled and/or paid the loan charge, the provision arguably does not achieve fairness for all taxpayers. It will effectively put those who chose not to comply with their tax obligations in a better position than those who did. That could create perverse incentives, harm future tax compliance and damage trust in the tax system. Could the Minister provide a little more detail as to why the Government have excluded those who have already settled their claims?

[Mr Reynolds]

New clause 25, which I hope to press to a Division, would require the Government to undertake a report to consider a number of issues pertinent to the loan charge settlement scheme outlined in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the settlement opportunity should be fair to everybody affected, including those who have already paid or settled, so as to ensure that people outside the loan charge years are not treated differently without clear reason. Unequal treatment can create the perception of unfairness, even if the policy is technically and soundly legal. It seems to us that if perceived unfairness in the system could be reduced, we should strive to do so, in order to protect the public’s trust in HMRC and the wider tax system. Is it right that someone who has already settled should be ineligible for the loan charge settlement? Surely, that tells people that in future they should just hold off and not settle or come to agreement, because that will leave them in a better position.

[James Wild]

We will look sympathetically on the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses if he chooses to press them to a vote. I have constituents who were heavily pressured by HMRC and ended up settling, which left them at a considerable financial loss, so I share his concern that those people, who were effectively bullied by HMRC, will now not get the same support as people who held out.

[Mr Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. The place we are in now is that someone who settled and came to an agreement with HMRC is excluded from the opportunity laid out in the Bill. That means that when something like this happens again—and we all know that it will—those individuals will not want to come to an agreement with HMRC. They will know that if they hold off, a better solution and a better agreement will come through.

The report required by new clause 25 would outline a range of things, including whether the loan charge settlement opportunity is available to individuals who have settled, which is really important and something that we need to ensure; whether the settlement opportunity applies to individuals with disguised remuneration outside the loan charge years; and the extent of the impact of differential treatment between those two groups and those who are eligible. The extent of the impact is the most important thing, because for those individuals it will be severe. The report would also include an assessment of whether extending more favourable settlement terms to excluded groups would improve fairness and consistency with HMRC overall.

[Lucy Rigby]

The purpose of the review, as I think is well known, was to bring the matter to a close for those who had not yet settled and paid their loan charge liability to HMRC. That by its very nature meant focusing on open cases and outstanding liabilities. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, referred to something like this happening again. I think we would all agree that we hope it does not. However, we would probably also agree that it is crucial that any resolution to this issue is fair to the wider tax-paying population that has never avoided tax.

The Government believe that this settlement opportunity is the most pragmatic solution to draw a line under the issue for as many individuals with outstanding liabilities as possible. The settlement opportunity being provided is substantially more generous than any opportunity HMRC has previously offered and will substantially reduce the outstanding liabilities of people who have yet to settle with HMRC, particularly those with the lowest liabilities. Most individuals, as I said, could see reductions of at least 50% in their outstanding loan charge liabilities. We estimate that 30% of individuals could have their liabilities written off entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister talks about a stop-start approach from this Government. I find that a bit brass neck, to be frank, considering the record of the previous Government, who shifted the dates and forced all sorts of investment with regard to EVs.

I welcome the measure. As part of the just transition, it is important to encourage the roll-out of EV infrastructure and charging points, particularly in rural constituencies such as mine where that is a significant challenge. Members will not be surprised to hear that I do not support the official Opposition’s new clause, but there is an important debate about how we ensure that investment is rolled out more equitably into constituencies such as mine. I ask the Minister to comment on how the Government see the roll-out of EV infrastructure in areas where there are issues with the electricity grid and network, so that the just transition can happen in those areas as well.

[Mr Reynolds]

The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support electrifying our vehicle fleet. It is a shame that some other political parties and politicians have stopped at a red traffic light when it comes to electrification. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I will not make any more traffic jokes—apologies.

That is why it is quite concerning to see the 2027 expiry date for the capital allowance. When potential EV owners are surveyed, their biggest concern is charging their vehicles, and it is the same for big employers. We all know that businesses need long-term security and a long-term commitment. That is why businesses were not doing well under the last Government, and why they retreated when the 2024 Budget brought in so many changes for businesses.

Long-term security is clearly what businesses need to invest. One-year extensions on top of one-year extensions do not give the certainty that businesses need to invest in the electrification of fleets—they need to do it this year or not at all. Once we take away that capital bid, it is very difficult to get back, so I would like to see that changed.

[James Wild]

The hon. Member and I agree about the importance of long-term certainty. People who are watching the proceedings may wonder why we did not just table an amendment to extend the scope to 2030, but due to the narrowness of the measures passed by the House, we are unable to do so. As I weigh up whether to push my new clause to a vote in a few weeks’ time, will the hon. Member consider supporting it?

[Mr Reynolds]

We can look into whether to support new clause 3 in a few weeks’ time. There seems to be very little in the new clause that we as Liberal Democrats would not support. Let us face it: we need to review the impact of the 2027 expiry date. We do not believe that the allowance should expire in 2027; it needs to be extended significantly further, so we would certainly consider supporting a review of whether 2027 is the right place.

That is my question for the Minister, really: why are we saying that the expiry date will be in 2027? Will we all be sitting here excitedly after the next Budget, looking at a 2028 expiry date, and so on for 2029 and 2030?

[Lucy Rigby]

On new clause 3, I think I have been as full as I can. The Government annually review the rates and thresholds of taxes and reliefs to ensure that they are appropriate and reflect the current state of the economy. We therefore do not need the review that is suggested in new clause 3.

On the broader points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we are, as I say, fully committed to supporting our automotive sector. On the suggestion that we might look further ahead, the Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events in the context of the public finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is right that support for infrastructure in this area is critical; indeed, that is the wider policy of the Government. On the suggestion from the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we might go beyond one year, we need to balance support for the industry with the impact on the public finances.

In our debate on clause 30, we have had “stop-start”, “accelerate”, “full throttle” and “red light”. I now encourage the Committee to greenlight the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Clause 35 introduces a 50% chargeable gain on shares sold by a company to an EOT. That will have a direct effect on trustees’ ability to benefit company employees. The 2014 Conservative Government introduced 100% capital gains tax relief to incentivise companies to transition to EOT models. EOTs have benefited employees by rewarding and motivating them—for example, by distributing annual tax-free bonuses of up to £3,600 a year to each employee. These tax changes would hurt employees most of all.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” from November 2025 forecasted that this will raise just £900 million a year on average from 2027 to 2028. However, the OBR also gave this measure a “very high” uncertainty ranking. The OBR highlighted the fact that these tax changes could have a behavioural effect: company owners would instead hold on to their shares for longer before realising gains. That means that company owners will slow the flow of shares they sell to trustees, so trustees will receive far fewer shares and, as a result, less value will be passed on to employees.

It is worth mentioning the commentary from other organisations. The Financial Times reported that tax advisers have warned against this measure and are concerned that entrepreneurs would have to cover the tax bill before they receive the proceeds of the sale. Chris Etherington of RSM UK is concerned that these changes will slow the pace of change to EOTs. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation stated that this was a “good reform” and supports withdrawing relief entirely. This is not very popular, and there is a high uncertainty of it even raising any revenue.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

New clause 28 in my name would require HMRC to assess the potential benefits of establishing a digital application process for taxpayers to pay capital gains tax by instalments in respect of disposal to employee ownership trusts. The digital application process would make it far easier for taxpayers to apply to pay capital gains tax by instalments, reducing delays and administrative burden. The Government aim to make tax digital—this digital application process would be a small way to help to get there. It would help to ensure that the new relief works in practice, not just in theory, smoothing the implementation process and ensuring that taxpayers know where they stand. The digital process could help improve speed, accuracy and the consistent handling of instalment applications. Including this requirement in the Bill would promote modernisation and better taxpayer services and would signal that HMRC should consider practical delivery as well as policy. I hope the Minister will support it.

New clause 29, also tabled in my name, would require the Chancellor to lay a report before the House on the impact of clause 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is fairly simple. It would explain whether clause 35 is achieving the policy goal by tracking the number of employee-ownership trust transactions compared to previous years. Not until we are in the process will we actually know what the impact will be. By tracking the numbers, we can see whether the policy the Government are undertaking has been a success. I hope the Minister will support it.

[Lucy Rigby]

To the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, it is important to bear in mind that on the changes we are making to EOTs, even post these changes, the relief that will be on offer remains more generous than for many other options and deeds, such as business asset disposal relief. Of course, the fiscal climate is relevant to the changes we are making. He referred to the point at which the last Government introduced this relief, but as I said, the cost of the relief as a whole is projected to rise to £2 billion by 2029-30 without the action that we are taking. As I said, the fiscal climate is extremely relevant when looking at £2 billion of relief.

Importantly, the Employee Ownership Association has stated that the changes we are making are not such as to alter the fundamental strength and purpose of the employee ownership trust model, while also recognising that the previous level of relief, or the level of relief as it stands, was hard to sustain when set against the rapidly escalating fiscal cost. On the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, I set out the reasons why we reject new clauses 28 and 29. I maintain the position of rejecting those and maintaining clause 35 as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Anti-avoidance: collective investment scheme reconstructions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

This is a small administrative change but a significant one. I share concerns about awareness on this topic and how the public will know that this has changed. For individuals who have been doing this for a significant period of time, the change will be quite significant for them. I would like to know how the Government will communicate that change to the public—what advice will be put forward, and how people will be made aware of it—rather than them being expected to know that the Government have made changes. I am pretty sure the public have not read all the pages of the Bill and understood them precisely—even though I know we all have. We would all like to how the public will be made aware of this.

[Lucy Rigby]

While it is important to be clear about the fact that the additional data is being collected, the details required from taxpayers are brief, and that goes to the question of the additional burden or, indeed, lack thereof. They are brief details of the type of business, the tax calculations for the assets disposed of, and the value of the shares received for the business. The information HMRC requests will be used in analysis and compliance activity, which will tackle abuse of this relief for the benefit of the majority of taxpayers who apply the rules correctly.

The point on awareness was fairly raised. I can confirm that new guidance will be provided alongside the self-assessment return.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Non-residents: cell companies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I rise to speak clause 53 and new clause 7, which was tabled in my name. My comments will reflect submissions from people involved in the charitable sector and my discussions with them. The clause extends the allowable purpose to all categories of recognisable charitable investment—at present, it applies to only one, but it will cover all 12. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has raised a suggestion that the test be reframed from

“for the sole purpose of”

to “wholly or mainly” to the benefit of the charity. The concern is that there could be increased obligations for compliance on trustees who have to demonstrate that their every investment in, for example, their portfolio was made for the benefit of the charity rather than an ancillary purpose therein. Was that more flexible approach something that the Government have considered, and if so why did they chose to reject it?

[Mr Reynolds]

As the Minister has outlined, clause 53 extends the purpose test from one category to all 12 categories. What guidance will HMRC provide for charity trustees to determine where the line is to be drawn between a legitimate investment strategy and those that are seen as having an ulterior purpose, because anti-avoidance should not penalise prudent charitable investment strategies?

Can the Minister also confirm exactly which charity sector bodies were consulted on these provisions and how they responded to that consultation, because many charity trustees are volunteers and this seems to place a significantly larger burden on those charity trustee volunteers to determine where to draw the line? It would be interesting to see what the consultation came back with as to where they would see that line and how they would attribute it.

[Lucy Rigby]

In answer to the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, as in relation to the previous clauses, I can confirm that HMRC will be coming forward with guidance that will make clear the exact scope of the changes and what needs to happen on behalf of charities in order to ensure compliance. The compliance changes apply equally to all charities regardless of size.

I come back to the statement that I recognise I have made repeatedly: these changes, along with those in the previous clause, are designed to protect the integrity of charitable tax reliefs. Although some smaller charities may need to review processes, the measures are proportionate and targeted at preventing abuse—not burdening charities, which in the main do incredibly good work.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, questioned whether some specific wording had been considered as part of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot confirm that now, and will have to get back to him in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Tainted charity donations: replacement of purpose test with outcome test

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

We take all impacts on the hospitality sector and the pub sector extremely seriously, and this Government are proud to be backing British pubs across the piece.

The changes we are making will help to ensure that, as a country, we live within our means, that we balance the books and that we properly fund the public services we all rely on. On Second Reading, concerns were raised about the impact of alcohol duty on the hospitality sector and British pubs. We have made it clear, as I just have, that we are steadfast supporters of British pubs and the wider hospitality sector, including through the introduction of the new pro-growth licensing policy framework that was announced at the Budget.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Minister just said that the Government are pro-pubs, but any pub she speaks to in my constituency will tell her that this Government are not pro-pubs. The amount of profit left at the end of a pint for a pub is minuscule, and it is so far from reality to say that the Government are pro-pubs. How does she respond to all the pubs across the country that are crying out for change?

[Lucy Rigby]

I was talking about our new pro-growth licensing policy framework, which was announced in the Budget. If the hon. Member is referring specifically to business rates, as I think he might be, we have made it clear that we are continuing to talk to the sector about any support beyond the existing £4.3 billion support package that the Chancellor announced in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I am sure that the hon. Member is welcome, but let us be clear that some are not.

If I go into a pub, I do not think I will find many publicans who think that this Government are pro-pub. We have a Chancellor who said that she did not understand the impact that her Budget, the revaluation and the removal of the discount on business rates would have. That is staggering. Frankly, it shows once again that she does not understand business and was not listening when the sector and many others warned that that was precisely the impact that her policy would have.

The Chancellor is reportedly about to do a U-turn on her business rates raid. She has not come to the House yet to inform us or the sector, but what is being briefed is likely to be wholly inadequate. On the radio this morning we heard Ministers saying that the impact will be limited to pubs, but the hospitality sector, leisure businesses and retail all face huge increases in business rates.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Does the shadow Minister agree that if this Labour climbdown is happening, it is not enough for there to be a smaller increase than the one that was planned? There needs to be no increase in business rates.

Clause 1

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Has the Treasury done any analysis of the amount of that tax increase that will be passed on to renters, and if it has, what has it come out with?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The main drivers of rental prices in the UK are supply and demand. The Government are seeking to do all we can to reform and improve our planning system to increase the number of homes being built. If Liberal Democrat Members are keen on making sure that we support households with the cost of living, I hope they will change their approach to their votes in this place on our planning reforms, which are vital for supporting families with the cost of living and for lowering the cost of renting and owning their own home.

As I was saying, this change will narrow the gap between the tax paid on work and the tax paid on income from assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one point: the welfare system that we inherited was failing. Our Government need to correct the mistakes that meant welfare spending was running out of control, as it was when the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We must carefully consider the welfare system and make reforms that support people into work and ensure that the forecast budget increases are sustainable for the public finances. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough on that point.

I have not heard the £12,000 statistic before, but I would caution against such statistics, which often appear in the press. Many welfare claimants up and down the country are pensioners who receive the state pension. I do not know whether that figure includes the state pension—Members of all parties, with the exception of the shadow Chancellor, support the triple lock—or the many welfare payments for families with someone in work. We are trying to reduce the need to support working families with welfare payments, through increases to the national living wage and steps to boost productivity. I would say that that figure is a misrepresentation—not that I would accuse the right hon. Member for Gainsborough of misrepresenting the facts—because it uses the word “welfare” as a catch-all, when many people who receive support from the state need that support and benefit from it in a reasonable way, including those who lose their jobs, whom we support through jobseeker’s allowance, for example.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

Go on, but then I really should make progress.

[Mr Reynolds]

I will be brief—the Minister might even be able to give me a one-word answer. In 2024, the Chancellor said that she had come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Does the Minister agree, then, that he is proposing to hurt working people?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I encourage the hon. Member to listen back to what I said earlier in my speech. I and this Government are not shying away from the fact that at the end of the decade, we are freezing income tax thresholds for a further three years, after the seven years—if I recall correctly—that they were frozen under the previous Government. That decision enables us to raise more revenue—the amount set out by the OBR—at the end of the decade and in a way that means that we can stick to our clear manifesto commitment not to increase the rate of tax. We have looked across the tax system. I am sure that the Opposition Front Benchers will enjoy line-by-line scrutiny in the Bill Committee, when we will go through the other changes we have made to the tax system to reduce our ask of working people via the extension of the threshold freeze at the end of the decade.

Clause 9 maintains the starting rate for the savings limit at its current level of £5,000 from the 2026-27 tax year until 6 April 2031. The starting rate for savings must be legislated for each year to confirm the band of savings income to which it applies. In addition to the starting rate for savings—eligible individuals can earn up to £5,000 in savings income, free of tax—savers are supported by the personal savings allowance, which provides up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income for basic rate taxpayers. Savers will also continue to benefit from the annual ISA allowance of £20,000. As a result of those measures, in 2025-26, around 85% of savers pay no tax whatsoever on their savings income.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

It is about choices—choices to invest in the health service so that people can return to work and contribute to the economy. There is nothing more heartbreaking than being a constituency MP and listening to people who have been waiting for over two years for a hip operation and cannot work. It is about choices to invest in infrastructure and in new nuclear power stations. These are the choices that the Government are making, and I am proud of them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is about choices, but will he accept one of the choices that the Chancellor has made? Even though hospitality employs less than 7% of people in the UK, since she has come into office, the number of jobs lost in that sector is almost 100,000—50% of total job losses? The Chancellor has made a choice in the Budget, and that choice is to lose swathes of jobs throughout hospitality, including making many young people—whose first jobs are often in the hospitality industry—unemployable.

[John Grady]

I have worked in hospitality. I am not sure I was particularly successful at it, but there is a macro point here—an important point not to lose sight of. We hear from Opposition Members objection after objection to the Chancellor’s decisions, but no credible alternatives.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people across Britain are still living with the consequences of what the previous Government did in that mini-Budget, when they sidelined the OBR. In fact, one of the reasons we are so keen to protect and strengthen the OBR’s integrity is the vital role it plays in our fiscal framework. The very first Bill passed by this Government included the fiscal lock, which now prevents the OBR from being sidelined.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Chancellor announced in the Budget that she would legislate for only one assessment of the fiscal rules every year, instead of two, which is the case at the moment. In the light of the change in the OBR’s leadership, will the Minister commit today to seeking the views of the incoming chair of the OBR about the economic and fiscal impact of that decision before the Government plough ahead with it?

[James Murray]

I want to be clear about what the OBR is required to do and what the Chancellor announced last week in the Budget. The OBR is required to produce two forecasts a year, and the Chancellor will commission a second forecast in due course. As she announced in the Budget, however, that forecast will not include an assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond with fiscal policy.

Budget: Press Briefings

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As I have said already today, there is, regrettably, always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget, but I am not going to contribute toward that speculation.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Businesses in Maidenhead tell me that what they want to see in the Budget—the one bit of speculation that they want to hear at the moment—is for the Chancellor to just leave them alone. That is an outrageous thing for them to have to think, and it is because of what they think the Chancellor will do at the Budget. Given the damage that has been caused by our current Brexit deal, does the Minister understand that we could look to generate £25 billion a year for our economy by negotiating a new EU-UK customs union? It is very simple.