Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 13 significantly expands the enterprise management incentives scheme eligibility to allow greater access for scaling companies. Specifically, the changes made by the clause will expand the EMI company eligibility limits to maintain the world-leading nature of the scheme.

Government amendments 37 and 38 are consequential to the business asset disposal relief legislation, updating it to align with the EMI maximum holding period expansion provided by the clause. The change will significantly expand the EMI limits and expand access for scale-up companies.

New clause 24 would require reports to the House of Commons on the impact of the clause on recruitment and retention in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative businesses and on the Exchequer finances. The Government have published a tax information and impact note setting out the impact of the EMI expansion. That showed that the measure will cost £585 million in 2029-30. The expansion is expected to support an extra 1,800 of the highest growth scale-up companies over the next five years, allowing them to reward an estimated 70,000 more employees.

The Government keep all taxes under review, and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis. We have also launched a call for evidence to gather views from founders, entrepreneurs, scaling companies and investors on tax policy support for investment in high-growth UK companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Committee to reject amendment 29, to accept Government amendments 3 and 4 and clauses 14 and 15, and to reject new clause 1.

[James Wild]

Clauses 14 and 15 are a story of two halves. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation rather adeptly put it—we are grateful for its support in scrutinising the Bill—these changes give with one hand and take with the other. We support clause 14, but we have doubts about clause 15.

Both clauses deal with our risk capital schemes—the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. EIS was introduced in the UK in 1994 to stimulate economic growth and, along with VCTs, these Government-backed schemes encourage individuals to invest in smaller high-risk trading companies by offering tax reliefs on their investment. As a former adviser in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I helped to develop these schemes, as well as the seed enterprise investment scheme. I recognise their importance.

As the venture capital industry has noted, these are essential tools in unlocking private capital for early-stage, high-growth UK businesses, which we all support, particularly in the knowledge-intensive sectors such as life sciences, clean energy and deep tech; however, companies now routinely require £20 million to £30 million in funding before they start to sell their products. The previous limits had prevented UK investors from following their initial investment with more capital, forcing businesses to turn to overseas capital too early. That is a problem I think we all want to fix.

The main difference between the schemes is that with EIS an investor buys shares directly in an eligible company, whereas with VCTs the investor buys shares in a listed fund-like vehicle, which then spreads their money across a portfolio of qualifying companies. These clauses increase the annual and lifetime investment limits for the EIS and VCTs in Great Britain and raise the gross asset thresholds for qualifying companies.

Clause 14 increases the annual and lifetime investment limits for the EIS and VCTs, and raises gross asset thresholds. These limits have not been uprated since 2018 for knowledge-intensive companies and 2015 for other companies. Now, all limits are being doubled, which is welcome. As we have heard, for both schemes, the limit will rise from £10 million to £20 million. The total amount that can be raised over time will increase to £40 million for those knowledge-intensive firms. The gross assets yield for qualifying companies will go up to £30 million before a share issue and £35 million thereafter. TheCityUK has said that schemes such as EIS remain vital for crowding in early-stage finance and these changes are welcomed by the industry.

Clause 15 heads somewhat in the opposite direction. This clause reduces the rate of income tax relief for investment in VCTs from 30% to 20%. This is where our doubts begin to grow. The 2025 Budget policy costings reveal a calculated trade-off. The increased limits in clause 14 will cost the Exchequer £60 million in 2027-28. Meanwhile, the reduction in VCT income tax relief will raise £125 million in the same year, delivering a net yield of approximately £65 million. The policy costings state that this rate reduction is intended to

“better balance the amount of upfront tax relief…and ensure funds are targeting the highest growth companies”,

but the costings’ own assumption that

“investors alter or reduce the way they invest into VCT”

is an acknowledgment that the relief cut will dampen investor appetite.

I am concerned by how much that tax increase will reduce investment in these high-growth companies that we all support. The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association has been explicit about its concerns, warning that this reduction

“could lead to a decline in fundraising that would impact the high growth and high-risk investments that the Government is looking to encourage”.

VCTs are a key part of the UK’s capital mix, providing one of the few consistent sources of long-term equity for early-stage and scaling companies. Any reduction in their ability to raise funds would directly affect the pipeline of innovative businesses that the UK needs to grow.

The reduction in VCT relief to 20% creates a fundamental risk to venture capital funding, precisely when scale-ups face capital constraints. For early-stage companies dependent on VCT funding, the reduced relief translates directly into a higher cost of capital and reduced funding availability. The Budget relies heavily on revenue raising from less visible and more complex parts of the tax system. This VCT change exemplifies that approach, shifting costs to venture investors rather than implementing transparent broad-based taxation.

New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact of the cuts to VCT allowance on early-stage investment volume, investor participation and international competitiveness. Given the Government’s own admission that this will alter investment behaviour, such reporting is essential, and I reiterate that a TIIN does not review what actually happens in practice. Amendment 29 would simply remove the provision in clause 15(2) that reduces the rate relief from 30% to 20%, keeping the relief at its current level to support investment in high-growth firms. I believe both amendments would be supported by industry and, subject to what the Minister says, I intend to press amendment 29 to a vote.

The Government are expanding VCT investment limits while simultaneously cutting the relief to 20%. How would the Minister address the concerns of the investment sector that the combined changes will dampen investor appetite for venture capital trusts at the very moment we need to encourage them?

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s welcoming of the majority of the changes that we are making. To address his criticism of what we are doing in relation to the venture capital trust income tax relief, I come back to the impetus behind this package of reforms as a whole on EMI, EIS and VCT, which is to make sure that the UK is the best to start, scale, list a company and to ensure that companies stay.

The specific change to VCT to reduce the income tax relief from 30% to 20% is to help rebalance the up-front tax reliefs offered across the schemes, where the VCT scheme offers tax relief on dividend income, which the EIS scheme investors do not get. VCTs tend to invest in larger, less risky, scaling companies compared with EIS scheme investors. The reduction in income tax relief therefore reflects the overall reduction in investment risk that comes with investing in later-stage companies.

It is important to bear in mind that the VCT scheme remains very generous with, as I said, 100% tax relief on dividend payments and 100% capital gains tax relief on the sale of shares, alongside that 20% income tax relief. I know that the shadow Minister does not like TIINs in general—he has made that point in the Chamber—but they do contain the full details of the assumptions and impacts, and indeed the policy rationale. I therefore commend clauses 14 and 15 and Government amendments 3 and 4 to the Committee, and ask that amendment 29 and new clause 1 be rejected.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Venture capital trusts: rate of relief and amounts and asset requirements

Amendment proposed: 29, in clause 15, page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (2).—(James Wild.)

This amendment would maintain the rate of income tax relief for investments into venture capital trusts at 30 per cent.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 16 will enable the existing enterprise management incentives scheme and company share option plan contracts agreed before 6 April 2028 to be amended to include a sale on the private intermittent securities and capital exchange system—known by its much more catchy acronym of PISCES—as an exercisable event, without losing the tax advantages. The legislation will have retrospective effect from 15 May 2025. In the interim, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be able to use its collection and management powers to not collect tax on exercise.

That means that this change will benefit PISCES trading events that happen before the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent. The change will therefore support more employees of growing UK companies to access the tax advantages of EMIs, and ensures that the tax system keeps pace with innovation in the wider economy. It also, of course, supports the launch of PISCES, which will provide a key stepping stone for public markets, supporting our world-leading capital markets. I commend clause 16 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

As the Minister says, clause 16 addresses a specific but important matter by permitting employers to amend existing company share option plan and enterprise management incentives option agreements, to allow PISCES trading events to serve as exercisable events without sacrificing the valuable tax advantages. Employers frequently offer share options to employees in recognition of their service and commitment, and to grow their businesses, and when employees exercise such options, they naturally face income tax and national insurance consequences. To encourage this form of employee ownership, successive Governments have introduced tax-advantaged schemes, including CSOP and EMIs, that provide relief from those taxes when certain conditions are satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[James Wild]

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

[James Wild]

In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to promoters of disguised remuneration schemes not being eligible for this settlement scheme, which I welcome. Perhaps she could update the Committee on whether HMRC is proactively pursuing such individuals, who caused such distress to my constituents and, of course, to people across the country who were sold schemes, advised that they were legitimate and had been agreed with HMRC, and then discovered they were not and have lost their homes and their life savings as a result.

[Lucy Rigby]

I managed to give way just before the end of my speech. The shadow Minister raises a good question and a fair point. Through the new measures and existing rules, HMRC will have powers that can result in criminal prosecution of promoters of tax avoidance, including the new universal stop regulation proposal, which will ban the promotion of the most fanciful schemes outright and allow the HMRC commissioners to ban by regulation the promotion of other arrangements that HMRC thinks will not work. We will consult on further measures to target promoters in early 2026—indeed, it is 2026 already, so the shadow Minister may assume that that will happen soon.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment made: 10, in clause 25, page 32, line 12, at end insert—

“‘shadow director’ has the meaning given by section 251 of the Companies Act 2006.”—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment inserts a definition for the purpose of Amendment 9.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Loan charge settlement scheme: supplementary

Amendment made: 11, in clause 27, page 33, line 15, at end insert—

“(da) adapting provision made under section 25(6), in cases where a settlement offer is made to a person who is not an individual, about the calculation of settlement amounts (including provision for the calculation to be different to what is required by section 25(6));”.—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment clarifies that the loan charge settlement scheme can provide for the calculation of the settlement amount to be adapted where a settlement offer is made to a person who is not an individual.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 28 will reduce the main rate writing-down allowance for corporation tax and income tax, and clause 29 introduces a new first-year allowance available for expenditure on plant and machinery. As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, capital allowances allow businesses to write off the costs of capital assets, such as plant or machinery, against their taxable income. The UK continues to offer one of the most generous capital allowances systems globally and ranks top among OECD countries for plant and machinery capital allowances.

Clause 28 will reduce the main rate writing-down allowance from 18% to 14%, starting on 1 April 2026 for corporation tax and 6 April 2026 for income tax. That allows the Government to fund a new first-year allowance while also fairly raising revenue to protect the public finances. Clause 29 will introduce the new 40% first-year allowance, which will support future investment. The new allowance is available for expenditure on plant and machinery, including assets bought for leasing and assets bought by unincorporated businesses, from 1 January 2026.

The changes made by clauses 28 and 29 will raise approximately £1.5 billion per year by the end of the scorecard. The changes are UK-wide and will impact businesses with pools of historic main rate expenditure, which predate the introduction of the super-deduction or full expensing regimes for companies, as well as historic expenditure or future main rate expenditure that does not qualify for first-year allowances, or where first-year allowances were not claimed. We have heard the calls to expand full expensing to more assets and businesses. Although the fiscal climate limits what we can do now, the new first-year allowance moves us closer to that goal in a responsible way.

New clause 2 seeks to mandate reporting the impacts of clause 28 to the House. The Government have published documents much loved by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk—tax information and impact notes—setting out the impact of the reduction to main rate writing-down allowances, alongside the introduction of the new 40% first-year allowance. I therefore reject new clause 2 and commend clauses 28 and 29 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I want to get on the record that I do not have a problem with TIINs, but they serve a different purpose from reviewing legislation after the event. I would not want any Treasury officials to feel that the Opposition do not value TIINs.

I will speak to clauses 28 and 29 as well as new clause 2, which is tabled in my name. Capital allowances are one of the primary mechanisms through which our tax system supports business investment. They enable firms to deduct the cost of purchasing plant and machinery from taxable profits, thereby reducing their tax liability and helping them to invest and grow, which we all support. The annual investment allowance is perhaps the most straightforward example. It allows businesses to deduct the full cost of most plant and machinery up to £1 million annually, in the same the year that the expenditure occurs.

Beyond that, there are the first-year allowances with no annual cap. The most generous of those is full expensing, which the Minister referred to, which provides a 100% deduction for qualifying main rate assets and a 50% allowance for certain special rate assets. Those measures were introduced by the previous Conservative Government in order to stimulate faster investment and drive up what have been, I think it is fair to say, historically low levels of business investment throughout all parties’ periods in government. I think that we are all committed to try and address that.

Where businesses cannot or choose not to utilise those more generous allowances, they rely on writing-down allowances. They spread tax relief over several years by permitting a set percentage of the remaining pool balance to be written off annually, with assets allocated to either a main rate or special rate pool, depending on their classification.

Clause 28 reduces the main rate from 18% to 14% a year, while the special rate remains at 6%. The relevant date is 1 April 2026 for corporation tax purposes, and 6 April 2026 for income tax. For periods straddling that change, a hybrid rate will apply. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to produce a report that examines the impact of those reductions on business investment levels, capital investment sector employment, the manufacturing sector, small and medium-sized enterprises and public finances.

The 2025 Budget policy costing document presents that as a part of capital allowance reform, but the reduction in the main writing-down rate will alter the cash flow position of capital-intensive businesses, slowing the rate at which they can recover investment costs through tax relief. Businesses with substantial brought-forward main pool balances will see their tax relief decelerate, with corresponding impacts on cash flow and the overall tax benefit. For companies planning significant investment, timing has now become more important. This is yet another structural tax increase on businesses with large asset bases, which will now recover their investments more slowly.

Make UK has described this Budget as

“a case of two steps forward one step back for manufacturers.”

The 4% in reduction in the writing-down allowance is undeniably bad news for business. It is little wonder that polling by the Institute of Directors reveals that four in five business leaders view this Budget negatively, and I think that those findings were replicated across the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and many other business organisations. The delayed recovery of capital costs will constrain reinvestment in modernisation and automation, precisely when UK manufacturers are already facing strong headwinds, not least from the very high energy costs that they face in this country. The reduction from 18% to 14% will diminish the speed at which businesses can recover these costs. Has the Treasury assessed the impact on business investment intentions, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in manufacturing and logistics? If not, I am sure that the Minister looks forward to supporting new clause 2.

Clause 29 is an attempt to balance the changes made in clause 28. It introduces a new 40% first-year allowance from 1 January 2026 for new, unused main rate plant and machinery. The new allowance expands relief to unincorporated businesses and firms that buy assets to lease out, which do not qualify for full expensing or the 50% special rate allowance once they go over the £1 million annual investment allowance. The explanatory notes highlight that this new allowance represents an expansion to include leasing, which we welcome—those activities that have traditionally been excluded from such reliefs. The allowance is not available for special rate expenditure, second-hand or used machinery, expenditure under disqualifying regimes or general exclusions.

We support the expansion set out in this clause. While these measures may have good aims, introducing an additional rate adds some complexity to the system. There is also the length of the Finance Bill that we are considering—536 pages of dense text—and that we expect businesses and individuals across the country to comply with, else HMRC will come after them. I urge the Government to monitor closely the impact on business investment and to look at options for a more streamlined or neutral capital allowances structure in future. What steps are being taken to tell businesses about these new allowances and freedoms they have to invest in leased assets—for example, by working with business organisations to get the word out? Opposition Members will certainly do that with businesses in our constituencies.

The new allowance will provide some up-front support for qualifying new investment, partly offsetting the impact of reducing the main writing-down rate to 14%. Once again, the Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other. The uplift will be of use for unincorporated and leasing businesses, but for most other businesses with historical or non-qualifying assets, there is no uplift at all. They simply face a slower rate of relief, going down to 14%, stretching allowances over a longer period and affecting their cash flow.

The Minister referred to Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that suggest these combined measures will cost businesses more than £1 billion in 2026–27, rising to around £1.5 billion a year thereafter. That is a significant burden at a time when companies are grappling with weak investment and, to put it bluntly, the higher costs imposed in the first Budget. The £20 billion jobs tax has had a big impact, as we saw in the data earlier this week and as we see in the number of graduates who are struggling to find jobs.

As I say, the inclusion of leasing is welcome, but we do think there is benefit in reviewing those measures after the event and coming back to Parliament to explain what has happened.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Minister referred to the new 40% first-year allowance, which is bringing forward relief for the leasing sector and unincorporated businesses, which have historically been carved out of the first-year allowance. In doing so, it allows for immediate relief on a significant amount of their investment from their corporation tax or income tax bill in the year in which they make that investment.

As the Chancellor has repeatedly made clear, the fiscal environment is challenging. We cannot make unfunded commitments on tax. The shadow Minister referred earlier to being an adviser to the previous Government, which is not, I suspect, to suggest that he had a role in creating the fiscal environment that we unfortunately inherited from the previous Government. We have heard the calls to expand full expensing to more assets and businesses. When the fiscal climate allows us to do so, we will look into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 30 will extend the 100% first-year allowance for qualifying expenditure on zero emission cars and plant or machinery for electric vehicle charge points by a further year to April 2027. More specifically, it will extend the availability of these capital allowances to 31 March 2027 for CT purposes and 5 April 2027 for income tax purposes, ensuring that investments in zero emission cars and charge point infrastructure continue to receive the most generous capital allowance treatment.

New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the expiry in 2027 of the 100% first-year allowances made under clause 30, including the case for ongoing capital allowance support for zero emission cars and electric vehicle charging points. Alongside the 2025 Budget, in which the extension was announced, a policy costings document and a TIIN were published that set out the expected economic, business and other impacts of the changes, including impacts on incentivising businesses to purchase zero emission vehicles. Those documents are of course available online.

The Government annually review the rates and thresholds of taxes and reliefs to ensure that they are appropriate and reflect the current state of the economy. For that reason, new clause 3 is unnecessary. I commend clause 30 to the Committee, and ask that new clause 3 be rejected.

[James Wild]

As we have heard, clause 30 will extend the 100% first-year allowance for expenditure on zero emission cars, including EVs, and EV charging points. As the Minister said, the extension runs for a year to March 2027 for corporation tax and April 2027 for income tax purposes. Our new clause, consistent with other amendments that we have tabled, would simply ask the Chancellor to come back and report to Parliament, and to the public, on the impact of her measures. I do not really understand this reluctance to understand the actual impact of the measures. As part of the Government’s broader regulatory reform approach, they seem keen on post-implementation reviews, but the Treasury holds out alone against its homework being scored, it would seem. We want to consider whether long-term support should continue to be provided to maintain UK competitiveness in green technology. It is, in essence, a call for evidence that could make a difference to business confidence and investment.

The allowance was first introduced in 2002 for low emission cars, and the threshold was tightened over time, reaching zero emissions from April 2021. The extension continues that policy, but only for a year, and the Government’s own costings suggest that the extension will cost £145 million. Businesses planning multi-year fleet transitions and charging infrastructure investments face repeated cliff edges. Each year, a one-year window does not help a company planning to electrify its fleet in two years’ time; it simply rewards those who are able to accelerate the investment within the next 12 months.

Does the Minister recognise that it creates a stop-start approach that could discourage investment, undermine industry confidence and, ultimately, slow the UK’s transition to clean, green technology? That is odd when, in many ways, the Government are accelerating full throttle towards 2030 electrification across the grid. Members may have pylons and other pieces of grid infrastructure being dumped in their constituencies, with no public recourse, in the name of the Energy Secretary’s net zero goals. It is worth asking whether their policy is joined up if it includes these incremental extensions.

In that spirit, I have tabled new clause 3 so that hon. Members can judge whether the Government have a coherent approach. It would require the Chancellor to assess, transparently and on the record, whether a long-term support system is justified to keep Britain competitive in the global race for green manufacturing. A formal assessment would give Parliament and businesses the information they need to plan ahead.

In the debate on clause 11, the Minister referred to the long-term certainty provided by committing to a 25% corporation tax rate for this Parliament. Of course, that is not actually in the legislation, but we welcome that commitment and the greater certainty, and similar certainty could be given in this area. A formal assessment could also ensure that public money is being used wisely and that policy provides the certainty to unlock the investment we all want to see.

Given their 2030 obsession, why have the Government again chosen a one-year extension that provides limited certainty for fleet operators or for the charging infrastructure sector? I see that the hon. Member for Banbury is getting ready to dive into the debate. Will the Minister support new clause 3 and commit to a proper assessment of the lasting framework that is needed to secure Britain’s place in the green technology economy of the future?

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

As the Minister said, these clauses are mainly technical, tidying-up measures, but they are worthy of debate none the less.

Clause 31 clarifies the corporation tax treatment of payments made in return for the surrender of research and development expenditure credit, audiovisual expenditure credit or video games expenditure credit for payments made on or after November 2025. This technical clarification ensures that, when companies sell or surrender tax credits, the accounting treatment is consistent and correct.

R&D expenditure credit has been in place since 2013 to support companies carrying out R&D, and these creative industry expenditure credits will fully replace the old film, high-end TV, animation, children’s TV and video games tax reliefs from April 2027. At the moment, there is no agreed approach between tax authorities and companies on how to treat payments received when these credits are surrendered for corporation tax purposes, which has created uncertainty.

Clause 31 will hopefully put that beyond doubt by setting out a clear tax treatment in law, and HMRC will update its guidance manuals to reflect the new rules. Does the Minister have any figures—I do not have the TIINs to hand on this one—on whether that uncertainty has cost companies, or cost the Government, in lost revenue?

Clause 32 corrects transitional rules between the video games tax relief and the video games expenditure credit to ensure that the new expenditure credit works fairly for games that are moving over from the old relief. It corrects how the expenditure credit is calculated for transitional games—those that already have tax relief claims and then opt into the new scheme—so that companies do not get too much or too little relief, simply because the old regime used European expenditure while the new one uses UK expenditure.

In effect, clause 32 ensures that companies switching schemes do not get double relief or under-relief. Can the Minister provide an estimate of how many video games development companies will be affected by this transitional correction, and whether any have suffered financial detriment under the previous rules?

Clause 33 makes changes to the special credit for visual effects, which is part of the audiovisual expenditure credit, as the Committee will be aware. It prevents the calculation for additional credit from producing incorrect results, correcting anomalies in the visual effects credit calculation. The explanatory notes explain that, without this fix, certain combinations of expenditure could generate incorrect credit amounts or negative values, so clause 33 ensures that the scheme operates as intended and that the special credit scheme is neither more nor less generous than intended. Does the Minister have any figures on how many production companies have experienced calculation errors as a result of the previous rules?

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak briefly on clause 32, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for video games and esports, to say to the Minister that I welcome the closing of this loophole. Does she agree that the change will support the British video games industry, which is industry-leading across the world, and deliver the best for our economy?

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 34 makes a minor legislative amendment to the R&D tax relief rules to put beyond doubt that the overseas restrictions apply to R&D expenditure credit claimants with a registered office in Northern Ireland. The Government are making this amendment to provide clarity to businesses and ensure that the legislation aligns with the original policy intent of the Finance Act 2025. I commend clause 34 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clause 34 will amend the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to clarify restrictions on relief for overseas R&D applied to companies across the entire United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It applies retrospectively on claims made on or after October 2024. It puts beyond doubt that the geographical restriction on R&D expenditure credit relief applies uniformly across all jurisdictions. Can the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding this clarification, exemptions under the enhanced R&D intensive support scheme still apply to firms based in Northern Ireland?

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. The Government are committed to supporting R&D investment across the UK through R&D tax reliefs; they of course play a vital role in supporting the mission to boost economic growth, which he will know is this Government’s No. 1 priority.

The legislation clarifies that the rules are the same for all R&D expenditure credit companies across the UK. The overseas restriction was introduced in regulations in 2024 before being included in the Finance Act 2025. It was always intended to apply to R&D expenditure credit claimants across the UK, so the change is purely to clarify the Finance Act 2025 to put that position beyond all doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Restriction of relief on disposals to employee-ownership trusts

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

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Chancellor promised hospitality firms that she would lower their taxes, but her business rate raid is hammering every town, village, city and high street. This is not just an attack on pubs; hotels, cafés, music venues and many more are being hit. It is two months since the Budget caused huge worry for these businesses, and we await details of this latest U-turn, but the key question is: does the Chancellor get it? Does she get that it is not just pubs but hospitality, leisure and retail businesses that need support because of her terrible choices?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Conservative Members do not get it, because when they were in government, they set out plans to remove the temporary pandemic rates relief overnight in 2025. That would have seen an increase of 300% in business rate bills overnight for businesses on the high street. We have taken a different, fairer and more proportional approach, phasing out the pandemic relief over a slower time period and extending it into this year.

Covid-19: Financial Support

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—I think more than 10 did—about what their constituents suffered and continue to suffer. They set out some very powerful examples.

It is almost six years since the first cases of covid were recorded in the UK, after two Chinese nationals travelled here from Wuhan. As has been said, these were some of the most challenging times for our nation. Some 230,000 people tragically died, and there is a very powerful memorial just across the river to remind us; we see it every day. Lockdowns and restrictions were imposed. Choices were made that no Government would want to make. As a newly elected MP, I was faced with the need to vote for and support measures restricting people’s freedom—something that I did not expect to have to do when I came into this place.

Clearly, not every decision taken was right. Mistakes were made, as they would be in a pandemic, but overall this unprecedented challenge was met with unprecedented action. On the economy, the subject of this debate, the actions taken by the then Conservative Government protected millions of jobs, and supported businesses and those most in need. When the pandemic struck, the Government acted swiftly. The coronavirus job retention scheme—the furlough scheme—which protected 11 million jobs at a cost of £70 billion, was announced on 20 March. Shortly afterwards, the first lockdown was announced. At its peak, nearly 9 million people were on furlough, preventing widespread unemployment. For the self-employed, a topic covered in most contributions, the self-employment income support scheme was set up and delivered nearly £30 billion, across five rounds of grants, to nearly 3 million individuals. Those schemes provided a lifeline to those whose livelihood was threatened through no fault of their own.

Beyond the employment support schemes, eight grant schemes saw £23 billion paid to small businesses. They were administered by local authorities. I pay tribute to the work they did to put in place systems and mechanisms for processing those payments rapidly and getting the support to people who needed it. Through three loan schemes, nearly £80 billion-worth of loans were approved. The bounce back loan scheme supported 1.5 million businesses with nearly £50 billion of funding.

It was not only loans that provided crucial support. Some £10 billion was made available in business rates relief to nearly 370,000 premises in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, and we are now seeing the consequences of unwinding some of that support. VAT for the hospitality sector, which was particularly affected by the restrictions and rules that were put in place, was cut to 5%. I supported the campaign for that cut, as did many Members across the House. That unprecedented package supported jobs and livelihoods across the UK.

The Government also acted to help certain groups who faced particular challenges. A £20-a-week uplift was put in place for people on universal credit to help those on the lowest incomes, and rules about eligibility for benefits were relaxed. Additional support for jobseekers through the kickstart and restart schemes was also rolled out.

Of course, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and other hon. Members have said, the support did not reach everyone. ExcludedUK was established in May 2020 to represent individuals and small business owners who fell outside the main financial support schemes. As has been set out, the group estimates that around 3.8 million people were unable to access full financial support, despite losing their income. Those individuals included the newly self-employed, company directors paid in dividends, and those whose self-employment income was less than half their overall earnings.

I know the genuine hardship faced by my constituents in that situation from my time in this House, and from raising constituents’ issues with Ministers. Hon. Members from across the House will remember the constant Teams and Zoom meetings with Ministers, in which we put forward the position of those people, as well as the debates held in the House and the reports by the Treasury Committee and others drawing attention to the situation.

The response that was consistently provided was about the challenges in identifying workable solutions for HMRC’s system, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, was unable to differentiate dividends coming from an individual’s company from money from other sources. The cut-off points—the £50,000 threshold—for self-employed people also led to real difficulties and unfairness. The fraud risk, which has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, was one of the reasons given by the then permanent secretary to the Treasury as to why schemes put forward by the Federation of Small Businesses were cited as not being possible. There were changes through the five self-employment income support scheme grants. Frankly, though, the restrictions created the impact on the people to whom hon. Members have referred. The ongoing concerns raised by the campaign merit serious consideration—and the covid inquiry will give them that consideration during the module referred to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.

Looking to the future, we should ensure that if and when the next pandemic strikes, we have better data, and better systems to put in place support, if needed; Making Tax Digital may help in that regard. We should ensure that rules do not exclude people unfairly. Equally, we must learn the lessons from the pandemic, particularly around the damaging impact of lockdowns, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said; if we do not put those restrictions in place, such huge financial firepower will not be needed.

In the pandemic, the pressure for action to help people and businesses was incredibly intense. There were trade-offs relating to time and the checks that could be implemented on support schemes. I recall vividly the clamour for support for small businesses, which I was part of. That led to the bounce back loan scheme, which had limited checks, leading to consequences involving fraud. That scheme, however, enabled lots of businesses to survive that would not otherwise be here today. The Government could have spent months designing the perfect scheme while businesses collapsed and families struggled; instead, they acted to protect lives and livelihoods. Some £410 billion was spent on covid measures—an extraordinary sum that added greatly to our debt. However, predictions by the Bank of England that unemployment would reach 9% were prevented. Unemployment peaked at 5.2%, before falling back to 3.7% two years after the first lockdown.

However, a lot of people clearly missed out on full financial support. While there will continue to be debate about the decisions taken and lessons to be learned, undoubtedly our country would be in a far worse place today were it not for the decisions taken at the time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I wish to speak to new clauses 22 to 24, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. As the Minister set out, clauses 63 to 68 introduce measures to apply inheritance tax to unspent pension assets and other death benefits for deaths occurring after 6 April 2027.

This Labour Government have taken taxes to record levels, with £26 billion in additional taxes in this Budget and £66 billion since the election. These tax increases were not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. Labour is increasing taxes on family businesses, farms, jobs, dividends, savings, motorists and now death. Removing the inheritance tax exemption for pensions could undermine efforts to encourage people to save at a time when people are not saving enough. And what do the Government do? They limit the salary sacrifice pension contributions scheme and introduce a new raid on people’s pensions pots.

The Minister did not refer to the impact assessment, but it is worth pointing out that it estimates that 10,500 estates will now become liable for inheritance tax, raising £1.5 billion by 2029, and 38,500 estates will pay more inheritance tax than was previously the case. That is why we oppose this extension of inheritance tax and the underlying principle, to which the Minister seemed to allude, that people’s money belongs not to them but to the state.

New clause 22 is straightforward. It would require the Chancellor to set out the impact of these measures on pension saving, household saving decisions and personal representatives. There is real concern—I am surprised the Minister did not address this—about the administrative burden being placed on personal representatives and the effect on the industry. Personal representatives will be required to identify every pension asset, calculate the inheritance tax due and ensure payment within six months, and they will be personally liable if they fail to settle all the liabilities due. In many cases, that deadline would be impossible to meet and must be extended. Furthermore, if a pension fund has to quickly sell illiquid assets, such as commercial property, it may not get the full market value, but the Bill does not introduce a relief where the underlying assets must be sold and the proceeds are less than the value of the assets at the time of death. Late payments will attract interest at 8%. By contrast, someone in self-assessment has 10 months to pay tax on the income they already understand.

Both the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation have offered some practical solutions, the first of which is to extend the withholding periods. Personal representatives can ask pension administrators to withhold 50% of funds for up to 15 months, but that is simply not long enough for the complex cases I have referred to, particularly where business property valuations have to be agreed with HMRC. Will the Minister consider allowing HMRC to extend withholding in such complex cases?

Secondly, the Government should allow instalment payments for illiquid pension assets. Billions of pounds of pensions wealth are in illiquid assets. The Government allow inheritance tax to be paid over 10 years for illiquid estate assets. Why deny the same practical relief for pensions?

When this policy was announced, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave it a “very high” uncertainty rating and estimated that behavioural effects will cut the static yield by about 43%; the Government’s own forecasters accept that the changes may well significantly alter saving behaviour. The new clause would simply require the Chancellor to assess that impact and come to the House to make it clear.

New clause 23 would require the Chancellor to consult on the impact of clauses 63 to 67, and whether they deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners. The truth is that the Government rushed the consultation out after the 2024 Budget and followed it with a very narrow technical consultation, which did not consider the principled question of whether this approach to pensions being brought within the inheritance tax framework was appropriate. As the Investing and Saving Alliance told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in its inquiry to which the Exchequer Secretary also gave evidence:

“If we were consulted and listened to, we probably would not be having this discussion today, because I do not think pensions would be going into IHT.”

Both the chartered institute and the ATT have criticised the Government for consulting on pensions in isolation, rather than in the context of individuals’ wider inheritance tax position. Our new clause is explicit. Consultation must take place to assess whether these changes

“deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners”

—wording that reflects the commitment the Labour party made in its manifesto.

New clause 24 is essential. It would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the new rules for pensions and to set up a dedicated helpline. Why does that matter? Because this measure will be incredibly complex in practice. The chartered institute has said that professional executors are already questioning whether they can continue to operate in the market at all. Some firms, we are told, are already leaving the market. If professionals step back, the burden falls on lay personal representatives: often grieving family members or friends, with more errors, delay and potentially a wider tax gap ensuing.

Professional indemnity insurers also need clarity, yet when is HMRC due to deliver detailed guidance? Not until spring 2027, just weeks before the changes take effect. That is completely outrageous and far too late. That is why the new clause requires guidance to be published within six months of the Bill being passed.

I want to touch on a broader concern that has been raised with me on the potential serious unintended consequences for unmarried couples. Today, couples can anticipate making financial provision for each other via pensions, but if this measure comes into force they will have to look at other options. If one member of an unmarried couple in their 50s or 60s dies with a pension at peak value, the survivor could lose up to 40% of that fund. Are Ministers talking to pension scheme administrators to mitigate the risks for such couples and to provide clear guidance?

These clauses increase taxes, add complexity, penalise saving and add stress for grieving families. Despite clause 67, we are also advised that there is still a risk of double taxation of inheritance tax and income tax, which could see beneficiaries paying an effective tax rate of 67%. Our amendments seek to mitigate their worst impacts. The Chancellor should assess the real impact on saving behaviour and personal representatives. She should consult properly on these provisions and she must provide clear guidance, backed by dedicated support. We should be incentivising saving and encouraging people to do the right thing. Extending inheritance tax does the opposite, and we will oppose the Government’s measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild]

These changes were presented as some sort of simplification and modernisation, but clauses 83 and 84 nearly double remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% and increase general betting duty to 25%. We will have some of the highest rates of tax on gambling in the world. As we have heard from some Members, the industry has warned that that could have severe consequences for an internationally competitive sector that supports tens of thousands of jobs, underpins horseracing and other sports and already contributes significantly to the Treasury. It is questionable whether these measures will lead to stable, long-term revenue gains for the Exchequer, and there is a very real risk that they will result in job losses and greater use of unregulated operators in the black market. New clause 25 would require the Chancellor to come back to the House and explain what the consequences have been for revenue, sports and horseracing, high street betting shops, the black market, jobs and the public finances.

Of course, the origin of these changes owes much to Gordon Brown, who encouraged the Chancellor to hike taxes in order to increase welfare spending. Proponents of higher taxes often suggest that they will not have any consequences, but it is the role of us in this House to scrutinise potential changes and assess the impact after the event. Independent modelling from EY shared by the Betting and Gaming Council suggests that the impact of doubling remote gaming duty could be the loss of 15,000 jobs, and a further 1,700 jobs could be lost as a result of the increase in general betting duty. In total, 17,000 positions located in Stoke-on-Trent, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Norwich and other areas could be affected. Of course, those are simply projections—they could prove to be pessimistic, and we certainly hope that will be the case—but when unemployment has risen consistently under this Government due to the jobs tax and other costs, such warnings should not just be dismissed. That is why the Chancellor must account for the impact of her choices, as new clause 25 requires.

There has been some mention of horseracing. I was pleased to join colleagues across the House in support of the “Axe the Racing Tax” campaign. That is another tax that the Chancellor wanted to introduce, but she was forced into one of her all-too-regular U-turns.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the proposal to harmonise gambling taxes, which the horseracing industry was most opposed to, was first proposed by his Government? It is something that they were proposing; we have just inherited it.

[James Wild]

We are debating the measures in this Bill, which was introduced by this Government. I was not involved in the changes that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I certainly would not have supported hitting the horseracing sector in the way that was proposed. I do not remember that being in a previous Finance Bill introduced by a previous Government; it is this Government who sought to bring forward those measures, but they were roundly rejected, because horseracing supports around 85,000 jobs and contributes £300 million in tax revenue every year.

Despite the Government’s climbdown in exempting horseracing from the higher rates, the industry could still feel the consequences of this Government’s approach to gambling duties. When the online betting sector is squeezed, sponsorship is likely to be reduced, and because racing’s funding depends heavily on those partnerships and that sponsorship, we could see an impact on racing. In my area of Norfolk, we are very fortunate to have Fakenham races—I went there to support the British Horseracing Authority’s campaign against the Government’s plans. That venue is synonymous with the area and its identity, and is a source of local employment, not just at the track itself but for the farriers, the pubs, the hotels and the whole ecosystem that supports racing. That is why these clauses in the Bill continue to pose a risk to the sector and other sports, and that risk needs to be accounted for.

I now turn to the black market, an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). The Government have acknowledged the risks associated with taking this approach, which is why they quietly set aside £26 million for the Gambling Commission to combat expansion of the black market, but the same EY analysis suggests that over £6 billion in stakes could migrate to the black market, doubling its current size and undermining the progress that has been made through the existing regulatory framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has identified potential leakage of around £500 million in lost revenue as activity shifts away from properly regulated markets. Those projections—which again could be wrong, but could also be right—raise legitimate questions about the overall effectiveness of the Government’s approach.

When taxes rise too far, behaviour can change and the yield can go down, which is what we will see with a number of the tax rises that the Government have included in their Finance Bill. Rather than reducing demand, activity will move to unregulated markets where consumer protections are weaker, fraud risks are higher, and tax revenue is not collected. I am not sure we have heard a convincing response from the Minister about how that will be addressed and whether those risks have been taken properly into account.

Let us look at what happened in the Netherlands, where the Dutch Government raised their remote slots tax rate to 34% last January. Within months, gross gaming revenue fell by a quarter and gambling tax receipts dropped to just 83% of the previous year’s figure, leaving a €200 million shortfall from the projections. Somewhat predictably, the Dutch regulator then reported a huge growth in the number of people accessing unlicensed domains, rising from 200,000 to a million. That should serve as an example of why we should be cautious about the Chancellor’s plans. Experience suggests that changes have unintended consequences, and those risks must be carefully assessed. In winding up, will the Minister provide a bit more clarity about how that will be monitored and what steps the Government will take if there are unintended consequences and those projections prove to be accurate?

There is some debate and confusion in the sector and some of the professional bodies about the treatment of free bets and free plays. The sector and those bodies have raised concerns about that. The Budget costings document calculates gambling duty using the gross gambling yield, which is the revenue retained by operators after paying out winnings to customers. However, current law uses a wider measure, which also counts the value of free bets and free plays. That means there is a potential mismatch. Will the Minister clarify that? I am sure she has had representations on it directly.

We need to strike a balance with the levels of taxation. The industry is warning that these increases will impact on sports and lead to job losses and more black market activity. New clause 25 seeks transparency and an answer to those concerns. It asks the Chancellor to assess the impact of these rises on horseracing, the black market, jobs and the public finances. That is the minimum that Parliament should expect, and I hope Members will support our new clause.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13, which respectively outline: an increase in tax on online gaming, such as online slots or casino games; a new rate of general betting duty specifically for online betting, such as placing a bet on a football match; and, removing bingo duty.

Online gambling has evolved quickly, and legislation has simply not kept up. Before, someone might have popped down to their local high-street betting shop or organised a trip with their friends to the casino. It was confined to a specific place that people had to go to and then at some point leave. That does not mean that there were no problem gamblers—of course there were—but it did impose necessary social and physical limits on gambling. Online gambling has changed that beyond all recognition. Now, that casino fits into someone’s pocket. Online platforms know people’s habits, when they use their phone most and when they have not gambled in a while, and the platforms can tailor notifications to pull people back in. The technology is designed to prey on human instinct, using algorithms that make betting time-sensitive, compulsive and constantly available. In case the opportunity to gamble ever slips someone’s mind, gambling companies will be sure to remind them in a commercial break for sports matches, on the side of buses and emblazoned on the microphone at premier league post-match interviews.

People might see some of the seemingly generous offers they are given. For their first £5, the betting companies might give them £100 or even £200 credit to gamble with. That feels like a lot of money to most people, but it is pennies compared with what the companies are making from their current customers and what they might make from you, once you are hooked.

As someone who, to be frank, does not like gambling—I do not gamble, and I do not understand why people enjoy handing their money over to betting companies—I detest the tactics used by gambling companies to pull people in. As online gambling has evolved exponentially, the online platforms have been able to get away with dodging responsibility for problem gambling or for paying their fair share into the Treasury. As my dad always says, “You never meet a poor bookie.” That is why I support clause 84, which will introduce a new higher rate of tax on remote betting, so that online bets are more expensive compared with in-person betting. Those taxes will be paid by the platform, so that we can catch up, finally, with the reality of the gambling world, which has moved far beyond the traditional model of shops and casinos that the tax system was designed around.

Clause 83 raises the rate of remote gaming duty, the tax on online slots and casinos. That reduces the incentives for operators to push the most harmful forms of online gambling, making the system fairer and safer for everyone. I represent Morecambe, a seaside town with a host of gaming businesses on the front and a bingo hall. The evidence shows that it is not the penny slots or the weekly bingo games that drive the majority of problem gambling, and I am pleased that the new remote gaming and betting duties recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild]

It feels like we are getting warmed up for scrutinising the 536 pages of the Bill upstairs in the Public Bill Committee shortly. It is good to see that the popularity of the topics we are debating has increased as we move on to alcohol duty, which clause 86 increases in line with the retail prices index from 1 February.

I am proud to confirm that His Majesty’s Opposition are big supporters of beer, wine, spirits and hospitality businesses. As such, we oppose these tax rises. This £26 billion tax-raising Budget piles pressure on households and businesses that are already struggling because of the decisions of the Chancellor. Prices are high, growth is sluggish and now the Chancellor has chosen to impose another duty hike.

Our new clause 26 would therefore require the Chancellor to publish a statement on the impact of increasing alcohol duty on the hospitality sector, on pubs, on UK wine, spirit and beer producers, on jobs and on the public finances. These sectors are already being hammered by this Government’s economic choices. A Government who say that the cost of living is their priority are raising alcohol duty, putting more cost on to people and businesses that keep our rural communities and high streets alive.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

May I start by wishing everybody taking part in dry January good luck? I admit that I am not one of them. It is fantastic that the shadow Minister is talking about the impact of these changes, but I am surprised that his list did not include alcohol harm. Many charities and campaign groups are pleased that the Government are trying to move people away from drinking at home to drinking in the hospitality sector. Does he accept that that is a good thing and its benefits should be evaluated?

[James Wild]

Indeed. When we brought in the new duty system, we focused on the strength of alcohol in terms of the tax. We want to encourage more people into the hospitality sector, but the Government seem to have a policy of driving people away from going into pubs—and not just Labour MPs.

In government, we recognised the importance of those sectors to jobs, to our communities and to growth, and the simplified duty system, including the two new reliefs—draught relief and small producer relief—were warmly welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made the point that the Government are choosing not to implement similar measures on draught relief. At the 2023 autumn statement we froze alcohol duty rates, and we extended that freeze in the spring Budget of 2024. I am proud to support that record: we had a Government working with the sector, not against it. It gives me no pleasure to say that this Government have chosen a very different path.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I both represent large, rural constituencies. Could Members across the House think creatively about how we are going to save the great British rural pub? That could be by giving special credence to those who sell draught beer, rather than selling it in supermarkets, or through national insurance—all that sort of thing. Otherwise a great institution, which most people have to drive to, will be in danger of extinction. Are those pubs not part of our history?

[James Wild]

They absolutely are. I would be happy to come to my right hon. Friend’s constituency to discuss this over a pint in one of those small rural pubs, which are the hub of our villages and hamlets. Once they are gone, it is very difficult to replace them. The Government clearly have the hospitality sector in their crosshairs, and clause 86 is just the latest salvo.

This is no small corner of the economy. Some 3.5 million people are employed directly in the sector, which invests £7 billion a year, yet the industry is being punished by the Chancellor’s decisions and this clause. UKHospitality’s “#TaxedOut” campaign has highlighted the nearly 90,000 jobs lost in this sector. With unemployment now above 5%, young people in particular are paying the price. That is a consequence of the Chancellor’s damaging tax rises, which were supported by Labour Members.

Higher alcohol duties, the jobs tax, energy bills and soaring business rates are layering cost on cost. It is little wonder that UKHospitality has called the Government’s approach a “hammer blow”.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that as a result of this policy, lots of local pubs, including lots more in the hospitality industry, will go out of business?

[James Wild]

That is very clearly the risk.

The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the proposed increases will be damaging to the sector, and we may well see more closures as a result. New clause 26 would shine a light on the real impact that these decisions will have on rural pubs, jobs and businesses. I hope the Minister will consider the new clause and not simply dismiss it by referring to the tax and information impact note, as she did with an earlier group of amendments. That is a prediction of what will happen; it is not a review of what the actuality is.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This new clause is even more important given the fact that the Government, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister understand the impact that the Bill will have on pubs. They have said that they will bring forward measures to help and support pubs, yet we have not seen those measures, because they are not in this Bill. We therefore need to have some form of accountability to be able to understand the impact of not only the measures before us, which we can vote on, but the proposed ones that will come in to support the measures that the Government are already looking to put in this Bill, which will have an impact. Does that make sense? Does my hon. Friend agree?

[James Wild]

I think that makes sense, and I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.

The Government are having to try to put in place solutions to deal with problems that they have created. If Labour MPs were welcome in pubs across the country, they would hear quite how difficult—

[Gareth Snell]

I am!

[James Wild]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me on to my next paragraph.

Instead of tinkering, the Chancellor should adopt Conservative party policies and abolish business rates for pubs, hospitality businesses, retail and leisure businesses, as well as slashing the average pub’s energy bill by £1,000. That is real help—the Minister can have those ideas for free.

The duty increases will also have an impact on the UK’s world-class wine and spirits producers, which together generate £76 billion in economic activity. Across our wine sector, there are more than 1,000 vineyards, including some excellent ones in North West Norfolk, which I recommend. Despite that success, we see the Government putting yet more costs on to the sector; some 60% of the price of a bottle of wine already goes to tax. Instead of listening to calls from the sector to freeze duty, the Chancellor has decided to increase it, and she has failed to fix the small producer relief so that it works for wine makers and distillers.

The picture is no rosier in the spirits sector. The Scotch Whisky Association has said that the increase piles additional pressure on to a sector already suffering from job losses, stalled investment and business closures. It estimates that the lost revenue to the Treasury as a result of the previous rise in spirits duty amounted to about £150 million. The UK Spirits Alliance has called the Budget

“a sad day for the nation’s distillers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector.”

WineGB joins its ranks in pointing out that higher prices will likely lead to lower sales and reduce the Treasury revenue, so the sector could not be clearer. The only people still pretending this is good economics are those on the Government Benches.

When the Government should be backing businesses, they are instead choosing to add to their costs. Increased taxes have consequences—they depress demand and revenue. In October, YouGov found that one in four regular drinkers was likely to reduce their alcohol spend this year due to price increases, and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has called for the OBR’s forecasting assumptions to be reviewed. The Government are putting themselves and the UK on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) should read more about—he will be persuaded. Ministers should take fresh advice on the impact of these changes.

The UK’s brewers, producers and hospitality businesses are resilient. Frankly, in the face of this Government’s onslaught, they need to be. They are at the heart of our communities, creating jobs, driving local growth and giving many young people their first opportunity in work. Now is the time to support the sector, not tax it more, which is why we will be voting against these measures this evening.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, a union that represents workers in the distillery and retail trades. I will limit my comments to the uprating of excise duty, but I welcome this Budget more generally. It represents the right choice—investment and renewal over austerity and decline.

Clause 86 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill represents a simple uprating of alcohol duty in accordance with the retail prices index. In that sense, the clause represents continuity with the policy of successive Governments over many years, going back to the early 1970s, and of course the principle of excise duty predates that by many more years. Having noted the shadow Minister’s comments, it is telling that none of the amendments we are considering today would actively reverse that increase. The effects of the escalator is also softened to an extent by the reduction for draught products, which, combined with pre-existing changes to the tax system, amount to a somewhat more favourable regime for the drinks most sold in pubs. This direction of policy is welcome, given everything we know about the attendant health and social harm that can be the result of solo drinking.

It is worth noting that the increase is in line with international best practice. It is timely that just today, the World Health Organisation published a new report titled “Global report on the use of alcohol taxes”. That report says that

“specific excise taxes need to be regularly adjusted for inflation or their real value risks erosion over time.”

It also establishes that the UK’s effective tax take is firmly in line with many other European countries, including Belgium and much of central and eastern Europe, and of course it is significantly lower than in Scandinavia. As such, uprating the duty strikes the right balance between the different objectives of encouraging social activity, supporting the hospitality and manufacturing industries, and not encouraging excessive consumption. It is true that there have been changes in alcohol consumption rates among the general public, changes that have been particularly marked since covid. As the 2024 living costs and food survey found, there has been a notable fall in real-terms alcohol consumption, both in and out of the home, which is why specific measures are needed to support the pub trade.

If I may, I will say a few words about the revaluation 2026 process. I have raised questions about this before, and the Minister has indicated that—as the phrase goes—discussions are ongoing, so in the interests of time I will not repeat my questions today. However, I would like to note two things. First, the Valuation Office Agency has been genuinely independent since the days of the increment value duty, and secondly, valuation 2026 has been coming for a long time. It was the last Government who changed the law to introduce three-year valuation exercises, and as successive annual reports of the VOA make clear, the risk of valuations in individual sectors that are not of sufficient quality was foreseen. A delivery plan was developed before the 2024 general election to mitigate that risk, as the VOA saw it. Presumably the Government of the day did not have concerns about the VOA’s approach, because if they did, they would have raised them on the record.

I will make two further brief points, the first of which is about the tax system’s treatment of different types of alcohol sales. Something needs to be done about the sale of high-strength drinks on our high streets in proximity to betting shops. If you were to go to Northfield high street, Ms Cummins, you would see a succession of small betting shops immediately next to off-licences where very low cost, but very high strength beers and ciders are sold. There is a revolving door between those premises, and it is a major contribution to some of the antisocial problems that we have on our high streets. I hope that future exercises will look at different treatments, whether that is powers for local authorities or changes to the tax system to try to remedy the problem.

Rural Fuel Duty Relief

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for the contributions that we have heard. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the rural fuel duty relief scheme in 2019, and that was in recognition of the fact that remote communities face higher pump prices due to the high cost of transporting and distributing fuel.

The scheme was subsequently extended again in 2015 to include more areas across England and Scotland, providing a welcome 5p per litre reduction in prices to help families and businesses in those areas, particularly where they might have only one filling station to choose from. The scheme recognised that rural communities, especially isolated ones, face challenges that justify targeted support. As we have heard from hon. Members, it has proved effective and needed.

In the main Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Environment Secretary, has been setting out the support that the Conservatives have consistently provided for people in rural Britain; many of my colleagues are speaking in that debate. In government, we demonstrated our commitment to those who live and work in the countryside, including my North West Norfolk constituents.

Our fuel duty record underlined that. As well as the rural fuel duty relief, we froze fuel duty every year from 2011. In March 2022, we went further and introduced a 5p cut to fuel duty across the board. That was not merely about tax policy; it was about recognising that, for rural communities, a car or a van is a lifeline, not a luxury. It connects farmers to markets, helps children get to school, helps people get to work or health appointments and keeps rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a multiplied effect in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer.

Our support for rural communities extended far beyond fuel duty to infrastructure and supporting agricultural businesses, recognising their vital contribution to our country and to the social fabric—what a contrast to what we have seen under this Government. The Government say that the cost of living is their priority, but they are adding to the costs for families and businesses. Inflation was at 2% when the Government came in, and they have nearly doubled it. The much-vaunted promise of £300 off energy bills is nowhere to be seen.

In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that Labour would end the 5p fuel duty cut that we introduced. That measure will take effect from September this year, and will see the average family pay £100 a year more. The Road Haulage Association estimates that it will add more than £2,000 a year to the operating costs of a heavy goods vehicle. From April next year, the Government will scrap the 16-year fuel duty freeze that we introduced, and inflation-linked rises will follow. That marks the end of the support offered to motorists through the freeze since 2010, which has saved them £120 billion. That puts in context the modest £5 million or so cost of the rural fuel duty relief.

In November, the Chancellor also announced her pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles, which is set to cost drivers an extra £255 a year. It is little wonder that the RAC has said that simply keeping vehicles on the road has become a significant financial challenge. The Prime Minister has been boasting about the £3 bus cap—a cap that he increased by 50%. Whether it is fuel duty or public transport, the Government are making things harder and more expensive for rural communities.

Rural communities are not only being punished at the pump. In the debate, we have heard reference to the family farm tax, which breaks up the farms that form the backbone of our rural communities. The modest change that the Minister has announced is welcome as far as it goes, but given the damage that the tax will do, the Conservatives are committed to reversing it entirely.

As well as the increases to fuel duty, business rates will increase, hitting rural pubs and businesses. UKHospitality estimates that an average pub will pay an extra £12,900 over the next three years. The Minister was sent out to defend the farm tax, and he said there would not be changes, but then there were. At Treasury questions, I called on the Chancellor to look again at business rates increases, and the Minister ruled that out then, but we read today that there may be changes. Apparently the Business Secretary has even noticed the damage that the increases will do—presumably not after discussing them in a pub, given that many Labour MPs have been barred. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government are considering making those changes, as the sector and many across the House have called for?

The rural fuel duty relief scheme reflects an approach to governing that recognises the distinct challenges and vital importance of our rural communities. We introduced the scheme and extended it, and throughout our time in government we demonstrated that we understand and support those who live and work in the countryside. Given that it is now more than a decade since the scheme was last expanded, and given its modest cost, I fully support a review of the relief. The Treasury often says that it keeps taxes under review, but this measure deserves a proactive review, and I hope that the Minister will commit to one.

By contrast, this Government’s tax rise after tax rise make life harder for rural businesses and rural people. Against a backdrop of weak growth and rising unemployment, Labour’s approach sadly threatens the fabric of our rural communities. Those rural communities deserve much better.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This is a rare and serious conduct motion that calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, breaking promises on tax and breaching the OBR confidentiality process—in short, for not being straight with the British people.

I was expecting to refer to more contributions this afternoon, but it has been a slightly curtailed debate. [Interruption.] We had the comprehensive introduction from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) were surprised and disappointed that the Chancellor is being held to account not for her personality, but for her conduct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, this debate is about honesty, trust and confidence and what happens as a result, and about the “shenanigans”, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) put it.

On Times Radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor was asked why this debate matters. It matters because the deliberate briefing and misrepresentation of the Budget has damaged workers, savers, pensioners and investors. Let us start with the simple truth: this Government and the Chancellor spun false narratives about the public finances to justify their political choices to increase welfare spending.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

During the Budget debate, I asked the shadow Chancellor whether he would address the fact that, on multiple occasions, he referred to the public finances in a fantastically negative tone that appeared far from the truth that was revealed at the Budget, suggesting at one point that there was a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. As the shadow Minister says that we were not being straight with the public about the state of the public finances, will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of his colleague for doing just that?

[James Wild]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have had the opportunity of the opening 45-minute speech to put that to my right hon. Friend.

What happened as a result of all the policy kites that were flown? Pensions were drawn down, fewer mortgages were approved and investment was paused. That is not my verdict; the Bank of England warned that the economy was heading for slowdown as a result of the uncertainty, the British Chambers of Commerce said that that uncertainty affected investment and recruitment, and hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions. Those are the real impacts of that activity—the shenanigans—and there is genuine anger across the country at the damage such uncertainty caused. The Chancellor must take responsibility because she is responsible for that uncertainty.

People are already cynical about politics, but what could do more to undermine trust than abusing the OBR process to cook up a story to make a case for higher taxes that were not needed? It is the Chancellor who is at the centre of misleading the country. On 4 November, she staged that unprecedented press conference to roll the pitch for tax rises.

[Luke Murphy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wild]

I will not. In breach of the confidentiality rules, the Chancellor warned that the OBR productivity downgrade meant lower tax receipts. Indeed it did, but the OBR report makes it clear that that downgrade was more than addressed by higher tax receipts. In other words, there was no black hole. The Chancellor had the numbers and she knew the position. Now we know what she said was simply not true. Instead, she crafted a narrative to justify decisions to increase taxes to fund higher welfare spending.

On 13 November, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor had decided against the much-briefed income tax increases. The next day, after the gilt market had responded badly, journalists were briefed that the tax rises would not happen thanks to an improved fiscal forecast. Yet that is not what the OBR pre-financial measures said. Little wonder the OBR took that extraordinary step of publishing the forecasts, exposing the truth that there was no giant deficit, as briefed to the press.

The OBR said it took that action to address misconceptions about the forecasts. Where might such misconceptions come from? We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to identify the Treasury as the culprit.

[Luke Murphy]

The OBR told the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, that the narrative that the Chancellor set out on 4 November was consistent with the forecast at that time. When the OBR made that point, was it right or wrong? Are you questioning what the OBR said?

[James Wild]

I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker is not questioning anyone. I am pointing out that the Chancellor said that there was a big £16 billion downgrade from the productivity—that was all offset—but she did not mention that—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that she did mention that on 4 November, I will give way. She did not. She did not at all.

Yesterday, when the Chancellor was asked in the House if she had authorised or allowed confidential details of the Budget or forecasts to be briefed to the press, she gave a categorical no. If the Chancellor did not license briefings, can the Minister give a cast-iron commitment that no other Ministers, special advisers or officials in the Treasury or No. 10 briefed or authorised briefings about potential measures or the forecasts? Frankly, if you believe that all of those were unauthorised briefings, the Treasury is utterly out of control and I have a bridge to sell you. There is a leak inquiry, but the permanent secretary said today that it centres on 13 November, not on the tsunami of tall tales on potential Budget measures. Why might that be, I wonder. Nothing less than a full inquiry, with the findings made public, will do.

That brings us to the broken promises referred to in the motion. A year ago, the Chancellor delivered the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, hitting the British people with £40 billion of tax rises. Then in this Budget, taxes were increased yet again, by £26 billion, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Life comes at you fast. A year ago, the Chancellor also said that extending the freeze on income tax thresholds

“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Do Labour Members remember her saying that? I certainly do. She said that she would not freeze the thresholds. Then what did she do? Oh, she froze the thresholds. She imposed a three-year extension, with £23 billion coming out of the pockets of 1.7 million people who will pay higher taxes for her failures. As the motion says, the Chancellor should apologise for breaking her promise not to raise taxes again.

What Chancellors say matters. The public and the markets need to believe them, and to trust that they are not being misled. That is not the case around the events of this Budget. That is why this motion calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading picture she presented of the public finances, for the Treasury briefings that did so much damage to businesses and to people, and for breaking her promise not to increase taxes. Frankly, in the face of such a charge sheet, an apology is the very least that the British public deserve. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Too many Conservative Members defended the mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages. In contrast, since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, taking £1,200 off a typical two-year fixed rate mortgage. At this Budget, we cut £150 from the average energy bill, froze rail fares and prescription charges, and extended bus fare caps and fuel duty cuts, but the Conservatives do not want to talk about that either. They could have chosen in their Opposition day debate to talk about fiscal stability and increased headroom, but again, they chose not to do that because of the £21.7 billion of headroom that the Chancellor secured at the Budget, which will help protect our country from global shocks and unforeseen challenges.

Of course, the Conservatives do not want to talk about child poverty either because they know that this Budget has lifted 550,000 children out of poverty, whereas the last Government were content to leave them, preferring instead to rebrand the hungry children who they let down while in power as benefit scroungers. They should be treated as our future, not as our opponent.

I have a couple more minutes, so let me address some of the points made during the debate. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for engaging on policy. We have had conversations on business rates already this week, and I am sure that we will have more. We have begun the work to rebalance the system with a £900 million switch from the highest value properties to those on the high streets.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his Thatcher quote. It was a good quote that bears repeating. She said,

“I always cheer up immensely…if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for going through every single tax change and saying that she opposes them all. That is the sort of opposition we have got used to. Rather than constructive opposition, which comes forward with proposals that would raise revenue in a fair way, such as the changes on electric vehicle excise duty, which will stop us losing £12 billion of fuel duty revenue in the coming years, we just hear, “No, no, no,” over and over again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). His experience in economics is richly valued in this place, and I enjoyed his speech, as I always do.

Finally, it has been a short debate, has it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) took the time during the debate to read the Labour manifesto—that was much appreciated—and that he was able to clarify for the House that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was right to say that we have stuck to our manifesto commitment.

[James Wild]

To bring the Minister back to the debate, it is about honesty and the real-world consequences of the briefing that happened around the Budget. Does the Treasury accept that hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions, which is an irrevocable decision—yes or no?

[Dan Tomlinson]

What the Treasury does accept is that at this Budget, the Government had to make the decisions to ensure that we could increase our fiscal stability and get borrowing falling in every single year. The previous Government were not able to control our public finances, and yet in every year of this forecast, borrowing will be falling, and we have more than doubled our headroom to £21.7 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Chancellor promised a new golden era of hospitality, but the reality of her business rates raid, as the British Beer and Pub Association has said, is

“sleepless nights, pay cuts and staff layoffs”

for publicans, who will be paying an extra £13,000 on average. Why did the Chancellor tell businesses last week that their taxes were going down when they are going up, and will she think again and change the multipliers?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The multipliers are a product of the change in the valuation, and they did come down. We brought them down even further for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Without intervention this year, the bills paid by pubs would have increased by 45% as a result of the increase in value since the pandemic; because of this Government’s significant intervention this year, bills are going up by 4%. That is the impact of the changes this Government have made.

The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument clears up a couple of errors, one of which happened on our watch, as he pointed out—fair cop; we plead guilty to that one. The other part of the instrument corrects a previous error by reinstating the 14% import duty for fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes.

There is no impact assessment for the instrument because, as the explanatory memorandum says, the impact on the private and public sector is expected to be minimal, but I did get the House of Commons Library to do a bit of research for me. According to HMRC’s trade tariff tool, the incorrectly applied 0% tariff on jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes appeared on July 2025, and the UK imported roughly £3.2 million of such products in 2024. I am keen to understand from the Minister how the error occurred. Was it simply human error? What measures are in place to prevent slightly more important tariff codes being incorrectly entered, with the impact that that could have?

Tariffs are taxes, of course, with higher prices passed on to consumers. We have just had a Budget that increased taxes on incomes, savings and employment, and that introduced a new tourist tax and a taxi tax. We now have another one: the marmalade tax. Marmalade makers in Peru will be giving the Minister a Paddington stare after this.

On basmati rice, as the Minister said, this was an error made by the previous Conservative Government. The Library was unable to find any data on the volume imported, so how much does he expect the new £25 a tonne rate—the rate that should have been in place—to raise in the years to come? If he does not have those figures at his fingertips, perhaps he will write to me.

To conclude, higher import tariffs mean higher prices for consumers. There can be good reasons for them, such as ensuring a level playing field for our domestic producers, but it does seem that this Government have yet to come across a tax they do not like—even on marmalade.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. In Blur’s immortal words, he knows his claret from his Beaujolais, but I will not have anyone say he is a charmless man.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of an industry that is doing well in this country, although it is facing some challenges. Wine is a home-grown success story, with more than 1,000 vineyards and nearly 5,000 hectares under vines across the country. In my North West Norfolk constituency, I am fortunate to have wineries including the award-winning Burn Valley and Cobble Hill, which are contributing to the local economy, supporting tourism and creating jobs. Overall, the wine and spirits industry contributed £76 billion in economic activity last year, with nearly half of that coming from the wine sector. Despite this success, the Government are putting more burdens on the sector.

This has been a good debate, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) wins the prize for the number of wineries in her constituency. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) made some important points about public health. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) could not resist mentioning Brexit—he seems slightly obsessed.

The domestic sector is largely made up of small producers, with two thirds producing fewer than 10,000 bottles a year. Generally, these are family businesses, local employers and passionate entrepreneurs. Employment in the sector has grown significantly over the past few years, and since 2010 bottle sales have increased to over 9 million.

The UK is a global hub for the trade, being the second largest importer of wine by volume and value. This is a sector that we should be nurturing, not penalising. When we were in government, that is what we did. We introduced the simplified duty system, based on taxing alcohol by strength, with an 18-month easement to help the sector. We encouraged businesses to diversify and move into wine production.

Importantly in the context of this debate, we froze alcohol duty rates in the 2023 autumn statement, and we continued that in the spring Budget of 2024. That is a record of support, but sadly this Government have taken a different path. At last year’s Budget, they raised the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation. As we have heard, around 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is now tax, and Wine GB warns that the increases are driving down demand and, in turn, cutting revenue to the Treasury. One in four drinkers say they will buy less alcohol as a result of the price increases.

Let us be clear that producing wine in Britain is not easy. Yields are 30% to 50% lower than in France or Spain, labour costs are higher, the weather is obviously unpredictable, and input prices keep rising. But instead of backing the sector, the Government keep piling on costs. Alcohol duty—up. Business rates—up. National insurance—up. As we have heard, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said that revenues from alcohol duty are down £300 million in the first six months of this financial year. If that continues, the Treasury will be bringing in £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the spring statement.

The Government are putting the country on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, not just on alcohol taxes but across the board. The Minister is relatively new in post, but has he commissioned advice on the duty’s impact on the sector? Has he taken a fresh look at the data or at the assumptions used by the OBR? If not, will he do so, and do so rapidly? The Opposition are firmly on the side of Britain’s wine producers. It is a vibrant, innovative and home-grown sector that deserves support, not more taxation.

Of course, it is not possible to have this debate without talking about the hospitality sector, as a number of colleagues have. Wine is more than a drink; it is about socialising and shared experiences. The sector clearly depends heavily on pubs, restaurants and hotels to introduce consumers to this great British product.

However, under this Government, hospitality, like so many sectors, is struggling. Nearly 90,000 jobs have been lost since the disastrous Budget a year ago, and today we have seen the unemployment rate hit 5%—it has gone up every month under this Government. That is the result of the Chancellor’s terrible judgment in making it more expensive to employ people. With rising employment costs, the jobs tax, the extended producer responsibility and higher business rates, we see layer upon layer of additional cost, so it is no wonder that UKHospitality has described the Government’s approach as a “hammer blow”.

The wine sector has put forward some suggestions for the Chancellor and Ministers ahead of the Budget. First and foremost, it asks that they reconsider some of the decisions to increase business taxes, and it asks them to consider a freeze on excise duty or a wine tourism relief. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and echoed by others, it also asks for the alignment of small producer relief with the realities of the wine industry. Those are all practical ideas that are worthy of consideration, so will the Minister commit to looking seriously and carefully at all of them?

Rather than taxing success, we should be nurturing it. The wine sector is a model of sustainable, rural growth, and it deserves our support. Its ask of the Minister is simple: will the Government work with the sector and listen to it, and will they look at the evidence and commit to easing the burden on our wine producers?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I am glad to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate, and for speaking so eloquently in support of the UK wine sector. It is fantastic to hear him speak about the sector’s growth, as well as its continuing progress on exports, which is a really good thing. The irony is not lost on me, though, that he said that Treasury Wine Estates has some reservations about the Treasury’s tax policy—I will look into that.

I heartily echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the UK wine industry’s significant contribution to our economy, culture and tourism. As he mentioned, the statistics speak for themselves: we are the world’s second largest wine importer, bringing in 1.7 billion bottles in 2024. Sales of both imported and home-grown wine support hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail. In recent years, as many Members have mentioned, more and more people have taken up work in the UK’s domestic wine sector, which is much like a dessert wine—small, but strong.

Industry figures suggest that more than 1,000 vineyards and 200 wineries contribute to our rural economy, with land under vine growing fivefold since 2005. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) listed many of the wineries in her patch; one of the challenges of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), is that they do not always get to speak in these debates. However, I have been reliably informed by note that the two Members have the same number of vineyards in their constituencies—there may have to be a little Kent-based competition.

It is great to see that the number of home-grown products is increasing, with production exceeding 10 million bottles last year, and with sales rising too. This Government are committed to fostering an environment in which the wine industry, like its vines, can thrive and grow.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, as well as other Opposition Members, made important points about the UK’s alcohol duty system. Before I turn to those points, I will first acknowledge the Government’s wider work to support the wine industry through agricultural grants and export promotion. The Government have committed at least £200 million to the farming innovation programme through to 2030, and we champion domestically produced wines on the international stage. For example, we showcased English sparkling wine at the Osaka expo earlier this year.

As I have mentioned English sparkling wine, it is important that I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked about Scotland’s growing wine industry and the impact it is having on high streets. He also said that, in designing a sensible tax system, it is important that it takes account of the impact on the health of the population, which I think is reflected in the current system.

Members have spoken about the previous Government’s reform of the alcohol duty system. I am a Labour MP, so it is not lost on me that I am defending an alcohol duty system implemented by Conservative MPs, and that Conservative MPs are opposed to a system implemented by their own Government. We learned in opposition that it is not always wise to oppose the decisions made by our party when it was previously in government. Indeed, I think that one of the reasons we won the last election is because we were able to talk proudly and confidently of the achievements of previous Labour Governments. Anyway, it is up to Opposition Members to choose which aspects of previous Government policy they wish to support, or not.

As others have mentioned, the alcohol duty system is now based on the principle of taxing alcohol by strength, which means that alcohol duty increases with a product’s ABV. Although it is true that some higher-strength wines have faced increases in duty, that has been balanced by reductions in duty for lower-ABV wines, including some British wines. Prior to the reforms, wines with 11% ABV and wines with 14% ABV both paid the same duty per bottle. Now, there is a difference: wines with 11% ABV pay £2.43 in duty and wines with 14% ABV pay £3.10.

I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent about the extent to which British wine companies are producing wine with an ABV below 8.5%. I will consider that point. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading up on this topic earlier today. However, I know the changes were introduced alongside conversations with industry representatives, and those conversations will continue as the changes bed in.

In recognition of the big changes that were implemented, it is right to assess their impacts after they have had time to take effect. We have said that will take place at least three years after their introduction in 2023. I will take that work forward next year with officials from HMRC, and I would welcome evidence from Members in this Chamber, including representations from the businesses and communities they represent, and of course I will engage with the wine industry.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said he had three points, but I think he had four in the end, including on the cumulative impact—I will try to address all four. On his third point, yes, we will consider in the round all aspects of the system’s current design. I do not want this review to be one that does not properly interrogate the design of the system, and I also do not want to pre-empt where it will get to, but in my role overseeing that review, I want us to look carefully at the design of the system as a whole. I think the system is sensible and fair, but I also know there are challenges that have been raised by Members today.

On the hon. Member’s big point about cuts or freezes to alcohol duty, it is worth realising that any such cuts or freezes would come at a cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces the costings for any changes to taxation policy.

[James Wild]

They are always wrong.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the OBR’s assumptions are wrong. I encourage Members, if they have evidence, facts or figures that they want to put to the OBR on the elasticities—as I believe it is called when a tax rate is changed and has an impact on consumption—to send them in. The Government are confident in the OBR’s independence, but I will always want to ensure that we are putting forward accurate costings. In this instance, I believe that the OBR is in the right place when it comes to the elasticities, but Members should feel free to send in their own representations.

It is worth noting that freezing alcohol duty this year, if inflation was around 4%, would be equivalent to a 3.85% duty cut. Using HMRC’s published ready reckoner, this would cost the Exchequer roughly £440 million a year. It is right, therefore, that any decision on alcohol duty weighs the impact on overall revenues carefully. That is what I am confident that the Chancellor will do when she makes a decision in the Budget in just a few weeks.

I will try to run through some of the points made by Members in this debate. The hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Weald of Kent and for Farnham and Bordon, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised the issue of small producer relief for wine. That question was considered in detail as part of the previous Government’s review into alcohol duty, and as I have said, we will look to review it three years after the implementation that took place on 1 August 2023. We want to gather data and really look at the impact of the reforms. If Members want to come forward with proposals for change, then they should do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government have assessed the impact of this policy. According to the estimates that we issued at the time of last year’s Budget, about 500 farms would pay additional tax as a result of the changes; those numbers were contested by all Opposition Members, but the CenTax report—which the hon. Member has said that he and others are interested in reading—backs them up and confirms the Government’s estimates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?

[James Murray]

That question barely deserves a response. The business rates relief we inherited from the previous Government when we came into office was due to end entirely in April of this year. It is only because of us that it was extended for a year while we put in place permanently lower multipliers for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. Those are businesses on high streets right across our country, and that will be announced at the Budget on 26 November.