Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
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?

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

Turning to the non-Government amendments, new clause 28 asks His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess the potential benefits of establishing a digital application process for taxpayers seeking to pay capital gains tax by instalments following disposals to employee ownership trusts. The facility to pay CGT in instalments is a long-standing feature of the tax code and is well understood by both taxpayers and HMRC. The process for applying to pay by instalments is clearly set out within HMRC guidance and applications are dealt with swiftly once they have been received by HMRC. My officials have met representatives from the employee ownership sector to provide bespoke guidance on how these instalment payment provisions apply to disposals to EOTs. That engagement continues. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Maidenhead to withdraw new clause 28. In any event, it should be rejected.

New clause 29 asks the Chancellor to lay a report before the House within the next 12 months assessing the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises of the changes made under clause 35. The Government monitor the impact of all changes made to existing tax reliefs. However, publishing a report on the change introduced by clause 35 within the next 12 months would not be reasonable as the first full tax year of these changes is the tax year 2026-27, so HMRC will not have complete information to assess their impact. New clause 29 should therefore be rejected.

In addition to rejecting new clauses 28 and 29, I commend clause 35 to the Committee.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 36 to 38 make changes to the CGT anti-avoidance provisions that apply to company share exchanges and reconstructions, or the reconstruction rules, as they are known. Clause 36 revises the collective investment scheme reconstruction anti-avoidance rule to align with modern provisions with a similar purpose. Clause 37 revises the share exchanges and company reconstruction anti-avoidance rule to align with modern provisions with a similar purpose, too. Clause 38 does exactly the same. The changes made by these clauses, which take effect from Budget day, modernise the anti-avoidance rule so that it focuses directly on arrangements where the purpose, or one of the purposes, is the avoidance of tax.

The amendments introduced by the clauses will allow HMRC to address situations where arrangements have been added to otherwise commercial transactions that reduce or eliminate, rather than just defer, a tax charge, allowing them to be more effectively challenged. The rule has been updated so that it affects only the shareholders who benefit directly from the avoidance. Where HMRC agrees that there is no avoidance and the reorganisation is carried out within 60 days of the Budget announcement or if HMRC’s decision is later, the current legislation will apply. For those reasons I commend clauses 36 to 38 to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

On clause 36, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance and close the tax gap. Under the previous Government, the tax gap of the total theoretical tax liabilities fell from 7.5% in 2005-06 to 5.3% in 2023-24. But it is crucial that legislation is not so broad to the extent that people entering into arrangements for legitimate commercial reasons face the brunt of HMRC’s enforcement powers. The scale of genuine tax avoidance as a proportion of the total tax gap is important to note.

According to HMRC, in 2023-24, avoidance behaviour as a share of the tax gap was just 1%. It was also 1% in the 2022-23 tax year and was 2% in 2021-22, 2020-21 and in 2019-20. Avoidance ranked lowest among the behaviours that contributed to the tax gap. Contrast that with 31% due to failure to take reasonable care, 15% due to error and 12% due to legal interpretation. What those behaviours have in common is they involve genuine mistakes being made, so pursuing the route set out in clauses 36 and 37 risks hurting those who enter arrangements for solely commercial purposes who may have simply made honest mistakes.

With regard to clause 37, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The methods of deferring tax for general company reconstructions and share exchanges are identical to each other’s and to that for collective investment schemes. The key difference between clauses 36 and 37 is the business practice to which the anti-avoidance measures apply when arrangements are made to avoid tax liability. Clause 36 applies to CISs, and clause 37 applies to share exchanges and company reconstructions, so the argument pertaining to the general principle and practicality of the Government’s new anti-avoidance measures also applies to those clauses.

With regard to clause 38, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The clause seeks to change the no gain/no loss rules if HMRC suspects that a transfer of business has taken place to secure a tax advantage. Those rules have been instrumental in the process of transferring a business. They are especially useful for arrangements between complex structures. No gain/no loss rules can ensure fluidity throughout the transfer process, and they stave off cash-flow issues during the process itself.

While we support tackling tax avoidance, we must also recognise the role that no gain/no loss rules play during delicate business practice. We understand that there are already safeguards in place from HMRC, such as the general anti-abuse rule. Nevertheless, we must also ensure that no business that utilises no gain/no loss for legitimate commercial purposes is penalised or hung out to dry through denied relief claims.

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the support that was expressed, on the whole, by the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I suspect that that support is born from a recognition that we really do need to make the changes. Recent court decisions have shown that the rules as they stand, which date back to the ’70s, do not work as intended, especially when the avoidance carried out is a smaller part of a larger commercial reconstruction.

The main effect of the rules will be to discourage the minority—and it is very much a minority—who would otherwise seek to avoid tax. It is about protecting our tax base from abuse for the benefit of the majority of taxpayers who apply the rules correctly. For those reasons, I truly believe that the clauses strengthen the protection against avoidance and will catch tax avoiders.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Incorporation relief: requirement to claim

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

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 39 makes a change to incorporation relief for CGT, requiring taxpayers to make a claim for relief and, as a result, improving the data available to HMRC to undertake analysis and compliance activity. Specifically, the change will mean that taxpayers need to make a claim for incorporation relief on their self-assessment return. That will apply to transfers of a business on or after 6 April 2026, and it will allow HMRC to monitor the relief and tackle avoidance more effectively, protecting revenue and helping to close the tax gap, with an additional £225 million expected to be collected over the scorecard period.

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 39 requires taxpayers to claim incorporation relief or pay CGT up front. It is key that sole traders and other eligible people understand the changes the clause makes. What concerns us is whether enough awareness has been made to affected people, and that is crucial as claiming incorporation relief has always been a passive process because it happens automatically. Soon, people who have been accustomed to this passiveness must acutely manage their relief claims. We do not want anybody who has been conducting legitimate business to suddenly be hit with an unexpected tax bill. Landlords, for example, are a common entity who claim incorporation relief. They do so by transferring their rental property portfolio into a limited company. Should a landlord undertake that process and then find themselves receiving an unexpected tax bill, that could add significant pressure on their investments, which in this case involve houses occupied by tenants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 40 and 41 make various changes to the capital gains rules that apply to disposals of UK land and property by non-UK resident persons.

Turning first to clause 40, the changes that are being made have been in effect since Budget day and ensure that, for the purposes of the non-resident capital gains legislation, each cell in a cell company is looked at individually for the purposes of the property richness rules. That will prevent the use and ongoing exploitation of such entities to avoid the non-resident capital gains rules and will protect the tax base.

Clause 41 makes changes to the rules for non-resident capital gains in respect of double taxation treaties and the requirement to claim double taxation relief, and it also clarifies some unclear terminology. The effect of the changes made by clause 41 is that investors are not required to make or deliver a return in order to claim relief in respect of a particular disposal. In fact, the clause reduces administrative burdens by clarifying when non-resident companies and individuals have to notify HMRC of a disposal. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 40 tackles the use by UK non-residents of protected cell companies to avoid paying non-resident capital gains tax. We agree that corporate structures should not be exploited to shelter people from paying their fair share of tax. However, we must consider the practicalities of how an audit of one cell may affect other cells and the PCC itself.

PCCs have their benefits. For example, the ringfencing of assets and liabilities can ensure that any issue with one cell does not spread to others. In that sense, PCCs can be more robust and durable. Audits, of course, are absolutely necessary to ensure compliance and legality. However, they can also prove costly and stressful for a company owner who is simultaneously running a business. Cells do not have full autonomy; much of that resides in the core of the PCC.

Different cells may behave differently from each other or have differing risk appetites—therein lies the risk. A situation where one cell is investigated by HMRC, and the audit process proves frustrating because that cell’s conduct is aggressive or inappropriate, risks tarnishing the entire PCC in the assumption that the other cells behave similarly. Subsequent audits could then become more aggressive and difficult. As I said, we support measures that tackle any exploitation of the corporate structure to avoid paying tax. The Government must ensure that the implementation of clause 40 protects innocent parties that may be affected.

Clause 41 focuses on non-UK residents, individuals and companies in collective investment vehicles who sell UK land or property connected to CIVs under double taxation treaties. Under the clause, non-UK residents in CIVs will no longer be required to register for corporation tax or claim capital gains tax relief if the double taxation treaties fully cover the gains they have made. The Government’s rationale for that is to streamline paperwork and reduce redundant filing—hurrah! I cannot begin to explain my happiness about trying to reduce red tape. It is fantastic to get rid of it where we can. Our tax code is 22,000 pages long and has 10 million words. Anything that makes that easier is hugely welcome.

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the “hurrah” from the shadow Minister. On his latter point about double taxation treaties, as he will know, many of the agreements were negotiated before the introduction of the non-resident capital gains regime. As treaties come up for renegotiation, as they do, or as we negotiate new treaties, we will seek to include a provision in the capital gains article to allow the UK to exercise our domestic taxing provisions in full.

On the shadow Minister’s point about cell companies and the extent to which they are used to avoid tax, there is anecdotal evidence that such structures have been created to help individuals avoid paying tax on gains made through the disposal of UK land and property, and the changes to the rules seek to cure that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Abolition of notional tax credit on distributions received by non-UK residents

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I am very pleased to be opening the first debate in this Finance Bill Committee. Clause 11 sets the charge for corporation tax for the financial year commencing in April 2027 and sets the main rate at 25%. Clause 12 sets the small profits rate at 19% for the same period.

The Government are committed to a stable and predictable tax system for businesses, and we are supporting businesses by creating the economic stability and fiscal sustainability needed for future growth. That is why we are delivering on our commitment, set out in the 2024 corporate tax road map, to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament. The changes made by clauses 11 and 12 will establish the right of the Government to charge corporation tax for the financial year beginning in April 2027.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you for your guidance, Sir Roger. I am very grateful that you are in the Chair, because although I have been doing this for 15 years, as you know, and this is about my fifth Finance Bill, I do not have a clue how any of it works.

[The Chair]

You are in good company.

[Mark Garnier]

It is of course standard practice—as with income tax—for the Government to legislate the charge for corporation tax every year. These rate levels have remained unchanged since Labour came into office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) pointed out last year, Labour promised to cap the corporation tax rate at 25% for the whole of this Parliament. That has not been done in legislation, although we have had an indication from the Minister that that is still the Government’s intention.

I will make just one small political point. The Government did promise that they would not increase taxes on working people, but we have seen national insurance contributions increase—that was obviously in a different Bill. None the less, the more the Minister can say about capping corporation tax at 25%, the more confident businesses and our economy will be that something will not be slipped in during the next three and a half years before the general election. We have no other objection to this measure.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for his comments and for highlighting the fact that we have kept our manifesto commitment on tax. This is part of that: we are capping corporation tax at 25% in line with our corporate tax road map.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Enterprise management incentives: thresholds and period for exercise

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 17 and 18 will bring employee car ownership schemes into the benefit-in-kind regime from 2030, with transitional arrangements until 2032. Clause 19 will ensure that the introduction of new emissions standards does not lead to a sharp increase in benefit-in-kind tax for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

On clauses 17 and 18, the costing, published alongside the Budget, accounts for a behavioural response whereby a significant number of taxpayers switch towards alternative vehicles or move away from using company cars altogether. That has been updated since the 2024 autumn Budget, taking into account further evidence on the impacts of the measure provided by the sector.

Private use of a company car is a valuable benefit, and it is right that the appropriate tax be paid on it. This measure will ensure fairness to other taxpayers, reduce distortions in the tax system and reinforce the emissions-based company car tax regime, which incentivises the take-up of zero emission vehicles. To support the automotive industry and provide employers with more time to adjust to the changes, the Government have delayed implementation of the measure to 6 April 2030 and have introduced transitional rules.

On clause 19, new emissions standards being introduced in the UK reflect the higher real-world emissions of PHEVs. It is important that a car’s official emissions figures reflect real-world emissions, but that can lead to tax increases where tax is linked to emissions levels. The Government recognise that although it is right that higher-emitting vehicles pay more tax, lower-emission company cars such as plug-in hybrid vehicles continue to play an important role in supporting our transition towards zero emission vehicles and the decarbonisation of transport. The changes made by the clause will introduce a temporary benefit-in-kind tax easement for employers providing, and employees being provided with, PHEVs as company cars. I commend clauses 17 to 19 to the Committee.

[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 ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 20 to 23 relate to other employment income. Clause 20 will simplify the rules on common workplace health and equipment costs, reducing administrative burdens for employers and giving greater clarity to the tax treatment of these costs. It will exempt reimbursements for accommodations, supplies or services used in performing employment duties, such as homeworking equipment; it will extend the existing exemptions for eye tests and corrective appliances to cover reimbursements; and it will introduce a new exemption for both the direct provision and the reimbursement of flu vaccinations. Uptake will depend on employer practice, but these changes will make the rules simpler and fairer for those affected. The Exchequer impact is negligible, but this change will allow employers to support staff without having to handle the sourcing and provision of minor items themselves. This will reduce time and resource costs.

Clause 21 relates to homeworking expenses. It will remove the process by which employees can claim an income tax deduction from HMRC if they have incurred additional household costs when required to work from home. The changes introduced by the clause aim to address concerns around non-compliance and to ensure fairness across the tax system.

Clause 22 will introduce changes that confirm the income tax treatment of payments made by zero-hour or similar limited-hour workers for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift. This measure will put the tax treatment of such a shift beyond doubt. These tax changes will have an impact only on a small subset of workers, as the vast majority of such payments are taxable under existing legislation. The measure confirms that payments received in the event that a shift is altered at short notice are taxable in all scenarios, including in relation to agency workers and workers employed under umbrella companies.

Clause 23 puts beyond doubt the answer to whether earnings for duties not performed should be treated as UK earnings or overseas earnings for non-UK residents. The clause will establish a general principle to determine the tax treatment of earnings that relate to duties that have not been performed. It will also make a consequential amendment to foreign employment relief, commonly known as overseas workday relief, to ensure that this clarification also applies to UK residents who claim it. I commend clauses 20 to 23 to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 20 will introduce specific exemptions for minor expenses incurred by an employee on behalf of their employer. The Opposition particularly welcome subsections (3) to (6). As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales says, it is a positive step that focuses on prevention rather than cures. It is also about the trade-off between tax relief and reduced future healthcare spending.

As the Association of Taxation Technicians has asked, will the Minister consider whether the covid-19 vaccination could be included in this provision? The Government’s explanatory notes state that corresponding changes to NICs for influenza vaccines and homeworking equipment will be made through separate regulations. Will the Minister provide more detail on when we can expect those regulations to be introduced?

On clause 21, the Government’s policy paper suggests that there will be no direct impact on business. However, there may be an indirect impact, as employers feel pressured to change their policies on reimbursement. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out:

“This creates an uneven situation in which two employees with identical working arrangements and costs are treated differently for tax purposes solely on the basis of their employer’s reimbursement policy.”

It also seems to follow our party’s scepticism about solely remote working. During the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Government said repeatedly that the right to work from home boosts productivity. Clause 21 seems to go against that by making it more difficult to work from home. It also seems to be a further attack on private sector employees, despite the fact that in 2024 HMRC spent £82 million on remote working devices for its workers, while the Home Office spent £53 million. Is this another example of the Government hitting the private sector while protecting the public sector?

Clauses 22 and 23 confirm that payments received in Great Britain for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts are subject to income tax. In the explanatory notes, the Government state that this would also allow for

“the introduction of regulations to ensure that payments are also subject to National Insurance contributions”.

We think it would help to provide fairness in the tax system to support the clarity that the clause provides, so can the Minister confirm when the Government will seek to introduce those specific changes?

More generally, I want to make a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) made on the Employment Rights Bill Committee. While the clause provides fairness in the system between employees, the Government are still providing little support for businesses if they have to cancel, move or curtail shifts in circumstances that are unexpected or out of their control. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to assess how they can better support businesses when such situations arise?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 24 will make changes to ensure that recruitment agencies are responsible for accounting for pay-as-you-earn on payments made to workers that are supplied via umbrella companies. Many umbrella companies operate diligently and support their employees, but a significant number are used to facilitate non-compliance, including tax avoidance and fraud. Clause 24 is intended to encourage increased due diligence among businesses that choose to use umbrella companies to engage workers. It will do so by introducing joint and several liability for the PAYE taxes that umbrella companies are required to remit to HMRC.

Government amendments 5 to 8 will ensure that the legislation works as intended by making a small technical change. This will ensure that HMRC is able to recover underpayments of tax from businesses that are within scope of the new rules because they purport to be umbrella companies, in the same manner that underpayments will be recovered from the other businesses that are within scope of the new rules. Amendment 5 will ensure that HMRC is able to keep taxpayers informed about its investigations concerning sums to which they are jointly and severally liable. That will help taxpayers to take action to mitigate their exposure to unpaid liabilities.

I commend clause 24, together with Government amendments 5 to 8, to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

Back in 2023, the Conservative Government opened a consultation on how to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, because there was evidence of widespread non-compliance that deprived workers of their employment rights, distorted competition in the labour market and led to a significant tax loss to the Exchequer. In the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that she would follow up the consultation, hence this clause.

The Government state in their explanatory notes that the clause seeks

“to drive behavioural change among businesses that use umbrella companies in the supply of workers by giving them a financial stake in the compliance of the umbrella companies that they use.”

I think there is broad agreement about the need for this measure in tackling tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market. However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised two particular issues, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on them.

First, there seems to be an absence of safeguards. Currently, HMRC can transfer liability to the agency regardless of its circumstances. When an agency has done all it can to ensure the integrity of the supply chain, but has been the victim of fraud by the umbrella company, we think there should be safeguards in place to prevent the transfer of debts.

Secondly, there is some concern that the definition of “purported umbrella company” is too wide. The clause defines such a company so as to include any entity supplying an individual with services where that individual has a material interest in the entity. That means that, for instance, personal service company arrangements could fall within the definition. Is it the Government’s intention to include personal service company arrangements within the definition of a purported umbrella company? I should declare an interest: I have a personal service company. Can the Minister expand on what discussions on the clause have taken place with industry organisations such as the Freelancer and Contractor Services Association, which provides accreditation for many umbrella companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 25 to 27 provide for the Government to create a settlement opportunity in line with their response to the independent review of the loan charge, and to encourage those who have not yet settled with HMRC to come forward and do so.

Clause 25 sets out some of the main features of the scheme, including how the new settlement amount will be calculated. Clause 26 will ensure that inheritance tax is not charged as part of any settlement where it relates to disguised remuneration arrangements in scope of the loan charge. Clause 27 makes supplementary provision for the settlement scheme to ensure that it can operate as intended.

In some places, the Government have gone further than the review recommended. In addition to removing late payment interest and inheritance tax, and allowing for generous tax deductions to represent amounts assumed to have been paid to promoters, the Government will also write off the first £5,000 of each individual’s liability. Because of these changes, around 30% of people within scope of the review could see their liabilities removed entirely, while most other individuals will see their liabilities reduced by at least half.

Turning to Government amendments 9 to 11, HMRC is aware of a number of promoters who have made use of their own disguised remuneration schemes and would be within scope of the settlement opportunity. I am very clear that it would be wrong for those individuals to be able to access the generous settlement terms on offer rather than paying every penny that they owe. Clause 25 makes provision for the exclusion of tax avoidance promoters from the settlement opportunity. Amendments 9 and 10 tighten those provisions to ensure that HMRC is able to prevent the controlling minds behind promoter companies from inappropriately accessing the settlement opportunity, in line with the Government’s announcements at the Budget. Amendments 9 to 11 also clarify that where an employer still exists, it can enter into a settlement on behalf of its employees who used disguised remuneration schemes.

New clauses 25 and 26, which would require HMRC to publish a report on the operation and scope of the loan charge settlement opportunity and a report on the treatment of disguised remuneration arrangements falling outside the scope of the loan charge, are unnecessary. The Government published a comprehensive response to the review, setting out our position, at the Budget. That outlined the decisions the Government made to help draw this matter to a close for those impacted, and explained why the scope of the review had been set as it had. It explained that the settlement opportunity will apply to disguised remuneration use between December 2010 and April 2019, because that is the period to which the loan charge applies. While people who used tax avoidance schemes outside that period will not be able to access the scheme, HMRC will work sensitively and pragmatically to help people to resolve their cases, including by taking account of people’s means and offering generous payment terms where appropriate.

I am sure that everyone will be aware that the loan charge is already subject to significant parliamentary scrutiny. HMRC officials and Treasury Ministers routinely provide updates on their work to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and the Treasury Committee asked the HMRC permanent secretary about this topic just last month. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Maidenhead not to move his new clauses, and commend clauses 25 to 27, and Government amendments 9 to 11, to the Committee.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

We have already heard this morning that businesses are suffering harm from business rates and national insurance contributions going up, but on top of that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the energy bills of non-energy intensive industries such as hospitality and retail have increased under this Government by up to 10% in the last year. The Conservative are proposing our cheap power plan, which would save small businesses up to £5,000 a year on their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses with their energy bills?

[Torsten Bell]

What this Government are doing is getting on with building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and we are not going back to the 11% inflation seen under the Conservative party. This Government are supporting small businesses, because the hon. Gentleman is right on one thing, which is that high energy bills are not in the interests of British industry. That is why we are getting on with fixing the energy system that we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Chancellor has been very proud that the FTSE 100 has passed through the 10,000-point barrier, citing that as an endorsement of her policies. Does she not realise that that still leaves FTSE 100 on lower valuations than comparable markets and that, in any event, over 80% of the earnings of the FTSE 100 are generated outside the UK? Is it not clear that the FTSE 100 performance is despite this Government’s policies, not because of them?

[Lucy Rigby]

I could not disagree more with the shadow Minister. He is constantly talking this country down. The package of reforms that this Government are making to our capital markets are strengthening those markets, and they are beginning to bear fruit.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I start by welcoming the general thrust of this incredibly important legislation. The Minister and I have sparred a number of times in the past, and so far we have managed to keep it to under five minutes; I must now apologise to the Committee, as I might take a little longer. As the Minister said, work on this piece of legislation was started under the previous Government, and it is absolutely vital for the City of London to maintain its presence as a global financial leader.

The City of London has been innovative and thought-leading for a few hundred years now. Jonathan’s Coffee House was the first to advertise share prices, from which the London Stock Exchange grew, setting the model for equity ownership the world over; similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. As new technology comes forward, it is vital that the City of London, or the UK’s financial services sector, not just adopts this new technology but leads on it, and leads on it with the intelligence and experience that we have gained over the previous centuries of legislating in this area.

As we move forward in the age of new technology, we need to legislate. This SI is possibly the best example of how we can embrace that change. Indeed, the short time that we have been given to debate this piece of legislation belies its importance and the months of consulting that lie behind it. While the Opposition are absolutely behind the thrust of the SI, we believe that it is slightly flawed in its drafting. It appears to draw together two separate things: in very simple terms, it appears to confuse cryptoassets with stablecoins.

Cryptoassets—bitcoin and the like—are commodities in the same way as a bond, a share or other commodities. They are items that are bought and sold with a view to their value changing. However, a stablecoin is an asset fully backed by a fiat currency, and thus a proxy of that underlying fiat currency. A stablecoin is part of the payment system and should be regulated as such.

I am someone who understands the principles of this legislation, but sometimes it is important to have the help of people who really get the law. I am grateful to a couple of people who have helped me to put this argument forward today, in particular Mike Ringer, who is the founder of ReStabilise, but more importantly Professor Sarah Green, who was a law commissioner for commercial and common law at the Law Commission of England and Wales from 2020 to 2024. She was responsible for the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025.

As I have discussed, this draft legislation establishes the regulatory parameter for cryptoassets in the UK, including stablecoins. As such, what we are discussing is crucial for the delivery of HM Treasury’s often repeated policy intention for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies—something that we are 100% behind. That means that a properly drafted Bill is mission critical.

The ability of the UK to become a global leader in the digital economy, and to retain its position as a leading international financial centre, depends on the ability of this piece of legislation to set out clearly, decisively and unambiguously how it will distinguish between different types of cryptoassets. Without strong, decisive and nuanced categories, the potential for effective regulation, and therefore optimum growth, will be lost. This is not an opportunity to be squandered, yet the current drafting threatens to do just that.

The Government’s policy note that accompanied the original draft SI, published in April last year, states:

“This is a draft SI and should not be treated as final. It is being published for technical checks, such as any significant errors or oversights in the legal drafting that would mean that the provisions in this SI would not achieve the desired outcomes explained in this note, or that could lead to other significant unintended consequences.”

My goal today is to explain why an oversight in the current drafting means that the SI’s provisions do not achieve their stated aim.

Let me explain. A critical component of the successful development of digital asset markets is an effective form of digital settlement asset—that is, digital cash. There are three forms of digital cash: first, there are central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs; secondly, there are tokenised commercial bank deposits; and thirdly, there are regulated stablecoins. If the UK is to establish itself as a global hub for digital assets, it is essential that all of those can be used interchangeably with traditional fiat money, or state-backed money. For that to happen, each form needs to be regulated in a way that recognises its particular nature and function.

In the case of stablecoins, that will be achieved by regulating issuers under the new regulatory regime brought in by this legislation, which will be introduced and supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority. Also, in the case of sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, issuers will be subject to dual regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England.

In its consultation paper on its proposed regulatory regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, published in November last year, the Bank of England confirmed that the use of regulated stablecoins could lead to faster, cheaper retail and wholesale payments, with greater functionality, both at home and across borders. It therefore wants to support such a role for stablecoins as part of a “multi-money” system alongside commercial bank money, including tokenised bank deposits, so in effect they would be part of the payments system itself.

Similarly, we know that as the world progresses, capital markets, foreign exchange and asset management will increasingly be settled through digitalised blockchain technologies. For the UK to maintain its leading global position in those markets and others, it is vital that we take a leading role in adopting blockchain technologies in the payments system. Used in this way, stablecoins will bring immense benefits in terms of speed, lower costs and programmability. In other words, they are the key to growth both in our economy and in our financial services industry.

However, importantly, without a proper treatment of stablecoins that recognises the way in which the assets actually function in practice, the UK risks not only missing out on positive growth benefits but, crucially, losing ground to other jurisdictions. That ground will be difficult to recover because market provision will already have been established elsewhere, where providers can be certain of their legislative position. We will be trying to catch up where other jurisdictions will have made progress and secured their lead. With the current wording of the SI, that important lead, which provides much economic benefit to the winner, will not be here in the UK. 

The SI does not achieve what I hope we all agree we want, which is the UK to lead the way in cryptoassets, including stablecoins and the wider payments opportunity that distributive ledger technology—DLT—provides. However, the solution is simple, straightforward and easily achieved. Essentially, market participants should be able to use regulated stablecoins and tokenised commercial bank deposits in place of traditional fiat currency for the purposes I have mentioned—to make payments, settle capital markets and foreign exchange transactions, and for collateral and corporate treasury management. But crucially, they must do that without suddenly needing to apply for additional licences from the Financial Conduct Authority. If that is the effect of the SI, these new forms of money will not be used because of the unnecessary regulatory hurdle put in the way of market participants. As a result, the development of digital assets and blockchain technologies in the UK could simply grind to a halt. That will take all its growth potential with it, as well as the chance of the UK remaining the pre-eminent force in the financial world.

Unfortunately, the likely need for those additional licences is precisely the effect of the wording in the draft regulations, despite the fact that it appears to run counter to the Government’s often stated, and highly laudable, policy intention. There appears to be a simple drafting error that could be easily rectified. There is currently no defined distinction for the majority of the new regulated activities between “qualifying stablecoins” specifically and “qualifying cryptoassets” generally, which has a number of cascading and adverse effects. The most adverse is that, under the current wording, stablecoins, including those regulated by the FCA and the Bank of England, are treated in the same way as unbacked cryptoassets such as bitcoin. Given that the risk profile of those assets is starkly different from that of a fiat-pegged stablecoin, which is, crucially, simply another form of regulated money, that makes no sense. Lumping unbacked assets together with stablecoins for regulatory purposes is rather like buying a car instead of a horse, but still tying the car to a post in case it runs off. Of course, both need securing, but in ways that recognise the fundamental difference between the two.

From a practical perspective, applying the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities to regulated stablecoins has the effect of potentially requiring market participants who are seeking to use or facilitate the use of regulated stablecoins for the purposes I have mentioned to apply for new licences from the FCA, purely because they are using regulated stablecoins instead of traditional fiat money. In that world, market participants simply will not use them, and the principal benefit and advantage of stablecoins may never be realised.

The Government appear to have attempted to address the issue in the case of payments, by copying across the legacy purpose-based sale of goods and services exemption from the traditional regulatory regime, which disapplies the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities for the use of stablecoins to buy or sell goods. That does not, however, achieve the aim of exempting all those who are crucial to the stablecoin payments process. Significantly, it is not clear that it covers those who exchange fiat money for stablecoins and stablecoins for fiat money. The payments process stands and falls by the ability of users to convert the fiat currency into stablecoins and back again, yet the exemption as currently drafted is likely to deter market participants from providing those essential services because it is not clear that it applies to them.

It would be far clearer and simpler to have an exemption drafted in a way that is bespoke to stablecoins, rather than attempting to shoehorn them into a legacy definition that was not drafted with the stablecoin payment process in mind. Alternatively, an existing statutory definition could be used that accommodates the full range of payment activities, such as referring to the use of stablecoins and providing “payment services” in the way that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 do.

Equally as important is the fact that there is, in the current draft, no similar purpose-based exemption for the use of stablecoins in capital markets or foreign exchange transactions, nor in asset or corporate treasury management. Again, those would be straightforward to introduce and should be entirely uncontroversial from a policy perspective. To allow that in the legislation would provide immense benefits to the City.

A failure to make those simple and textually minor clarificatory changes would not only make it very difficult for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies, but would risk the UK losing its position as a leading international financial centre. This piece of legislation is intended to be ground-moving in terms of seizing an opportunity for our financial services industry, and it would be tragic if it were reduced to a minor tremor for the sake of simple loose drafting. Those concerns go into great detail, but we need to address them to ensure that we do not mess up a golden opportunity to get this right.

One or two other concerns have been raised with me, but I think we can talk about them at a different time. The principle behind this is something that fundamentally we are 100% behind. It is a very good policy, and it is really important that we get this right, but issues have been raised by legal experts who are cleverer than me—but probably not cleverer than the Minister, who I think started at Slaughter and May. Obviously, we are very keen to work with the Government to get this right; I was hopeful that the Minister would agree to meet me and some experts in this area to look at the drafting of this legislation to see if that is possible. We will support it if she is happy to do that, and then we can move forward, get something together and hopefully get this right. It is important that we get this right, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

In the recently published financial inclusion strategy, the Government state:

“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”

What is not to like about that, Mr Speaker? But that makes the Chancellor’s political decisions in the Budget even more confusing. Just look at what was announced: reducing the cash individual savings account limit to £12,000; scrapping the lifetime ISA; capping salary sacrifice schemes at £2,000; increasing tax on dividends by two percentage points; increasing savings income tax by two percentage points; freezing the repayment thresholds for student loans; freezing income tax thresholds for working people; freezing personal allowance thresholds for pensioners—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] No, please just sit down. Don’t challenge me; it is not a good idea. We did quite a few days on the Budget. I think we can all remember every point you are making. Is there anything you would like to add? If you are carrying on the list, forget it. I call the Minister.

Taxes

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard]

I think we should have all the economic benefits of Europe while controlling our borders and controlling movement—[Interruption.] Well, look at Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. There are lots of options out there. Let’s go and negotiate something that makes sense for us.

My final point is that we need an office for value for money—an effective regulator with proper scrutiny and proper teeth that really looks into our Budget. I ask the Government to take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. I understand that after introducing these changes 30 years ago, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% of debt to GDP to 32%. Meanwhile, our public debt is around 95%, which means that billions that we could be spending on our public services are instead going towards servicing our debt.

A key component is significantly strengthening the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. The Chancellor’s practice of keeping the Budget secret until the day, at which point everyone else has to scramble to assess the detail and has no time to provide a proper, meaningful critique, is far from the best way to scrutinise the Government’s economic policy. This is not how many of our international peers go about their economic policy. Proper, detailed scrutiny of the Budget, as opposed to the wave-through regime we currently have, with no proper transparency before approval, needs to be addressed—

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The OBR?

[Charlie Maynard]

Okay, can I just respond to my colleague chuntering in the background? He keeps saying “the OBR”. We are Parliament. We have a responsibility to scrutinise the Budget, and I believe that we, as a Parliament, should be doing that properly, line by line and taking out what is wasted—[Interruption.] I would do it tomorrow if we had the chance, yes. I will finish in a moment, then I will be off—

[Mark Garnier]

Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now.

[Charlie Maynard]

Just because we have always done things a certain way does not mean that there is not room for fresh thinking, a more collaborative approach and greater ambition. Realistically, if we are going to repair the economic damage of the last few years, we need fresh thinking and new ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

And the Conservatives have the gall to lecture us about managing the public finances well. They say that they want to cut civil service numbers. Between 2016 and when the Conservatives left office, there were 130,000 more civil servants. The former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and former Prime Minister said that he would cut civil service numbers by 91,000; they then went up. In October ’23—when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), was in my role—the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) unveiled an immediate cap on civil service numbers and pledged to cut them by 66,000; they then went up. Between May 2022 and July 2024, the numbers went up in every single quarter. I am not sure that the public would leave the Conservatives’ restaurant at all satisfied if they bought the items on their menu, because everything they have promised does not seem to turn into reality.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Mark Garnier]

More!

[Dan Tomlinson]

Hon. Members want more! Okay.

If this debate has taught us anything, it is simply this: not only do the Conservatives need to stay in opposition for longer, but I am sure that they will do so. So far, they have learned nothing from their time on the Government Benches. There is no humility for their mini-Budget, no plan for giving Britain a brighter future, and no grasp of the realities that the country and the world face. They also have no will to face up to reality, to show leadership or to make choices that will support our public services, businesses and citizens.

Meanwhile, this Government have given the country the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of the year. We have raised wages and living standards, and the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times because of the economic stability we have brought, which has reduced mortgage payments and lowered the cost of borrowing. This Government have increased public investment in capital spending by over £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, building for the future—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is the difference that a Government with British values at their heart can make. At this month’s Budget, we will put those values into practice again, with fairness and opportunity for all so that we can secure our economy, strengthen our public services and lift living standards for the British people.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?

[Lucy Rigby]

Where it is appropriate to do so—indeed, it is very often appropriate to do so—we will blame the Conservative party for the state of the country, and it is appropriate to do so here. On the criteria that Link uses for banking hubs, I will remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the access to cash regime, that was designed and passed by the previous Government.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I will not keep the Committee for too long. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the previous Government in this area. As she rightly said, the regulations originate from the Berne financial services agreement, signed back in 2023, so it is something we have worked on. As somebody who worked in financial services for 27 years before coming to Parliament—I worked for two Swiss banks, had clients in Switzerland and did this kind of cross-border business—I can attest that this is a fantastic opportunity for our financial services sector. Anything that formalises the arrangement and makes transactions less sticky and easier to do can only be a good thing, so we will certainly be supporting the proposal 100% this evening. I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and her kind words about the work of the previous Government—I think she forgot to add “Strong and stable for 14 years”, but still.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

We welcome the general thrust of the regulations, which are all about the internationalisation of our financial services market, continuing our moving on from a post-Brexit Britain. I was not a fan of Brexit, but we are where we are. It is incredibly important that our financial services centre remains internationally competitive, and the regulations support that. I will not detain the Committee any longer—I can see smiles on Government Members’ faces. [Laughter.] Let us hope the Liberal Democrats continue in that spirit.

Question put and agreed to.