Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government are committed to ensuring that world-leading capital markets support our firms to raise the capital they need to continue to grow and invest. Clause 82 introduces UK listing relief, which means that transfers of a company’s securities will be subject to relief from stamp duty reserve tax for the first three years after the company lists in the UK.

Stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty are charges on transfers of UK securities. They are vital sources of revenue for the Exchequer, and combined they are forecast to raise up to £5.3 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. The Government are focused on ensuring that the UK is the best place for firms to start, scale, list and stay, and we have delivered an ambitious programme of reforms to build on those strong foundations.

The changes made by the clause will remove the 0.5% stamp duty reserve tax charge on the transfer of a company’s securities for three years from the point at which the company lists its shares on a UK-regulated market. That will enable newly listed companies to secure higher share prices, boost trading volumes and improve access to capital.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is great to hear the Minister talking about making the City of London a pre-eminent place in which to grow and list companies, and this is a very welcome measure. However, if he accepts that stamp duty is what has been holding back the listing of shares, why do the Government not go the whole hog and get rid of stamp duty altogether, thereby making the City of London comparable with pretty much every other major developed stock market in the world?

[Dan Tomlinson]

As the hon. Member knows, there are always trade-offs to be considered in taxation policy design. As I have just outlined, there is around £5 billion of revenue here. We must ensure we get the balance right between raising revenue and continuing to support growth and the ability of companies to grow and invest in the UK.

We did make changes at the Budget, for example to venture capital trusts, enterprise investment schemes and enterprise management incentives to encourage start-ups in particular to scale up in the UK, as one of our frontier sectors seeing growth. We have made changes to support that. I note the Opposition’s perspective, but on balance we think this is a good change to make on its own. We look forward to seeing the impact that it will have and we will continue to keep our tax measures under review.

New clause 15 would require the Chancellor to publish, within 12 months, a report on the potential benefits of extending the period in which the UK listing relief applies beyond three years. The Government have carefully considered the scope of this relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are crucial for companies as they endeavour to establish long-term viability on public markets, with the most vital period being the initial one or two years. However, our judgment is that the benefits of significantly extending the relief beyond this period would not represent best value for money, as the Exchequer cost would increase while the benefits for firms would diminish with each additional year. I therefore commend clause 82 to the Committee and ask that new clause 15 be rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Indeed, Mrs Harris. I respect your judgment and authority in such matters.

As I said, the Government carefully considered the scope of the relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are vital in establishing longer-term liquidity, the most important period coming right at the start. The benefits of extending the relief significantly beyond that period, in our judgment, would not represent value for money for the taxpayer.

[Mark Garnier]

The Minister talks about value for money and the cost, but the alternative is that there will be no listings, so it does not cost anything because this is revenue that the Government would not otherwise have. If they levy this stamp duty, people will not list—they will go to other markets. If they remove it, people will list. There is not actually any change in the revenue to the Government. I do not understand why they cannot extend it. It is not lost revenue because it never would have been generated in the first place.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Of course there will be companies that will list under the current tax regime, and changing the tax would lead to lower revenues for the companies that would have listed anyway. We have to look at both sides of the coin. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

We will not oppose the clauses, but the Government need to continue to look at these issues in the round. The higher vehicle excise duty rates and the higher levy rates for HGVs feed directly into the cost of moving goods around the country. That means the food on our shelves—food inflation is already increasing, making the weekly shop and people’s meal deals more expensive. The logistics sector moves around the building materials we need for our crucial construction industry—I believe there is a big target of 1.5 million new homes, which depends on getting the materials to the right places. Costs added to the logistics sector are going to end up in the cost of buying a house, which is why proposals such as scrapping stamp duty on home purchases are very good ideas.

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point about the inflationary effect of these taxes. He has mentioned houses, and we know that the Bank of England is charged with using monetary policy to keep inflation under control. The direct effect of this measure could be an increase in interest rates, and therefore an increase in the cost of mortgages. Does he think that the Government would be happy with that?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The clause relates to trade defence. As set out in the trade strategy, the Government committed to strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit in response to an increasingly turbulent global trading environment. The clause supports those commitments and ensures that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system.

Unfair trade practices, including distortionary subsidies and dumping goods below cost in foreign markets, have a long pedigree. What has changed rapidly in recent years is their sheer volume and the range of markets and indeed British businesses that they threaten. Our trade defence system needs to be sharper and more flexible to respond to the increasingly turbulent global trading system.

The UK remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system that has benefited us well, but in an unstable and volatile world, we cannot afford to be left behind and we need to be more agile in the face of a range of potential future shocks. That is why clauses 106 to 108 strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit, making it more closely aligned to that of international peers. The clauses will help to ensure that we can best protect UK interests, including in critical sectors such as steel, which are vital to our national security and critical infrastructure.

The changes made by the clause will put beyond doubt that we are able to apply tariffs on a global basis or against a group of countries, where consistent with international agreements to which the UK is a party. This measure strengthens the UK’s trade defence toolkit, ensuring that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system, as well as to unfair trading practices where they occur. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

Before I go into the details of the clause, and before the Committee discusses the subsequent two clauses, it is worth getting on record how much the Opposition object to trade wars and increasing tariffs. Such tariffs harm the country that introduces them. Take what has been going on in America as an example. On its “liberation day”—as I think its Government called it—it introduced very heavy tariffs, including on something as simple as the iPhone, which the American people would consider to be one of the greatest inventions and greatest products they have ever had. It seemed that the person who introduced those tariffs had completely failed to observe that 95% of an iPhone is made in Vietnam and China, as a result of which the tariffs increased the price of iPhones for the American people, which was completely against the intentions of that Government.

Tariffs are really bad, and we have been trying to get them down for an awfully long time. However, I completely understand the point that the Government are trying to make with the Trade Remedies Authority and the toolkit that the Government need in order to respond to certain issues. It is vital that we have the ability to move on things such as tariffs, and I suspect that the Minister is 100% aligned with me on this, but I stress that we have lessons from history, from when such actions have gone hideously wrong.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, introduced by President Hoover, was designed by Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley to try to help American businesses and American farmers by increasing tariffs. The net result was a global trade war that resulted in a 65% drop in global trade. That is what happens when people muck around with tariffs; that is where the damage can come. I completely appreciate that these measures are, I suspect, a very necessary response to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a very unpredictable trade policy, so it is the right thing to do. However, I urge the Minister to talk to all his colleagues about this matter, and to reassure the Committee that these measures are not about having our own version of that policy, and about increasing tariffs in order to have a trade war, but about having a set of relevant measures that mean that the Government can act in defence to what could be a hostile attack on trade.

[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

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments recognise that protecting one industry can harm others. Steel duties may help domestic producers but increase costs for British manufacturers and construction firms. Solar panel duties could slow our transition to net zero. Trade remedies should be evidence-based, proportionate and, most importantly, democratically accountable. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments and vote with us when we press amendment 44 to a vote.

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation. We support measures that tackle any unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidisation. We are also supportive of measures that bring power back into the hands of Secretaries of State and Ministers. That is especially important when it comes to practices that could harm our industries and our constituents.

One example of that is the steel industry. Back in 2016, it was reported that Tata Steel had suffered more than 1,000 job losses, including 750 from Port Talbot alone. Tata stated that the reason for this was the flooding of cheap imports, particularly from China. This will continue to be a problem. According to the OECD, Chinese steel imports surged to a record level of 118 million tonnes in 2024. Interestingly, there are different points of view on this. For those in the building industry, the idea of having an awful lot of cheap steel coming into the country is not that unattractive, but it would affect our domestic industries.

How the Government curb dumping and subsidisation must be accompanied by, at least in part, a deterrent effect. That is crucial for investigations that implicate large and powerful countries. Clause 107 removes the opportunity to implement any deterrent effect because it caps duties imposed on the dumping margin or subsidy amount, not at the injury margin. I acknowledge that this is in line with World Trade Organisation rules. However, injury margins can often exceed dumping and subsidy margins due to their accurate reflection of the true economic harm inflicted on UK industries. Each time, they have been overridden due to the lesser duty rules, and the removal of this rule could have given the Government the opportunity to apply a regime that reflects injury margins better in dumping and subsidy investigations. That would not only protect UK industries but send a clear message to those who engage in these abhorrent trade practices that this will not be tolerated and will be met with serious repercussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s rationale not to cut duties at the injury margin. It is quite a technical question, and if he feels the urge to write back, that might save him the trouble of getting into a lot of technical detail.

We are supportive of the thrust of amendments 44 and 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. It is important for decision makers to be accountable to Parliament for their decisions, whether that is the Secretary of State or the Trade Remedies Authority. I suspect that these amendments will be voted down, so could the Minister help the Committee understand what safeguards are in place to address the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Maidenhead?

Clause 108 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a safeguarding investigation. It is important that the UK has the necessary defensive measures where there is injury to UK industries. However, clause 108 requires clarity on the conditions that enable the Secretary of State to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate an investigation.

I have two points on this. First, on the requirement of evidence of increased quantities in a good, clause 108 does not introduce any parameters or a threshold that would distinguish a legitimate increase in quantity of goods from an increase that warrants investigation. Secondly, there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “serious injury”; the clause does not make clear what serious injury means. Without the clarification, the clause grants the Secretary of State substantial discretion in determining whether those conditions have been met. Fundamentally, though, on both these clauses, we must ensure that these important decisions are made with technical rigour and on the evidence. It is incredibly important that they are not driven solely by political whim. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Clause 109 amends sections 20 and 20A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to update HMRC’s existing powers to require all ports to provide and fund customs infrastructure.

Customs infrastructure is essential to protecting the UK by ensuring that risk-based checks on goods entering and leaving the country can take place. Provision of that infrastructure by ports is a long-standing requirement. When we left the EU, the Government funded and operated customs infrastructure at inland border facilities for ports that do not have enough space for this infrastructure within the port itself. Only two inland border facilities remain: Sevington inland border facility in Kent and Holyhead inland border facility in Wales. As confirmed in the border target operating model in autumn 2023, Government provision of these inland border facilities was always intended to be temporary.

Clause 109 would, first, require the small number of ports assessed as having insufficient space on site for customs infrastructure to provide equivalent infrastructure at an offsite location, which must be approved by HMRC. Secondly, all ports will now be responsible for providing and funding the customs infrastructure required for border checks on goods. This levels the playing field between ports, bringing all ports into line with the long-standing model. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 109 shifts the responsibility for the remaining two inland border facilities from the Government to the port authorities. The switching of inland border facilities services and operations to a commercial basis was something that the last Government were exploring.

However, we query whether clause 109 goes a little too far. It would require the ports to prepare to take on the additional responsibility of providing equivalent infrastructure. We appreciate why the ports received the additional Government assistance in the first place, especially considering the far-reaching effects that any disruption in Dover could have. However, while I agree that the ports must be able to stand on their own feet, clause 109 risks the ports’ introducing additional import and export charges being applied to every lorry and trailer that passes through. The magnitude of the price increases could be substantial for businesses, which may end up passing on the additional costs to consumers—not to mention that they would be in addition to the port inventory charges that the port of Dover implemented from 1 January this year.

I recommend that the Government assess the impact that the legislative changes in clause 109 would have on these ports, the businesses and hauliers that rely on them and consumers, who will have to pay a higher price. We get the principle of the clause, but we are concerned about whether there are any adverse knock-on effects on trade through the ports.

[Dan Tomlinson]

We do not expect that the changes will result in significant cost changes. How ports that currently benefit from the inland border facilities choose to recover any costs is a commercial matter. It is worth noting that the ports have benefited from significant public investment that has already been made in the development and operation of inland border facilities since we left the EU.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Increases to rates of levy

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Clause 110 will make changes to the rates charged to businesses under the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy from April 2026. The changes will increase the revenue raised each year by the levy by £110 million from 2027-28 onwards.

The levy was introduced to provide a long-term, sustainable source of funding for initiatives aimed at tackling money laundering. In 2024-25, the levy funded 455 new roles fighting economic crime in organisations, including in the National Crime Agency and City of London police, and delivered a new digital service for suspicious activity reporting, which onboarded precisely 15,211 organisations. In a constrained funding landscape, we believe that the levy is right place to find the money for these initiatives. The Government have decided to change the rates charged to businesses under the levy to provide sufficient funding to deliver key projects in the economic crime space over the next three years.

The changes made by clause 110 will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue between £10.2 million and £36 million from £10,000 to £10,200 per annum. It will also introduce a new band for businesses with an annual revenue between £500 million and £1 billion. Lastly, it will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue exceeding £1 billion to £1 million from April 2026. As the levy is collected a year in arrears, the increased rates will first be collected in the financial year beginning April 2027. The changes have been designed with proportionality and fairness at their core, and no business will pay more than 0.1% of its UK annual revenue in levy charges.

Government amendment 12 seeks to update the language in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which refers to the current band names “large” and “very large”. These will be changed to refer to the new band names A, B, C and D. The amendment contains no policy changes; it will just bring existing legislation in line with the new economic crime levy band names. I commend the clause and the amendment to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

The previous Conservative Government introduced the levy back in 2022 as a proactive measure to combat money laundering and strengthen our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), now the shadow Business Secretary, said when he brought it in,

“the levy will provide an important private sector contribution from those industries at highest risk of being abused for money laundering.”

We support robust action against money laundering, but we have one or two concerns about the scale. The introduction of a new band C, with a £500,000 levy for businesses with a revenue of between £500 million and £1 billion, is a substantial new burden on businesses that are already heavily regulated and are already investing significant sums in anti-money laundering compliance. To be clear, a business with £500 million to £1 billion revenue used to pay £36,000 and will now have to pay half a million—a 1,289% increase.

The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that between 100 and 110 businesses will be affected by the levy rise in this band C. It is a really big rise, so it would be helpful if the Minister could justify the nearly 1,300% rise for firms moving into the new band C. Perhaps he could also say whether he has had any representations from any businesses about the effect it could have on investment, staffing level, productivity and all the rest of it.

The simultaneous reduction in the threshold for the “very large” band, band D, means that more businesses fall into the higher levy. Will the Minister talk about the rationale for that? Has he considered the potential impact on the UK’s competitiveness, particularly mid-sized firms that may now face substantially higher costs?

[Dan Tomlinson]

On competitiveness, the Government of course do not place any additional burdens on businesses lightly, but reducing economic crime helps the good functioning of the UK economy and our competitiveness, so we think that this is a proportionate change.

The shadow Minister is right to identify that there are significant changes in band C. Previously, businesses with revenue of £500 million paid only 0.007% of their UK revenue, while those with revenues of, for example, £36 million paid 0.1%. That was a significant imbalance. This change seeks to address that disparity by aligning contributions more closely with revenue size so that contributions are proportionate to revenue—more proportionate, but still bands over the broad swathe of business size. This is to make contributions fairer and more consistent, and it will ensure that larger businesses contribute proportionately to the overall funding requirement.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111

Removal of time limit to claim relief under section 106(3) of FA 2013

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

[Dan Tomlinson]

Clause 111 removes a restrictive time limit within which relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings can be claimed. This measure updates the legislation to remove the current restrictive time limit for claiming relief from the ATED. Companies are still required to deliver their ATED returns on time—typically 30 days from the start of the chargeable period. ATED returns not delivered by the filing deadline will remain subject to penalties for late filing. The time limits for amending a return already delivered to HMRC are unchanged. This clause will come into effect from the date of Royal Assent of the Bill and will have effect as if it had always been in force. HMRC is currently applying its discretion to accept late claims pending enactment of this legislative change. The change is necessary to ensure that the law reflects our policy aims for relief from the ATED. I therefore move that clause 111 stand part of the Bill.

[Mark Garnier]

The ATED was originally brought in back in 2013 under the coalition Government to discourage the use of corporate structures to hold high-value residential properties. Reliefs were built into the system to ensure that genuine commercial property businesses were not caught by the charge. However, those reliefs were subject to a clear 12-month time limit for making a claim. That was for two reasons: first, it helps ensure that relief claims are made while the facts are still reasonably clear. Secondly, it simply aligns with normal tax time limits.

Now the Government want to remove that time limit entirely. Without a deadline, if claims are made over the original 12-month period, HMRC could be required to revisit historical ATED returns long after they were filed. Given service levels in HMRC are already stretched, it is unclear why the Government have chosen to do that. It could increase, rather than reduce, administrative burdens on HMRC. Have the Government assessed the resource implications for HMRC of processing claims made more than a year after the relevant adjustment period?