Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

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.