Finance (No. 2) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

[John Grady]

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Amendment 37 agreed to.

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

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

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

Clause 14

Enterprise investment scheme: increase in amounts and asset requirements

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 24

Umbrella companies

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[James Wild]

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

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

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

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

[James Wild]

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Anti-avoidance: collective investment scheme reconstructions

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Non-residents: cell companies

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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

“for the sole purpose of”

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Tainted charity donations: replacement of purpose test with outcome test

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