Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 28—Implementation of section 35 (Restriction of relief on disposals to employee-ownership trusts—

“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, as part of the implementation of the provisions of section 35, make an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing a digital application process for taxpayers seeking to pay capital gains tax by instalments under section 280 of TCGA 1992 in respect of disposals to employee ownership trusts.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider potential guidance on eligibility criteria and processing timescales.”

This new clause 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 as part of the implementation of section 35.

New clause 29—Report on the impact of section 35—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this section coming into force, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the changes made under section 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises, including—

(a) the number of EOT transactions completed compared to the previous three-year average,

(b) any administrative costs and burdens reported by businesses and tax advisers,

(c) the incidence and value of dry tax charges arising, and

(d) recommendations for any modifications to the instalment payment regime under Section 280 of TCGA 1992.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay a report before the House of Commons on the impact of section 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 37 and 38 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 39

Incorporation relief: requirement to claim

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 41 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 42 abolishes the notional tax credit available to non-UK residents on UK company dividends. That credit no longer serves a purpose, under the modern dividend taxation system, and the change brings non-UK residents in line with UK residents, who do not receive the notional tax credit. It will impact fewer than 1,000 non-UK resident individuals who have UK dividend income and other UK income, such as property or partnership income, a year. The clause removes the outdated notional tax credit for non-UK residents receiving UK dividends, aligning their position with that of UK residents. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

As the Minister says, clause 42 abolishes the notional tax credit that non-residents have historically been able to claim on their UK dividend income. Under the current system, non-domiciled individuals can offset that notional credit against other UK income streams, such as rented income or partnership profits. However, from April, that arrangement will no longer apply. Non-residents will no longer be treated as having already paid UK tax on dividends received from UK companies, meaning that they will lose the ability to reduce their overall UK tax liability from using the credit.

It is worth noting that UK residents lost access to the notional dividend tax credit back in April 2016, so in one sense the clause simply removes what is perceived as a potential unfair advantage enjoyed by non-UK residents. The disregarded income regime will continue to operate, providing some limitation on the tax paid by non-residents in specific circumstances.

We need to look at the clause, and the ones coming up, in the broader context. It represents a shift in how UK tax dividends flow to foreign investors and, in practice, it will effectively increase the tax rate burden on dividend recipients who are non-UK residents. At a time when the UK needs to attract international capital, we need to look at the measures in the Budget as a whole and whether they strengthen or undermine our competitive position. Attracting capital to be invested was a topic that we discussed this morning. International investors might be forgiven for concluding that the Chancellor is creating a tax and regulatory environment that feels increasingly unpredictable compared with some of our international competitors. Stability and certainty matter enormously in investment decisions. [Interruption.]

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also raised concerns about the figures underlying this policy. The Treasury estimates in the famous tax information and impact note, which was referred to by the Minister, that fewer than 1,000 resident individuals will be affected. The institute has questioned whether that can be accurate, given what its professional members are seeing on the ground. There is particular uncertainty about whether non-resident trust taxpayers have been properly included within those calculations. I welcome a response and assurance from the Minister either way on that. That said, even the institute agrees that those impacted will represent a small minority of the overall non-resident taxpayer population. We concur that this charge brings a welcome simplification to tax calculations.

[Lucy Rigby]

Again, I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for these measures. However, he is absolutely wrong to suggest that these measures and the broader package will discourage foreign investment in UK companies. He will have heard the titter of laughter when he talked about the importance of stability—that not being something that was provided by his party at all when it was in government. The removal of the notional tax credit will not discourage foreign investment in UK companies, as it will not impact the overwhelming majority of overseas investors who remain outside the scope of UK tax.

In order to be affected by the measure, overseas investors will also need to have other taxable UK income, typically rental income or partnership income. If they do not have that, their dividends will not be taxable in the UK while they remain overseas. The shadow Minister is right to refer to my earlier figure that fewer than 1,000 non-resident individuals have taxable UK income in addition to their UK dividends, and that remains the figure that we are working with.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Non-resident, and previously non-domiciled individuals

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in schedule 3, page 268, line 14, at end insert—

“Part 1A

Amendment of transfer of assets abroad provisions

7A In section 737 of ITA 2007 (exemption: all relevant post-4 December 2005 transactions), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) In relation to income falling within subsection (4B) which arises to a person abroad on or after 6 April 2025, in determining whether Condition A or Condition B is satisfied, no regard is to be had to any purpose of avoiding liability to taxation for which the relevant transactions or any of them were effected if and to the extent the relevant transfer and any associated operation were effected before 6 April 2025 in a qualifying tax year.

(4B) This subsection applies to income which would be relevant foreign income if it were the individual’s or in relation to earlier tax years was income with a non-UK source in respect of which a non-UK domiciled individual would have been taxable only on a remittance basis (assuming any required claim and other steps had been made) if it had been the individual’s.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4A) a qualifying tax year is one for which the individual was not resident in the UK or (for tax years earlier than 2013/14) not ordinarily resident in the UK or, if resident or, as the case may be, ordinarily resident in the UK for that year, the individual was entitled to be taxed on the remittance basis for that year.’”

This amendment modifies the "motive defence" in section 737 of ITA 2007. It ensures that when determining if a transaction had a tax avoidance purpose, no regard is given to avoidance motives for transactions effected before 6 April 2025 if the individual was non-resident or entitled to the remittance basis at that time.

Amendment 33, in schedule 3, page 268, line 19, at end insert—

“TRF available to non-residents

8A Omit sub-paragraph 1(7).”

This amendment provides that the Temporary Repatriation Facility is also available to non-residents.

Amendment 34, in schedule 3, page 268, line 19, at end insert—

“Removal of requirement that individual must have been subject to the remittance basis for a past year

8A Omit sub-paragraph 1(5).”

This amendment would enable offshore trust beneficiaries who have not themselves used the remittance basis to use the TRF.

Amendment 35, in schedule 3, page 268, line 19, at end insert—

“Trustee designation

8A After paragraph 1 insert—

‘Trust cleansing facility charge

1A (1) The Trustees of a settlement may in the tax year 2025/26 or 2026/27 make a claim in relation to any or all of the following (“trust income or gains”)—

(a) a section 1(3) amount of the settlement for any tax year before 2025/26,

(b) an OIG amount of the settlement for any tax year before 2025/26,

(c) a section 1(3) amount in a schedule 4C pool of the settlement for any tax year before 2025/26,

(d) protected foreign source income or transitional trust income of the settlement for the purposes of section 643A of ITTOIA 2005,

(e) any relevant foreign income of the settlement for any tax year before 2025/26 that would, if remitted, be treated under section 648(3) of ITTOIA 2005 as arising only if and when remitted, and

(f) foreign relevant income of the settlement for the purposes of chapter 2 of part 13 of ITA 2007 (transfer of assets abroad) for any tax year before 2025/26.

(2) On the making of such a claim the Trustees shall be subject to the TRF charge and paragraph 1(8) shall apply to the Trustees as it applies to an individual.

(3) The amount of trust income or gains of the settlement for the category or categories in respect of which a claim is made shall be reduced accordingly.’”

This amendment enables trustees to pay a TRF charge on the trust’s past FIG while retaining the funds within the trust.

Amendment 30, in schedule 3, page 271, line 26, leave out from “amount” to end and insert—

“is the lower of—

(a) the value of the amount when it first arose to the individual, or

(b) its value on 6 April 2025.”

This amendment provides that where an investment derived from foreign income has fallen in value, the temporary repatriation facility (TRF) charge is paid on the reduced value of the investment at the point the TRF opened.

Amendment 1, in schedule 3, page 275, line 20, at end insert—

“Disregard of payments or transfers connected with designated qualifying overseas capital

15A After paragraph 13B (as inserted by paragraph 15 of this Schedule) insert—

‘Disregard of payments or transfers made in connection with the remittance of designated qualifying overseas capital

13C (1) This paragraph applies where an amount is remitted to the United Kingdom in a qualifying year in respect of the deemed income of an individual and—

(a) the income is treated as income of the individual under section 721 or 728 of ITA 2007 by reference to income arising to a person abroad in the tax year 2024-25 or an earlier tax year,

(b) the deemed income falls within section 721(1)(a) or section 728(1)(a) and is qualifying overseas capital by virtue of paragraph 2, and

(c) the qualifying overseas capital is designated by the individual.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), no payment or transfer of assets made in a qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the remittance of that designated qualifying overseas capital to the individual (whether by the person abroad, or any company or settlement), to the extent that the amount or value of such payments or transfers in that qualifying year does not exceed the aggregate amount of remittances within sub-paragraph (1) for that year, is capable of—

(a) being or giving rise to income which is treated as income of the individual under section 721 or 728 of ITA 2007 or any provision of Chapter 5 of Part 5 of ITTOIA 2005;

(b) satisfying the capital sum conditions in section 729 of ITA 2007;

(c) being or giving rise to income which is taken into account for the purpose of increasing the total relevant income under section 733 of ITA 2007 in relation to that individual or any other individual; or

(d) being or giving rise to income arising under a settlement for the purposes of section 648(1) of ITTOIA 2005.

(3) When making a designation as qualifying overseas capital in relation to deemed income within sub-paragraph (1) for a qualifying year, the individual must specify the amount, the nature and the parties to the payments or transfers of assets within sub-paragraph (2) which have been or will be made during the qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the remittance of such deemed income.

(4) Where a sequence of two or more payments or transfers is made in a qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the remittance of the same amount of deemed income in that qualifying year, then for the purpose of determining whether the amount or value of such payments or transfers exceeds the amount of the remittance of such deemed income, that sequence is to be treated as a single payment or transfer with an amount or value equal to the payment or transfer within the sequence with the highest amount or value.

(5) In this paragraph “qualifying year” means any of the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 or 2027-28.

Disregard of payments or transfers made in connection with the provision of certain benefits

13D (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) an amount of deemed income is qualifying overseas capital in relation to an individual by virtue of paragraph 6(1)(c), and

(b) the individual designates that income as qualifying overseas capital.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), no payment or transfer of assets made in a qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the provision of any benefit to the individual which gave rise to the deemed income within paragraph 6(1)(c) (whether by the person abroad, or any company or settlement), to the extent that the amount or value of such payments or transfers in that qualifying year does not exceed the aggregate amount or value of the benefits provided in that qualifying year, is capable of—

(a) being or giving rise to income which is treated as income of the individual under section 721 or 728 of ITA 2007 or any provision of Chapter 5 of Part 5 of ITTOIA 2005;

(b) satisfying the capital sum conditions in section 729 of ITA 2007;

(c) being or giving rise to income which is taken into account for the purpose of increasing the total relevant income under section 733 of ITA 2007 in relation to that individual or any other individual; or

(d) being or giving rise to income arising under a settlement for the purposes of section 648(1) of ITTOIA 2005.

(3) When making a designation as qualifying overseas capital in relation to deemed income within sub-paragraph (1) for a qualifying year, the individual must specify the amount, the nature and the parties to the payments or transfers of assets within sub-paragraph (2) which have been or will be made during the qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the provision of the benefits within sub-paragraph (2).

(4) Where a sequence of two or more payments or transfers is made in a qualifying year for the purpose of, or in connection with, the provision of the same amount or value of benefits falling within sub-paragraph (2) in that qualifying year, then for the purpose of determining whether the amount or value of such payments or transfers exceeds the amount or value of such benefits, that sequence is to be treated as a single payment or transfer with an amount or value equal to the payment or transfer within the sequence with the highest amount or value.

(5) In this paragraph “qualifying year” means any of the tax years 2025-26, 2026-27 or 2027-28.’”

This amendment prevents “double counting” and knock-on tax charges when designated qualifying overseas capital is remitted (or where related benefits are provided) during the Temporary Repatriation Facility years, by disregarding connected payments/transfers up to the value of the remittances or benefits in that year.

Amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 275, line 38, leave out “paragraphs 9 to 16” and insert—

“paragraphs 9 to 12 and 14 to 16”.

Amendment 32, in schedule 3, page 276, line 3, at end insert—

“(3) The amendments made by paragraph 13 of this Schedule have effect where the matched capital payment referred to in sub-paragraph 8(2C)(b) Finance Act 2025 (as inserted by paragraph 13 of this Schedule) is made on or after 26 November 2025.”

These amendments provide that a double tax charge created by paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 shall not apply retrospectively.

Schedule 3.

Clause 44 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 43 makes amendments to the residence-based tax regime that was introduced in the Finance Act 2025. These changes reflect feedback from the Government’s continued engagement with stakeholders to make sure that the regime works as well as possible. Clause 43 and schedule 3 consist of three parts. Part 1 of the schedule makes minor corrections to the foreign income and gains regime and to legislation connected with the ending of the remittance basis. Part 2 of the schedule makes technical amendments to the legislation for the temporary repatriation facility. Part 3 of the schedule amends the temporary non-residence rules by removing the concept of post-departure trade profits from legislation.

Clause 44 makes minor amendments to the residence-based tax regime, as introduced in the Finance Act 2025, to ensure that tax-free or exempt income is taken into account correctly under the settlements and transfer of assets abroad matching rules. The clause ensures that the internationally competitive residence-based tax regime operates as intended in relation to foreign income and gains from non-resident trusts and similar structures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. The Government and those of us supporting the amendments are trying to achieve the same outcome. The aim of the amendments is simple: to enable the Government to achieve their goal of raising billions in tax revenues from former non-doms—money that is needed to pay for public services, as the hon. Member for Burnley said earlier.

The Government set out the policy intention to replace non-dom status with a UK residency tax to raise more tax from those with the greatest capacity to pay, while simplifying the system. They introduced the temporary repatriation facility—or, given that we like three-letter acronyms, the TRF—as the central part of that strategy. It is designed to encourage people to remain in the UK, to come to the UK and invest in the UK, and to bring historically offshore capital into the UK tax net. The TRF offers a reduced rate of taxation of 12% on all non-UK assets brought into the country as an incentive to do just that. We all want the same thing: we want the TRF to work, because if it does not, the money does not come here and the Exchequer and the public lose.

The Government are relying on the reforms to raise very substantial sums—about £34 billion overall. The concern I express is not ideological or about the tax rate; it is about legal certainty and deliverability. The problem is that a number of the wealthiest people have left the country, and many more are doing so as we debate these amendments. Why? Odd as it may seem, it is not because they are unwilling to pay more tax; it is because of the legal uncertainty in the Bill as drafted.

Using the TRF as set out in the Bill exposes people to serious legal uncertainty. First, they are subject to double taxation through double counting of the same economic value. Secondly, they are vulnerable to retrospective taxation. Thirdly, they face allegations of tax avoidance simply for using a scheme that Parliament itself has created. Fourthly, they expose themselves and their families to potentially decade-long investigations into arrangements that were entirely lawful at the time they were entered into. That is why they are watching this Bill proceed with their bags packed, waiting to see if it will fix the problems.

The advisers of such people are warning them to leave, but I know that the Government’s intention is not to drive them away. We need their taxes, fairly paid, to fund the renewal of our public services. That is why amendments 1 and 2 were tabled, in a constructive spirit of co-operation, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned. Amendment 1 would stop double counting; and amendment 2 would ensure that retrospective and unfair action does not continue. Had amendment 49, which goes further, been selected for debate, I would have spoken to it as well, but I will resist doing so because it has not been selected.

Amendments 1 and 2 would provide the needed certainty and make the TRF usable in practice, not just in theory. I hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that the Government recognise some of the technical problems highlighted by the amendments and intend to resolve them. I noted earlier that the Minister rejected amendments 1 and 2, giving a brief reason why, but given the representations, certainly by the Opposition, a more detailed response as to why the amendments have been rejected by the Government would be worthwhile.

Much careful work has gone into the construction of amendments 1 and 2. Again in the spirit of co-operation, I am sure that Conservative Members would be happy to provide input to the Minister and officials as they consider how best to address the issues. With that, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Lucy Rigby]

A criticism of complexity has been made. The aim of these reforms is, of course, simplicity. I think it is recognised across the House that in matters of taxation, simplicity is better. We are ensuring that the legislation works as it is intended to do. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, referred to the Chartered Institute of Taxation. It is important to note this quote from the institute:

“Moving from domicile to residence as the basis for taxing people who are internationally mobile makes sense.”

As well as being a major simplification, it is a fairer and more transparent basis for determining UK tax. Residence is determined by criteria far more objective and certain than the subjective concept of domicile. Replacing the outdated remittance basis is sensible, and the temporary repatriation facility offers a helpful transition.

Another criticism is retrospection. In this instance, the Government feel that a retrospective change is a proportionate response to protect revenue, which, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, is essential for public services. This change will prevent taxpayers from benefiting from unintended windfalls and promotes consistency in the application of rules, bringing the capital gains position into line with the income tax provision. In most cases, trusts will not yet have made capital distributions, meaning that beneficiaries and trustees will have advance notice and can plan their affairs.

A further topic that that came up is the reporting of every element of FIG. I have a note on that somewhere, so I will come back to it. I will deal first with the suggestion that restrictions on the TRF are arbitrary. The position of someone who is temporarily abroad arose. The TRF is designed to encourage people to be UK-resident and bring funds into the UK economy. Allowing non-residents to use the TRF would let individuals benefit from the reduced charge without living here or contributing to the UK economy, which would reduce the incentive to become or remain UK-resident.

As I said, I reject amendment 1 because there are already measures in place that prevent double counting. I have dealt with amendment 2. I want to deal with the reporting of every element of FIG, which I have a note on, as I said. [Interruption.] That is the wrong note. I will have to come back to that.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

We have heard from Opposition Members that there are families watching this Finance Bill Committee with their bags packed in case their amendment does not pass. Does the Minister share my scepticism that people who hung around through a botched Brexit, Liz Truss and 11% inflation will leave the country on the basis of whether an amendment passes or not?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think it is right to say that the reporting of every element of FIG will not be necessary. I am afraid I shall have to confirm in writing exactly why that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Non-resident, and previously non-domiciled individuals

Amendment proposed: 30, in schedule 3, page 271, line 26, leave out from “amount” to end and insert

“is the lower of—

(a) the value of the amount when it first arose to the individual, or

(b) its value on 6 April 2025.”—(James Wild.)

This amendment provides that where an investment derived from foreign income has fallen in value, the temporary repatriation facility (TRF) charge is paid on the reduced value of the investment at the point the TRF opened.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 4.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 45 and schedule 4 will make changes to the pay-as-you-earn notification process that enables employers to give provisional in-year tax relief to globally mobile employees, including those eligible to claim overseas workday relief.

The majority of changes made by the clause and schedule are minor, technical changes that will help the legislation relating to the PAYE notification process to operate as originally intended, but a few are more substantial. For example, treaty non-resident employees—that is to say, UK residents who are covered by a double taxation agreement between the UK and another country—have been permitted to benefit from provisional in-year tax relief by concession, so they are now being added to the legislation to formalise that treatment. We will also specify that if the employer’s best estimate of qualifying employment income for an employee eligible for overseas workday relief is more than 30%, it must be limited to 30%. That should ensure that in most cases the provisional overseas workday relief received in-year does not exceed the relief that the employee can claim when they file their tax return.

These changes will place the treatment of treaty non-residents on a statutory basis, prevent excessive in-year provisional overseas workday relief and ensure that the PAYE legislation operates as intended. I commend clause 45 and schedule 4 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clause 45 will extend the PAYE notification process to include treaty non-residents and introduce the 30% cap, to which the Minister referred, on overseas workday relief that can be claimed through PAYE. In simple terms, clause 45 and schedule 4 will change how employers operate PAYE for people who move to the UK but are treated as resident in another country under a tax treaty. The clause will let employers agree with HMRC that the part of the employee’s salary that is expected to be exempt overseas be left out of PAYE during the year, and it will formally limit how much foreign employment relief can be given to 30%.

The changes under the clause will require employers to send further notification to HMRC whenever there is a change in the employee’s circumstances that affects the proportion of earnings subject to PAYE. That sounds reasonable in practice, but I want an assurance from the Minister about the potential administrative burden that it will place on employers. It could mean that employers will now be expected to monitor the day-to-day working practices of globally mobile working employees. They will need to track whether individuals are working from home or from a hotel room in Boston, which is not necessarily a simple task. For multinational companies with hundreds of employees, this represents a potentially significant compliance burden at a time when we want to reduce the burdens on business. For smaller businesses venturing into international markets for the first time, it could be a disincentive—indeed, a barrier—to their trying to do so.

The Government must provide clear, comprehensive guidance on exactly what level of review and monitoring employers are expected to undertake not to fall foul of the rules. Without that clarity and guidance, we risk creating a compliance minefield in which well-meaning employers inadvertently break rules that they could not reasonably be expected to follow. Guidance can help employers to comply with the law, as we all want them to do.

The Government like to talk about making Britain the best place to do business and to champion our competitive advantage in attracting global talent—we have just discussed one area in which that may or may not be the reality—but we should seek to avoid introducing measures that potentially add to the compliance burden without giving guidance to employers. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that she will look at the case for publishing clear guidance to ensure that businesses are not adversely impacted.

[Lucy Rigby]

I can confirm that guidance will be forthcoming, and I am absolutely sure that it will be clear. I am also pleased to confirm that there will be no additional administrative burden on employers, because employers already have to enter a percentage figure on the PAYE notification form; as I say, this change will just require them to limit the in-year relief provided to no more than 30%. The guidance will be given to employers in April when the changes go live.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 46

Unassessed transfer pricing profits

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 5.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 46 will introduce a new corporation tax assessing provision for unassessed transfer pricing profits. It will replace the diverted profits tax, a stand-alone tax that will be repealed in its entirety, providing a significant simplification.

The changes made by the clause will make the rules clearer and more straightforward for businesses to implement, and will support access to treaty benefits, including relief from double taxation under the mutual agreement procedure. The removal of the diverted profits tax as a stand-alone tax is a very significant simplification, and bringing the rules into the corporation tax framework will clarify the interaction with transfer pricing and access to treaty benefits. I therefore commend clause 46 and schedule 5 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

The clause introduces schedule 5, which will repeal the diverted profits tax and replace it with new rules to tax unassessed transfer pricing profits within the corporation tax regime, coming into effect for periods beginning on or after 1 January. The diverted profits tax will continue to apply for prior accounting periods. In effect, the clause creates a higher tax charge on profits that should have been taxed here, but were shifted out of the UK by using non-market prices between groups.

Like the DPT, the new transfer pricing profits rules are intended to target structured arrangements that are designed to erode the UK tax base by omitting profits that are subject to transfer pricing. These unassessed transfer pricing profits will be taxed at a rate that is six percentage points higher than corporation tax. In simple terms, if a global business structures its arrangements to shift profits from the UK in a pricing manipulation, HMRC will be able to bring those diverted profits into UK tax at a higher, penalty-style rate.

In principle, we support that approach. Moving away from the stand-alone tax and bringing diverted profits under corporation tax provides better treaty access and clarity, and clearly the six percentage point charge works as a deterrent, as countries that play games with their transfer policies will risk paying more tax than if they had priced their UK dealings properly in the first place. However, I would welcome the Minister’s response to the concerns that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised about the drafting of the clause.

First, the new tax design condition is very broad: it captures transactions designed to reduce, eliminate or delay UK tax liability. There is a question as to whether legitimate commercial decisions made for regulatory compliance or capital requirements could be caught by the condition simply because they are deliberate and happen to reduce tax liability, even when tax planning is not the primary motive. I know that is not the intention behind the drafting, but that point has been raised, so I hope that the Minister will respond in order to avoid any uncertainty as to whether businesses that think they are operating within the law, without seeking to reduce, eliminate or delay tax liability, may be captured.

Will the existing arrangements be grandfathered? Can HMRC revisit settled positions under these broader rules? As the Chartered Institute of Taxation rightly says, it is unsatisfactory to pass legislation with a wide definition and simply hope that HMRC guidance and rules will narrow it down later. That is not how we in Parliament should legislate. We discussed the loan charge during this morning’s sitting; HMRC applied rules in a way that most MPs did not consider reasonable, and we have now had to make changes through this Bill to address that historical issue. The law should be made clear in the Bill, not left to administrative interpretation.

I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how many multinational companies HMRC estimates are using pricing manipulation to avoid tax. Can she guarantee that legitimate business structures that have previously been accepted by HMRC under the DPT will not suddenly fall foul of the scope of the new rules? Will she also comment on the main purpose test, to provide clarity and certainty for businesses?

[Lucy Rigby]

I hope that what I am about to say will provide a good deal of reassurance to the shadow Minister. The purpose of the reform was to simplify the legislation and bring the regime into the corporation tax framework. There is no intention at all to change the scope of the regime.

I appreciate that the question as to when the reforms will come into effect is of some importance. I can confirm that they will take effect for chargeable periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. For prior periods, the diverted profits tax will continue to apply.

The shadow Minister asked how many companies would be affected. I am afraid that I do not have the statistics to hand, but I can investigate and confirm them to him in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 47

Transfer pricing reform

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 20.

Schedule 6.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 47 will simplify the UK’s transfer pricing rules, which protect our tax base by ensuring that transactions between UK companies and related parties are priced appropriately. The changes made by the clause include the general repeal of UK-to-UK transfer pricing where there is no risk of tax loss. This will provide a meaningful simplification for businesses. Alongside it, amendments have been made to the participation condition, intangibles, commissioners’ sanctions, interpretation in accordance with OECD principles, and financial transactions.

Government amendment 20 will ensure the consistent use of terminology with respect to financial transactions throughout the legislation.

The changes made by the clause will update UK law in line with international standards, will reduce compliance obligations and will address areas of potential legislative weakness. I commend clause 47, schedule 6 and Government amendment 20 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clause 47 and schedule 6 mark an evolution in the UK’s transfer pricing regime. The Opposition recognise the importance of getting this right: it goes to the heart of how multinational profits are attributed and taxed, and therefore how we ensure that companies pay the correct amount of tax in this country. The principle behind transfer pricing is simple, even if it is rarely simple in practice. I believe that these measures flow from a consultation process launched by the last Conservative Government, so they have a good origin. I hope that they will lead to greater certainty and reduce the burden that some companies may face.

[Lucy Rigby]

I confirm that the shadow Minister is right about the origin of the proposals and the date of the consultation. It is entirely right that we are bringing UK transfer pricing legislation up to date; it was last materially updated in 2004, so it is high time that these rules were updated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Transfer pricing

Amendment made: 20, in schedule 6, page 318, line 41, at end insert—

“(ba) in subsection (4)(b), for ‘issuing company’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘borrower’,”.—(Lucy Rigby.)

The amendment deals with a missing consequential change to section 154 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (transfer pricing).

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

[The Chair]

This is an opportune moment for a five-minute comfort break.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Report on the impact of section 48 (international controlled transactions)—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 6 months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 48 on—

(a) cross-border trade, and

(b) administrative burdens on businesses.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular set out the steps the Government intends to take to consult affected businesses and stakeholders on the operation of section 48.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to the House on the impact of section 48 on cross-border trade and business administrative burdens, and to set out how affected businesses and stakeholders will be consulted.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 48 will create a power for the commissioners of HMRC to issue regulations requiring certain taxpayers to file an international controlled transactions schedule. This measure is expected to have an impact on approximately 75,000 businesses within the scope of the UK’s transfer pricing and related rules. Most of these businesses are part of large multinational groups.

New clause 4 would include a requirement for the Chancellor to lay a report before the House of Commons, within six months of the Act being passed, on the impact of the implementation of clause 48 on cross-border trade and administrative burdens on business. It asks that the report focus on Government steps to consult affected businesses.

Most major economies have similar requirements, and we do not expect the international controlled transactions schedule to have a significant impact on cross-border trade. Rather, this measure is expected to improve fairness, ensuring that multinational enterprises pay tax on profits generated from economic activity in the UK. It is also expected to increase efficiency, meaning that HMRC compliance activity can be more effectively targeted, benefiting compliant taxpayers. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 4.

[James Wild]

New clause 4 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. As the Minister says, clause 48 introduces a power for HMRC to implement a new reporting obligation: the ICTS, which will come into force in 2027.

This new power would require businesses engaged in significant cross-border transactions to disclose specified information about their dealings. Rightly, the intention is to give HMRC better tools to identify transfer pricing and international tax risks that could affect the tax take, and to allow it to conduct more efficient and better-targeted compliance activity. I recognise that objective and support it in principle. I agree that the ICTS could help HMRC to identify risk earlier and to avoid wasting the time of the Department and businesses. Chasing down questions and embarking on inquiries can often lead nowhere and can cost businesses time that could be spent on growing their business.

However, it is also important that the Government explain how the system will work in practice and how it will be seen to work. Our new clause 4 would therefore require a report on the impact of these changes on cross-border trade and the administrative burden on businesses.

During the consultation last year, the Treasury acknowledged that more needed to be said about how the data collected through the ICTS system would be used and how it would fit alongside existing obligations such as master and local files. That remains a crucial point of detail that the industry and advisers will be looking for as this measure is implemented. Can the Minister shed some light on those concerns today?

As the Minister rightly says, most major economies already have some equivalent form of reporting, but it should be pointed out that the differences between them are significant. Australia, for example, operates a single transaction-driven disclosure process through its international dealings schedule; the United States of America relies on a more fragmented, relationship-based approach spread across multiple forms. Each system clearly has its benefits and disadvantages. What matters is that each country has a clear, consistent model to which businesses can understand and readily adapt.

What the Government seem to be proposing is a hybrid. That might mean that we have the best of both worlds—let us all hope so—but it might also lead to an approach that is inconsistent with the systems that some multinationals already have.

The Treasury has said that it will consult on detailed regulations in the spring of this year. We welcome that commitment. Can the Minister give an assurance that she will make sure that businesses and representative bodies will be closely involved in shaping how the system is put into practice? With the planned 2027 start date, there is not a lot of time to get the rules in place or for companies to build or modify systems to provide the new data. Can that be done without causing undue cost and disruption to businesses?

Finally, I want to make a slighter broader point on the clause. We clearly understand the importance of robust compliance and the need to protect the UK tax base on behalf of our constituents so that we can deliver public services. However, each new requirement—whether it is the ICTS, pillar two returns or transfer pricing documentation—adds to the cumulative impact on businesses.

We need to see these obligations in the round, not as each one being reasonable on its own terms. What is the overall picture of what we are imposing on companies? If that load becomes too great, the UK will be seen as a less attractive place to invest, which is certainly not what we want. Although we support the principle of better risk assessment, we continue to press Ministers to ensure that we have proportionate and workable solutions that add value for HMRC, businesses and our constituents. New clause 4 would simply require a report setting out those impacts.

I would add that, according to the Budget costings, the reporting duty would raise around £25 million in 2026-27, growing to £350 million a year, helping HMRC to tackle artificial profit shifting. That is welcome, but we should also consider the one-off and ongoing costs for businesses that have to re-engineer their systems. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to my points about implementation and whether the hybrid model will actually be the best of both worlds.

[Lucy Rigby]

The ICTS will help HMRC to focus compliance resources, as has been discussed, on the most meaningful transfer pricing risks. We think that it will also lead to greater efficiencies by encouraging up-front compliance and reducing the length of transfer pricing inquiries. Those outcomes will benefit the compliance of taxpayers and HMRC.

Clause 48 gives the commissioners of HMRC the power to issue regulations that will determine the detailed design of the ICTS, including the information to be provided, the format of the schedule and the commencement date of the filing obligation. A consultation was held in 2025, and we will carry out a technical consultation on the draft regulations in spring 2026. The obligation is expected to take effect for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027, which is designed to allow time for businesses to adapt to what they need to do.

The shadow Minister suggested that the proposal will lead to an administrative burden; actually, it is intended to mitigate additional administrative burdens by requiring the reporting of readily available objective information. We will continue to be guided by these principles as we move into the detailed design phase, working—as one would expect—with affected businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Permanent establishments

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 7.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 49 modernises and simplifies the UK’s law on permanent establishments, which governs how the UK taxes non-residents who are carrying out business here. Specifically, the changes made by clause 49 reduce uncertainty over how profit should be attributed to permanent establishments under UK law. The greater clarity provided by these changes, in the same way as the previous clause, will assist taxpayers and HMRC by offering greater clarity. I commend clause 49 and schedule 7 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clause 49 and schedule 7 make changes to the rules that decide, where a company has a permanent establishment in the UK, how its profits are then taxed and when they apply. The Minister talked about modernising and simplifying the rules to bring them into line with international best practice.

To clarify, in November 2025 the OECD published new guidance on the definition of a “permanent establishment”. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK’s current approach reflects that updated guidance, as I have been advised that it does not? Some expert bodies have pointed out that the OECD changes are generally helpful and would bring more consistency across countries, so does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the UK to broadly adopt them? Is that the Government’s approach, or have they deliberately decided to have a set of UK rules? If so, what is the purpose of that, considering that we might be dealing with multinational companies operating in multiple jurisdictions that would have to follow separate rules when the OECD has brought together a coherent package?

[Lucy Rigby]

It important to recognise that, as I perhaps should have explained at the outset, the legislation in this area is 20 years old. The purpose of making the changes that we are making is to update it and to account for the fact that there have been considerable developments in the international tax landscape since it was first drafted, most notably in relation to the attribution of profits to permanent establishments.

The shadow Minister mentioned the OECD. This legislation is interpreted in accordance with the OECD model tax convention and commentary, so it will always be interpreted using the most recently available model and commentary. The OECD council approved a 2025 update in November 2025, which can be found online. The full update will be published in 2026, if it has not been already. I hope that gives the shadow Minister some assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 50

Pillar two

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 21 to 24.

Schedule 8.

New clause 5—Pillar Two competitive safeguards and review—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, every six months beginning from the day on which this Act is passed, review the implementation of the provisions of section 50 and Schedule 8.

(2) Any review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether other major economies are implementing Pillar Two on comparable timelines and with comparable scope,

(b) any competitive disadvantage to UK-based multinationals from implementation of section 50,

(c) any impact arising from differentiated treatment for the US, and

(d) proposals for remedial measures to address any competitive disadvantage to the UK that has been identified.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a copy of any review undertaken under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require regular reviews of the implementation of section 50 and Schedule 8, including consideration of international implementation of Pillar Two, any competitive disadvantage for UK-based multinationals and possible remedial measures.

[Lucy Rigby]

Just to warn anyone who is not aware, clause 50 and schedule 8 are not the shortest. The changes they make are technical, but very important. Paragraphs 20 to 22 of schedule 8 prevent multinationals from trying to reduce their pillar two liability by entering into favourable tax arrangements to create pre-regime deferred tax assets or liabilities. Paragraphs 24, 25 and 34 ensure that the profits and losses relating to a UK real estate investment trust are excluded from the charge to domestic top-up tax to avoid double taxation. Paragraph 32 allows the UK to recognise the qualifying undertaxed profit rules of other jurisdictions before the OECD inclusive framework has completed a formal peer review.

Paragraphs 36 and 37 provide for a payment for group relief to be treated as a covered tax amount for domestic top-up tax purposes. Paragraph 39 reduces compliance burdens for smaller or non-material entities within a multinational group. Finally, paragraphs 2, 3, 6 to 12 and 16 to 19 update the rules on flow-through entities, permanent establishments, intragroup amounts and cross-border allocations of deferred tax so that the regime operates more smoothly in practice.

Taxpayers can elect for most amendments to apply retrospectively from the introduction of pillar two on 31 December 2023. However, taxpayers cannot select individual amendments to apply retrospectively; one election covers the whole package to prevent cherry-picking of favourable amendments. I should remind Members that, in line with the written ministerial statement of 7 January 2026, the clause does not include any amendments connected with the publication of the side-by-side agreement by the OECD/G20 inclusive framework earlier this month. The Government will introduce legislation to do that in the next Finance Bill following a technical consultation.

Government amendment 23 ensures that the legislation works as intended by making a small correction to legislative references used. Government amendments 21, 22 and 24 temporarily extend the deadline for making elections to give taxpayers more time to bed in the new IT systems needed to meet their filing obligations.

New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review those technical amendments to the pillar two rules every six months and report on the international implementation of pillar two, among other things. We have already committed to the implementation of pillar two, which, as hon. Members will know, aims to ensure that large multinationals pay their fair share of tax. As a matter of course, the Government keep all areas of tax policy under review, so I reject the new clause.

Taken together, these changes implement internationally agreed changes, respond to taxpayer consultation, and ensure that the pillar two rules continue to be effective and administrable in the UK. I therefore commend clause 50 and schedule 8, together with Government amendments 21 to 24, to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I rise to speak to clause 50 and to new clause 5, which is in my name. Clause 50 will amend parts of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 and implement the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. As I set out in the last Finance Bill Committee, in October 2021 more than 135 countries signed up to the G20/OECD agreement on reforming international transactions and taxation, which the clause refers to—a major achievement that aims to ensure that multinational groups pay a fair share of tax where they generate profits. Pillar two delivers a minimum global effective tax rate of 15% for large multinational groups in every country they operate in, and the UK has been one of the first jurisdictions to legislate for the changes.

New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review the changes on a six-monthly basis and lay before Parliament a report assessing three key issues: whether other major economies are implementing pillar two on comparable timelines and with comparable scope, whether any competitive disadvantage is arising for UK-based multinationals, and the impact of differentiated treatment for the United States. Crucially, if that review identified a material competitive disadvantage to the UK and UK businesses, the Treasury would be obliged to provide remedial measures within three months.

In rejecting new clause 5—another new clause that asks for a review—the Minister says that the Treasury is always conducting regular reviews of measures. If it is conducting this work anyway, why not share it with Parliament, and accept that it is a proportionate step to ensure ongoing parliamentary scrutiny in a very important area—a level playing field for British firms? The Minister referred to the length of the schedule. The sheer volume of amendments, coming less than two years after pillar two was first introduced, highlights the extreme technical complexity of the global minimum tax and the challenges for businesses that have to comply with it to keep up to date.

The Government’s aim is to ensure that UK rules remain consistent with the OECD model legislation, and schedule 8 is therefore aligned with the guidance and technical fixes. Those are sensible to maintain international consistency, but throughout last year there was growing international uncertainty about pillar two, the subject of the clause, as political divergence emerged over how it should operate, particularly regarding the treatment of US-parented companies.

The Minister referred to the side-by-side agreement made between G7 Governments last summer—and formalised, I think, this month—allowing certain UK and US multinationals to be exempt from parts of the rules while retaining access to the newly defined safe harbours. The agreement might bring some short-term stability, but it raises questions, and clearly we will be scrutinising it when, as the Minister said, it comes forward in future legislation. The US Treasury Secretary has described the side-by-side deal as

“a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach.”

Will the Minister comment on what pillar two means in that context and on the UK’s position?

The impacts that might flow from that are precisely why new clause 5 is needed. The Government say that the UK is aligned with international developments, but the international landscape is shifting. Other major economies have delayed implementation or have adopted narrower regimes; meanwhile, the US has its own agreement and has not legislated for this framework at all. Without scrutiny, the risk is that UK-headquartered multinationals will find themselves complying with complex and burdensome rules, while their competitors operating elsewhere face a lighter regime. I simply note that the Chartered Institute of Taxation pointed out that it thinks the burdens of pillar two

“continue to appear disproportionate to the amount of tax that will be raised”.

If the Government truly believe that the regime provides a balanced and proportionate approach to a level playing field and that we can be assured that the competitive advantage does not go to other countries, let us have that report, see it set out to Parliament and have the matter resolved. To conclude, international co-operation on tax is essential, but we need to ensure not only that the UK is honouring its commitments, but that other countries are meeting theirs, so that UK companies are not losing out as a result.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments. International co-operation on such matters, as he said, is extremely important. The side-by-side agreement, as I have made clear, will be the subject of future legislation, which will be the opportunity for scrutiny. However, as I also made clear, that agreement ensures that all large multinationals will pay their fair share of tax through the application of pillar two and pre-existing minimum tax rules, while offering welcome simplification and stability to UK businesses.

We have to be clear that US multinationals, like every other multinational company, are still subject to the UK’s 25% corporation tax on the profits that they make in the UK. They are also still subject to the UK’s domestic minimum tax rate of 15%. We recognise that a degree of complexity is inherent in pillar two, but we must not forget that it applies only to large multinational businesses and that it is needed to stop businesses shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions and not paying their fair share of tax in the UK. I think the shadow Minister acknowledges that that is exactly why we need it.

That being said, in relation to the complexity, the UK continues to be a strong proponent of work to develop simplification of the system, including the recently agreed permanent safe harbour. As stated in our “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, the Government will also consider

“opportunities for simplification or rationalisation of the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities”

following the introduction of pillar two.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8

Pillar Two

Amendments made: 21, in schedule 8, page 358, line 9, leave out “50” and insert “50A”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.

Amendment 22, in schedule 8, page 379, line 26, at end insert—

“50A In Schedule 16 (multinational top-up tax: transitional provision), after paragraph 2 insert—

‘Transitional extension to deadline for elections

2A (1) Schedule 15 (multinational top-up tax: elections) has effect in its application to a pre-2026 election as if in paragraphs 1(2)(b) and 2(2)(b) of that Schedule for “no later than” there were substituted “before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day after”.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), a “pre-2026 election” means an election which specifies an accounting period ending before 31 December 2025 as—

(a) in the case of an election to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 applies, the first accounting period for which the election is to have effect, or

(b) in the case of an election to which paragraph 2 of Schedule 15 applies, the accounting period for which the election is to have effect.’”

This amendment extends the deadline for making an election to which Schedule 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 applies in cases where the election specifies an accounting period ending before 31 December 2025.

Amendment 23, in schedule 8, page 379, line 27, leave out paragraph 51 and insert—

“51 (1) In FA 1989, in section 178 (setting of rates of interest), subsection (2) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (x)—

(a) for ‘51’ substitute ‘33A’;

(b) after ‘Finance’ insert ‘(No.2)’;

(3) In paragraph (y), for ‘51’ substitute ‘33A’.”

This amendment deals with a consequential amendment that was missed when paragraph 33A was inserted in Schedule 14 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2023 by the Finance Act 2024.

Amendment 24, in schedule 8, page 379, line 38, at end insert—

“(3A) The amendment made by paragraph 50A has effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023.”—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment provides for the amendment inserted by Amendment 22 to have effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51

Controlled foreign companies: interest on reversal of state aid recovery

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

[Lucy Rigby]

The clause makes changes to ensure sufficient repayment interest is paid to affected companies following a successful challenge of a European Commission decision. It provides that interest is also paid on the amounts of late-payment interest that were recovered and are now repayable. It will affect a small number of UK companies that had amounts collected and later repaid following the successful challenge of the Commission decision. The changes are expected to have a negligible impact on the Exchequer.

[James Wild]

As the Minister said, this is a fairly straightforward measure allowing HMRC to pay interest to companies that have had to hand over money under a now overturned EU state aid ruling relating to the controlled foreign company rules. The 2019 ruling was subsequently annulled. My only question for the Minister is: does the clause mark the final chapter in the UK’s compliance with the EU state aid rules relating to the controlled foreign companies regime, or could other outstanding matters give rise to further issues or payments?

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Minister will appreciate that it is a requirement of UK domestic legislation to put companies in the position that they would have been in had the recovery legislation not been introduced, and it is that principle on which the clause is based.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Legacies to charities to be within scope of tax

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Report on legacies to charities—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 52 on—

(a) charitable giving through estates, and

(b) charity sector income.”

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 52, in combination with the other clauses in the Bill, will support the Government’s aims of closing the tax gap by strengthening compliance powers to challenge abusive arrangements by which donors or trustees of charities can enrich themselves. The clauses also simplify the tax rules by equalising the tax treatment of investment types and tax reliefs used by charities. The changes made in clause 52 will bring legacies into the definition of “attributable income”.

New clause 6 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 52 on charitable giving through estates and on the income of the charity sector. The changes are aimed at those charities and donors who seek to make a financial gain. They will not penalise charities when legitimate donations are received and investments are made. The Government have published a tax information and impact note that sets out the impact of the changes, and it showed that the measures will have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations such as charities. Once the measures have been implemented, HMRC will assess the impact by monitoring tax reliefs claimed by UK charities, so a formal evaluation is not required. I therefore propose that clause 52 should stand part of the Bill, and that new clause 6 should be rejected.

[James Wild]

Charities are a very important topic. We need to ensure that we give it appropriate scrutiny, given the importance of charities in our society and communities. Clause 52 and new clause 6—which I will speak to—relate to extending the definition of attributable income to include legacies left to charities. In practice, that means that when a charity receives a gift left in a person’s will, it could face a tax charge if that money is not spent on its charitable activities.

How charities use their funds is a topical subject in the context of the Church of England, which is planning to spend £100 million on its fund for healing, repair and justice—effectively a reparation fund for slavery, which many consider not to be an appropriate use of the funds, or what people gave funds to the Church for.

I now turn to the clause. The change will apply to gifts made on or after 6 April this year. New clause 6, in my name—it bears repetition—would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Act becoming law, to publish a report on the impact of the measure on charitable giving through estates and on the wider impact on the charity sector.

Concerns have been raised that expanding rules to cover legacies could have unwelcome implications if charities do not apply inherited funds quickly enough to their charitable purposes, leading to them being taxed. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warns that that uncertainty, particularly around the timing, may discourage potential donors from including charities in their wills. Clearly, none of us would wish to see that.

HMRC has said that it will not set a deadline for how soon money must be used, although that ambiguity creates issues in itself. If the rules are unclear, HMRC could later decide that a gift has not been applied appropriately and withdraw the tax relief, undermining confidence that legacy gifts to charities will remain tax-free. Perhaps the Minister could give the Committee some clarity on that point, and on how HMRC will determine what counts as timely or appropriate application of funds.

There is also a concern about the administrative burden it may place, particularly on smaller charities, which will have to prove that each legacy received has been properly applied to charitable purposes, even when the money is placed in long-term endowments or reserves. The Charity Finance Group warns that the changes could mean more record keeping, compliance checks and bureaucracy, taking money away from frontline charitable activities and towards administration. I do not think that anyone would wish to see that. I do not know whether the Minister has anything more to add on that complexity.

Adding complexity could also make life harder for executors and delay the administration of estates, which could affect the timing of cash flows to charities at a time when finances in the sector are under considerable pressure, and income is critical for them to do their job. There is also a risk that wealthier donors might think twice about leaving legacies to smaller charities, if they think that the charity might struggle to comply with HMRC rules.

I am really asking for the Minister’s assurance that HMRC will take a sensible and proportionate approach, particularly with smaller charities that are seeking to do the right thing in applying these rules. We all want to avoid the potential risk that this measure could deter charitable giving, when that is clearly not the intention. It is important that the concerns raised by the sector are aired in the Committee, and it is our role to do so.

[Lucy Rigby]

I will start with the principle that, because legacies have received tax relief, it is important that they are spent on charitable purposes, otherwise they will be subject to a tax charge. More broadly, the Government are very much committed to supporting charities and their donors through tax relief, which was worth over £6.7 billion in 2024.

The changes in the clause are aimed at those charities and donors that seek to make financial gain. They will not penalise charities where legitimate donations are received and investments are made. The measures are intended to protect the integrity of the charitable sector by ensuring that donations, investments and charity expenditure are deployed for charitable purposes, not the avoidance of tax.

The shadow Minister fairly referred to any burden that may fall on smaller charities. The Government of course recognise that many small charities are run by unpaid volunteers, and for that reason we have sought to design the new rules in a fair and proportionate way. HMRC will help the sector to understand and prepare for the changes by providing clear communications and guidance.

I also want to be clear, in response to the shadow Minister, that the changes to the attributable income rules mean that legacies received by a charity will become chargeable to tax if they are not spent charitably. The changes reflect the fact that this income may have already received considerable tax relief. We have no plans to stop charities accumulating donations, so there will be no deadline for the spending of legacy funds.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Approved charitable investments: purpose test

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Report on charitable investments purpose test—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 53 on charity investment strategies.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 53 on charity investment strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 53 changes the definition of “approved charitable investments”. The Government recognise 12 types of investments for charitable tax relief, but presently only one type of investment is required to be for the benefit of the charity and not the avoidance of tax. The Government are extending this rule to all 12 types of investment, making the rules both simpler and tighter.

New clause 7 would once again require the Government to report on the impact of clause 53 on charity investment strategies. As with clause 52, these changes are aimed at those charities and donors that seek to make financial gain. They will not penalise charities where legitimate donations are received and investments are made. As the shadow Minister may expect, we have published a TIIN setting out the impact of these changes, which showed that these measures will have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations such as charities. I commend clause 53 to the Committee, and I ask that new clause 7 be rejected.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 9.

New clause 8—Report on tainted charity donations—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 54 and Schedule 9 on—

(a) legitimate charitable giving, and

(b) prevention of tax avoidance.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 54 and Schedule 9 on legitimate charitable giving and the prevention of tax avoidance.

New clause 9—Review of outcome test—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must within two years of the passing of this Act, review implementation of the outcome test under section 54.

(2) The review must assess whether the outcome test is clearer and more effective than the purpose test.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the implementation of the outcome test in section 54 and to assess whether it is clearer and more effective than the existing purpose test.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 54 and schedule 9 will support the Government’s aims of closing the tax gap by strengthening compliance powers to challenge abusive arrangements by which donors or trustees of charities can enrich themselves. The changes made in clause 54 tighten the rules on tainted donations.

New clauses 8 and 9 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 54 and schedule 9 on legitimate charitable giving and the prevention of tax avoidance, to review the implementation of the outcome test in clause 54, and to assess whether it is clearer and more effective that the existing purpose test.

I come back to the same justification as for the previous clauses: these changes are aimed at those charities and donors who seek to make financial gain; they will not penalise charities when legitimate donations are received and investments are made. The TIIN, which was published alongside these changes, showed that these measures would have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations. I therefore commend clause 54 and schedule 9 to the Committee, and urge it to reject new clauses 8 and 9.

[James Wild]

I rise to speak to clause 54 and to new clauses 8 and 9 tabled in my name. The clause makes significant changes to how tainted donations are treated. At present the donation is considered tainted only if it was made with an improper purpose. This clause replaces the motive-based test with an outcome test. If someone connected to the donor under the new regime receives financial assistance from a charity, such as a grant, guarantee or loan, the donation will be deemed tainted regardless of the donor’s intent. I have tabled new clause 8 to require the Government to publish a report on how the change affects legitimate charitable giving, or genuinely tackles tax abuse.

New clause 9 would require a review of the implementation of the new outcome test after two years and would assess whether it proves to be clearer than the existing purpose test. The Minister and the Government said that this measure is about tightening anti-avoidance rules and the challenge of proving intent. But I have been approached by the Charity Finance Group, which represents over 1,400 organisations and manages one third of the sector’s £20 billion annual income, and it has raised concerns around the change. It warned that the outcome test could unfairly penalise both donors and charities for results outwith their control.

For example, a donor could make a genuine good faith contribution only for a charity months later to make a routine investment or financial arrangement that inadvertently benefits a linked person. That donor could then find themselves caught by the anti-avoidance rules without ever having done anything wrong. That could cause uncertainty and raise concerns about people leaving legacy gifts that the charity sector relies on.

It is not just the charity and that one body. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has warned that donors may have limited influence over the outcome once the donation has been made. It, too, questions the fairness and practicality of shifting from a motive to an outcome test. Indeed, it proposes that the existing rules are not altered for that precise reason. We tabled the two new clauses to introduce proper scrutiny of the measures and ensure Parliament understands the effect on the charitable sector and whether donations continue to be given.

Does the Minister consider there is a risk that shifting to such an approach could have the effect that the charitable sector has set out? If so, will she commit to perhaps providing some practical guidance, with examples that charities and their compliance teams could look at so that they can see that charitable giving is not undermined? None of us on this Committee would want to do anything that would undermine the ability of charities to raise money and disincentivise anyone from giving money for fear that they might be caught inadvertently by rules when they have done nothing wrong.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is important to recognise that the tainted donations rules ensure that the usual tax reliefs are not available where someone gives money to a charity with the intention to benefit financially from it. Previously, HMRC was only permitted to consider the intention of a donation and whether a donor had received a financial advantage from a donation, but now, with these changes, it will also be able to consider the outcome of the donation and whether a donor had received financial assistance. In that respect, considering the outcome of a tainted donation is a positive step towards challenging abusive arrangements. As I have said in relation to previous clauses, HMRC will come forward with clear guidance on the application of the clauses, and, to the shadow Minister’s point, that guidance might well contain examples.

We are taking a range of steps to ensure that the charity sector and the wider public are aware of the changes, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. A detailed summary of consultation responses has been published. As I said, HMRC will provide clear and practical guidance in advance of implementation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 12 stand part.

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Enterprise management incentives: thresholds and period for exercise

[Lucy Rigby]

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 13, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“( ) In section 169I(7D)(b) of TCGA 1992 (material disposal of business assets)—

(a) for ‘tenth ’ substitute ‘specified’;

(b) at the end insert ‘(with “specified anniversary” having the meaning given in section 529(2A) of that Act)’.”

This amendment to TCGA 1992 would reflect the changes made to section 529 of ITEPA 2003 by clause 13 of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 38.

Clause stand part.

New clause 24—Report on impact of section 13 (Enterprise management incentives: thresholds and period for exercise)—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two years of the coming into force of section 13, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of that section.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must, in particular, assess the impact on—

(a) the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in qualifying companies,

(b) high-growth and innovative companies, and

(c) the Exchequer finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to the House of Commons on the impact of section 13 on recruitment and retention in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative businesses, and on the Exchequer finances.

[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?

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause 15, page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (2).

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

Government amendments 3 and 4.

Clause 15 stand part.

New clause 1—Report on the impact of section 15—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 15 on—

(a) early-stage investment volume,

(b) investor participation, and

(c) international competitiveness.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to the House on the impact of section 15 on early-stage investment volumes, investor participation and the UK’s international competitiveness.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 14 and 15 double the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, as well as the gross assets limit for companies using the scheme. The VCT income tax relief will also be reduced from 30% to 20%.

The changes made by clause 14 will mean that, from April 2026, the EIS annual company investment limits will increase to £10 million, or £20 million for knowledge-intensive companies. The lifetime company investment limits will increase to £24 million, or £40 million for knowledge-intensive companies. The gross assets test will increase to £30 million before share issue, and £35 million after. Likewise, clause 15 will mean that from April 2026, the VCT company investment limits and gross assets test will increase to the same levels. Alongside that, as I said, the VCT up front income tax relief will decrease from 30% to 20% from April 2026.

Government amendments 3 and 4 fix wording in clause 15 so that the annual and lifetime investment limits consistently apply to “the relevant company”, removing any ambiguity in how the VCT limits should be interpreted.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

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

[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 ---

While I appreciate that it is too early to determine PISCES’ success, given its sandbox stage, I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on how the operation of PISCES is progressing. It will be essential, in any event, that HMRC provides clear guidance to accompany the changes. Unfortunately, such guidance is not always provided in a timely fashion, as we are all familiar with from engagement with businesses in our constituencies. Can the Minister commit to publishing proper and timely guidelines to ensure that employers and employees can navigate the provisions with confidence?

[Lucy Rigby]

The Government delivered the regulatory framework for PISCES in May 2025, and the shadow Minister has, fairly, asked for an update. I am pleased to tell him that the Financial Conduct Authority has since approved, as he may know, two PISCES market operators: JP Jenkins and the London Stock Exchange. We are hopeful that the first trading events on PISCES will take place soon.

I understand the impetus behind the shadow Minister’s other points. PISCES can, of course, be written into new contracts when they are agreed, meaning that those contracts should not need to be amended to include PISCES, because it can be there ab initio. However, it is fair to say that companies might not yet be aware of PISCES, as it was only recently introduced. That is exactly why we have the April 2028 extension, to allow PISCES to become more embedded and therefore more standard in EMI and company share option plan contracts. As I said, I understand the impetus behind the suggested change; I just do not think it is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Employee car and van ownership schemes

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 18 and 19 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

On the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, we have listened very carefully indeed to the sector’s concerns and have responded. That is exactly why we are delaying the proposed changes to employee car ownership schemes until 2030. That is the reasoning behind the delay.

The Government are firmly committed to our modern industrial strategy, and specifically to the automotive sector. That is why in the past year we have committed £2.5 billion to automotive investment and research and development, increased flexibilities in the ZEV mandate, funded the roll-out of more charge points and announced plans to cut electricity costs for energy-intensive manufacturers. Various points have been made about the tax incentives, but underpinning all of them is our commitment to support the automotive industry in a challenging fiscal environment.

We will publish in due course the guidance that the hon. Member for Maidenhead requests.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Employment income: miscellaneous exemptions

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 21 to 23 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

[Lucy Rigby]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 24, page 28, line 25, at end insert—

“61Z2 Disclosures to liable persons

(1) Subsection (2) applies where an officer of Revenue and Customs considers that a person is, or may be, jointly and severally liable to pay an amount as a result of this Chapter.

(2) The officer may at any time disclose to the person such information as the officer considers appropriate (whether or not such a disclosure would otherwise be permitted under section 18(2)(a) of CRCA 2005 or any other enactment) for the purposes of informing the person about that liability (‘the joint liability’) including—

(a) the identity of any person who is an umbrella company, a purported umbrella company or the worker in relation to the arrangements to which the joint liability relates, and

(b) information about the nature and extent of the liability of an umbrella company or a purported umbrella company that (by virtue of this Chapter) results, or may result, in the joint liability.

(3) Information disclosed in reliance on subsection (2) may not be further disclosed without the consent of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (which may be general or specific).

(4) Where a person contravenes subsection (3) by disclosing information relating to a person whose identity—

(a) is specified in the disclosure, or

(b) can be deduced from it,

section 19 of CRCA 2005 (offence of wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to the disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.

(5) In this section ‘CRCA 2005’ means the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.”

This amendment permits disclosures (whether or not permitted as a result of provision elsewhere) to persons who may be jointly and severally liable as a result of new Chapter 11 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

The Government state in their explanatory notes that the clause seeks

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

On the shadow Minister’s final question, I am afraid that I do not know what discussions have taken place with the organisation he referred to, but I can write to him and let him know. Ultimately, whether to use an umbrella company when supplying a worker to a client is a commercial decision for agencies. That commercial decision has been incentivised not just by the ability to outsource administration to umbrella companies, but by the shielding from exposure to tax risk that that model provides. It is good to hear the shadow Minister welcome the impetus behind the changes in that regard.

The current legal framework provides few incentives for agencies to ensure that the umbrella companies they use are compliant. We think it—and it sounds like the shadow Minister agrees—that that has contributed to the proliferation of non-compliance in the umbrella company market. It is important that agencies take steps to ensure that their labour supply chains are compliant, and some agencies already do. HMRC has published guidance on how to undertake checks.

The shadow Minister asked about which agencies may be treated as umbrella companies, given the breadth, or otherwise, of the definition. We are, of course, aware that some agencies engage workers as employees, and where that is the case, and they meet the other conditions of the legislation, they will be treated in the same way as umbrella companies and this measure will apply. Employment is a fundamental characteristic of how most umbrella company workers are engaged and is the key aspect in determining when this legislation will apply. I think that will be the key legal test.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendments made: 6, in clause 24, page 29, line 31, leave out

“a ‘relevant party’ for the purposes”

and insert

“jointly and severally liable to pay an amount as a result”.

This amendment makes sure that HMRC can use their power to make determinations about PAYE income in relation to persons who are jointly and severally liable to amounts of PAYE income under new section 61Z1 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

Amendment 7, in clause 24, page 29, line 32, leave out from “ITEPA” to end of line 33 and insert “(umbrella companies)—”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 24, page 29, line 34, leave out from first “to” to “as” in line 35 and insert “that amount”.—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Loan charge settlement scheme

[Lucy Rigby]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 25, page 30, line 21, at end insert “, or

(ii) a director or shadow director of such a person.”

This amendment expands the persons to whom the Commissioners are not required to make a loan charge settlement offer so as to include directors and shadow directors of a promoter or introducer.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 10.

Clause stand part.

Clause 26 stand part.

Government amendment 11.

Clause 27 stand part.

New clause 25—Report on fairness and scope of the loan charge settlement opportunity—

“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and impact of any loan charge settlement opportunity established under section 25 of this Act.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—

(a) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals who have previously settled or fully paid liabilities arising from disguised remuneration loan arrangements,

(b) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals with disguised remuneration loan arrangements falling outside the loan charge years specified in Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003,

(c) the extent to which any differences in treatment between these groups and those eligible for the settlement opportunity affect perceptions of fairness, and

(d) the potential impact of such perceptions on future tax compliance and trust in the tax system.

(3) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of whether extending more favourable settlement terms to the groups described in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would improve fairness and consistency, and

(b) any recommendations HMRC consider appropriate in light of that assessment.”

This new clause would require HMRC to report on the operation and fairness of the new loan charge settlement opportunity. It would consider whether more favourable terms are, or should be, available to those who have already settled or fully paid liabilities, and to those with arrangements outside the loan charge years.

New clause 26—Report on the treatment of disguised remuneration arrangements outside the loan charge years—

“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must lay before the House of Commons a report on the treatment, under any loan charge settlement opportunity established under section 25 of this Act, of disguised remuneration arrangements falling outside the 2010/11 to 2018/19 tax years.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—

(a) the extent to which disguised remuneration income from tax years outside the loan charge period is excluded from the settlement terms,

(b) the number of taxpayers with disguised remuneration arrangements which HMRC consider to fall outside the loan charge but within Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003,

(c) the interaction between settlements pursued in respect of such arrangements and those relating to the loan charge, and

(d) whether excluding factually linked arrangements from the settlement opportunity may prevent taxpayers achieving a full and final resolution of their tax affairs.

(3) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of whether including disguised remuneration arrangements that are factually linked to the loan charge period (whether arising before, during or after that period) would improve the effectiveness, fairness and finality of the settlement process, and

(b) any recommendations HMRC considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require HMRC to report on the exclusion from the new loan charge settlement opportunity of disguised remuneration arrangements outside the loan charge years, including arrangements which HMRC considers to fall outside the loan charge but within the disguised remuneration rules.

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Oliver Ryan]

The Minister makes a very good point about the expansion of exemptions and the fact that the Government are minded to look at this in future Budgets. I welcome clause 29, which talks about the leasing of plants and machinery and affects many businesses in my constituency. I think it will have a genuine impact and, much as the Opposition might say, “This is a very good thing,” and welcome it, I hope they will vote with us today. However, the question has to be asked why, after 14 years in government, they did not bring this in. For various businesses in my constituency that lease large equipment, this would have made a massive difference. Unfortunately, it is being brought in by us later in the day because it was not done by the Conservatives.

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

The shadow Minister asked about working with businesses to get the word out. We have been working closely with industry on the expansion to leasing and we are consulting businesses on guidance to ensure that understanding of the new rules is as full as possible. The TIINs beloved of the shadow Minister, we now hear, make it clear that the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” sets out that the measure is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts, and for future investment the present value and cost of capital for businesses that claim the new first-year allowance remains broadly the same following these changes. For all those reasons, I maintain the view that new clause 2 should be rejected.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

As an old hand, Mr Wild will know that a decision on new clause 2 will come at the end, if he wishes to press it to a Division.

Clause 30

Expenditure on zero-emission cars and electric vehicle charging points

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

--- 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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

As we are nearing the end of the sitting, let me make three brief housekeeping announcements.

First, for operational reasons, the central door has been locked during the sitting. It will be opened very shortly before we adjourn so that Members may leave through it if they so wish.

Secondly, it has been drawn to my attention that, since the start of the sitting, the temperature has dropped dramatically, presumably because of the weather. Whether we can do anything about it during the lunch hour I do not know, but we will try.

Thirdly, the doors will be locked between now and the afternoon sitting. Given the weight of papers that everybody has been given, those Members who wish to leave them in the room may do so.

Clause 31

Payments for surrender of expenditure credits

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 32 and 33 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 31 will make changes to clarify the tax treatment of payments made by companies in return for receiving expenditure credits. The changes made by the clause will set out a treatment for companies to follow. Payments made in return for credit must be ignored for corporation tax purposes, both by the surrendering company and by the recipient company.

Clauses 32 and 33 will introduce technical amendments to the legislation on video games expenditure credit and audiovisual expenditure credit. The changes made by clause 32 will add a new transitional rule to modify the video games expenditure credit calculation so that it accounts for both European and UK expenditure. The changes made by clause 33 will prevent incorrect amounts from having an impact on the intended generosity of special credit. They will do so by preventing some incorrect amounts from occurring and by setting out how to resolve others when they arise. Noting that clause 32 will close a loophole, I commend clauses 31 to 33 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford about the impact of these measures.

In relation to clause 31, if only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, had the TIIN to hand; if he did, he might have been aware that we estimate that the payments for the surrender of expenditure credits will have an impact on roughly 12,000 claimants of R&D expenditure credit, audiovisual expenditure credit and video games expenditure credit.

The shadow Minister asked about the impact on video games companies: I think it is fair to say that if a company has a game that switches from the video games tax relief to the video games expenditure credit, it simply needs to make sure that it uses the modified version of step 2 when calculating how much credit it is entitled to. This will affect only games that are already in development and need to switch reliefs. There are no figures available to show the impact on companies; it is normally in the tax line, so it is not treated as taxable by most companies. I think that answers all of his questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

R&D undertaken abroad: Chapter 2 relief only

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

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 28—Implementation of section 35 (Restriction of relief on disposals to employee-ownership trusts—

“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, as part of the implementation of the provisions of section 35, make an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing a digital application process for taxpayers seeking to pay capital gains tax by instalments under section 280 of TCGA 1992 in respect of disposals to employee ownership trusts.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider potential guidance on eligibility criteria and processing timescales.”

This new clause 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 as part of the implementation of section 35.

New clause 29—Report on the impact of section 35—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this section coming into force, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the changes made under section 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises, including—

(a) the number of EOT transactions completed compared to the previous three-year average,

(b) any administrative costs and burdens reported by businesses and tax advisers,

(c) the incidence and value of dry tax charges arising, and

(d) recommendations for any modifications to the instalment payment regime under Section 280 of TCGA 1992.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay a report before the House of Commons on the impact of section 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 35 reduces the amount of capital gains tax relief available on disposal of company shares to the trustees of an employee ownership trust. The Government are committed to building on the success of the existing scheme so that the UK remains a leader in the field of employee ownership. However, the Government have to consider the public finances and the important issue of fairness in our tax system.

The current regime allows business owners to dispose of valuable shareholdings for significant capital gains without paying any tax at all. The cost of the CGT relief alone reached £600 million in 2021-2022, and forecasts suggest that it could rise to more than 20 times the original costing to £2 billion by 2028-29, if action is not taken. The changes made by clause 35 will restrict the amount of CGT relief available to company owners who dispose of shares to the trustees of an EOT. For disposals on or after 26 November 2025, half of the gain on disposal to the trustees of an EOT will be treated as the disposer’s chargeable gain for CGT purposes, and charged to tax according to the usual applicable rules. The remaining half of the gain will be not charged to tax at the time of disposal.

Overall, this means that disposals to an EOT will benefit from a rate of tax that is broadly equivalent to half of the usual rate, which will still constitute an effective incentive to encourage company owners towards employee ownership.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

1. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of issuing research and development bonds of up to £20 billion.

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

Innovation is a key driver of long-term economic growth, higher productivity and improved living standards. That is why this Government are investing more in R&D and why we are committed to maintaining the generosity of R&D tax reliefs. We remain open to new and innovative debt instruments and we review options regularly, but clearly new instruments need to meet a range of criteria, including value for money.

[Chris Coghlan]

In the 1940s, refugees fled the Nazis and built the atomic bomb; they pioneered a method of public research and development that has powered US economic dominance ever since. The EU Security Action for Europe defence bond fund offers us a similarly transformative opportunity: £20 billion invested in defence R&D could expand our economy by £100 billion. Will we join our Canadian and European allies, end our economic stagnation, and together defend the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. Indeed, he and I have discussed this issue previously. We are due to meet to discuss it later this month, and I am very much looking forward to that discussion.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Mersey Care NHS foundation trust has plans for a world-leading mental health research and development facility at Maghull health park in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Treasury might support investing in such an important research and development project, not least as it is fundamental to the Government’s plans for improving healthcare?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. This Government are investing an extra £29 billion in our national health service. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to provide regional funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of providing Government-backed loans for SMEs.

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

The Government provide a wide range of loan support for SMEs through the British Business Bank. This includes the start up loans programme and the growth guarantee scheme, the latter of which recently supported over 4,000 businesses and over 65,000 jobs right across the country.

[Jo White]

I recently met Matthew Pendleton, who owns Apawtiser, a high-quality dog treat company. The company grew legs because processed dog food had made his pet dog violently ill. Matthew now needs the finances so that he can continue to expand, employ more staff and get Apawtiser on the national pet food map. I want to see businesses such as these succeed in my area, and Matthew’s small ask is: will the Government step in with the offer of an underwritten loan?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of businesses in Bassetlaw, and I wish her a happy birthday for yesterday. In the recent spending review, the Government extended the growth guarantee scheme, enabling £5 billion-worth of loans over the next four years. This will support businesses like the one she mentioned, and I would be more than happy to meet her to talk about how her constituent might access that support.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

First-of-a-kind technologies such as DRIFT Energy in Bath face serious investment challenges and difficulties in accessing grant funding from any Government Department. DRIFT is a groundbreaking renewable energy innovator that could rapidly scale and contribute to the UK’s energy independence. What are the Government doing to ensure that first-in-kind technologies in particular receive the support that they need here in the UK, rather than being forced to go abroad?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member may well know that, at the spending review, we increased the financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion. There are a number of ways in which the British Business Bank will support companies like the one she referred to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund plays a crucial part in investing taxpayers’ money. I welcome the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on that issue. Will the Minister indicate when the National Wealth Fund will have the ability to borrow from private markets in order to increase its independence, secure funding for infrastructure, and get the taxpayer off the hook?

[Lucy Rigby]

It is absolutely right that we have increased the amount of funding going into the National Wealth Fund. On my hon. Friend’s specific question, my understanding is that we have not set a date, but I am more than happy to write to her with further information—to the extent that it exists.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Has the Minister assessed what proportion of British Business Bank grant funding goes to the smallest of businesses? One in four people in my constituency works for themselves or for very small businesses. To what extent is she working to ensure that smaller businesses—those employing 10 people or fewer, which are the very bedrock of our economy in the lakes and dales in Cumbria—know about the availability of those loans and are talked through the difficult process of applying for and receiving them, so that we can invest in rural communities like mine?

[Lucy Rigby]

On the Government’s policies vis-à-vis businesses as a whole, we support the sort of businesses the hon. Member refers to in a whole range of ways. On businesses in his area, 80% of the recent deployment of the growth guarantee scheme was outside London.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

7. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of trends in the level of living standards on the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

17. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact on the economy of the FTSE 100 index rising above 10,000 points.

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

It is definitely right to say that the FTSE 100 performed strongly in 2025, during which it rose faster than key benchmarks, the United States and the European stock markets, and hit 10,000 points as we entered the new year. The UK is one of the world’s leading global financial hubs, and this Government are committed to the sector’s enduring leadership.

[Alison Taylor]

Does the Minister agree that cutting paperwork and speeding access to capital will provide a valuable boost to companies looking to list their shares on the London Stock Exchange? Is she hearing that from the companies that she is meeting, because that is what I have been hearing while I have been out engaging with businesses in Scotland?

[Lucy Rigby]

I can confirm that I am indeed hearing that. Last week’s introduction of the new prospectus rules will mean faster execution, reduced complexity and a simplified route to capital raising. Together with the three-year UK listing relief announced at the Budget, these initiatives will make the UK the most attractive destination for companies to start, scale, list and stay.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Just one pure technology company is now listed on the FTSE 100 and Budget measures, such as cutting venture capital trust tax relief, discourage companies from listing on the UK exchanges. Why are the Government driving away growth and investment?

[Lucy Rigby]

The entrepreneurship package in the Budget was incredibly important. The aim of that package, which includes the UK listing relief—the three-year stamp duty holiday that I referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor)—is designed to make the UK the best place to start, scale and list a company.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Member has referred to the motor finance redress situation. As the House would expect, we are monitoring that very closely, and we want to see the issues resolved in an efficient way that provides certainty for consumers and for firms. As the hon. Member knows, seeking to change the rules on corporation tax would mean deviating from our commitment to certainty and predictability in the tax system, as set out in our corporate tax road map.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the economic steps that the Chancellor has taken against Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and I encourage her to go further, but does she agree that the British public can have confidence in our sanctions regime only if those in political leadership across all parties, including the shadow Attorney General, do not have ongoing involvement in advising Russian oligarchs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Link has doubled down on its decision not to grant Totnes a banking hub, despite the Prime Minister telling Members at Prime Minister’s questions that every community that wants one should have one. Will the Chancellor agree to review the criteria for banking hubs, so that people have access to face-to-face banking services, not just access to cash, when the last bank turns its back on its customers and leaves town?

[Lucy Rigby]

The Government of course recognise the importance of in-person banking services and access to cash, as the hon. Member and I have discussed. As she knows, in-person services are provided through traditional bank branches, banking hubs, post offices and other means, and I will continue to monitor the situation. As she knows, I have listened very carefully to her concerns, and I am happy to do so again.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report on private markets, highlighting the potential risks to economic stability, and the Bank of England has also undertaken a stress test of the ecosystem. What actions is the Minister considering taking with regulators to strengthen transparency and oversight of private markets, so that we can mitigate any systemic risks?

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

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025.

This statutory instrument delivers a comprehensive regime for the regulation of cryptoassets within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 framework, meaning that cryptoassets will be regulated under the same architecture as other financial services. Coupled with the rules being prepared by the Financial Conduct Authority, the regime will protect consumers and give technology and financial services firms the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK. There is a general trend towards more people investing in cryptoassets in the UK; as they become more intertwined with traditional financial services, it is critical that we offer appropriate protection and get our approach to regulation right.

Previous intervention in this space has focused on addressing the most urgent risks first, namely money laundering and misleading financial promotions. However, as it stands, most cryptoasset activities are not subject to broader financial services regulation covering matters such as conduct and prudential requirements. Consumers and industry have long called for clear and comprehensive oversight of cryptoassets in the UK, and the Treasury first consulted on these proposals in 2023 under the previous Government. In October 2024, this Government committed to implementing a regime largely in line with the consultation proposals. The instrument before us today delivers on that commitment.

The instrument amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to do two principal things: first, to define the categories of cryptoasset that will be in scope of the regime; secondly, to define the new activities that will be regulated. Generally, firms undertaking those activities in the UK or for UK consumers must be authorised by the FCA or risk committing a criminal offence. The new activities are: issuing qualifying stablecoin in the UK; safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets and relevant specified investment cryptoassets; operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform; dealing in qualifying cryptoassets as principal or agent, or arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets; and qualifying cryptoasset staking.

The instrument also uses the new designated activities regime to create frameworks governing public offers of qualifying cryptoassets and their admission to trading on relevant platforms and to tackle market abuse in relation to such cryptoassets. As people will have spotted, it also makes consequential amendments to various pieces of legislation to ensure that the regime can operate effectively and to ensure consistency between the cryptoasset regulatory framework and the rules that apply to traditional financial services. The provisions will take effect from 25 October 2027, which will allow the FCA to consult and finalise rules this year, and give at least 12 months for firms to apply for authorisation and the FCA to process applications ahead of the enforcement date.

In conclusion, as I have set out, this regime will raise standards, strengthen consumer protection, help to tackle market abuse and support the responsible growth of the UK’s cryptoasset sector by providing clear and consistent rules. It brings cryptoassets within the robust Financial Services and Markets Act framework while ensuring that the sector has the space and flexibility to innovate. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting this instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the whole Committee for their consideration of this matter—in particular the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I share his vital commitment to continuous innovation in financial services. I would argue that what has made London and our financial services hub as world-leading as we are is our continuous embracing of innovation—he went quite some way back with coffee shops. I also share his view that the next stage of innovation, which is critical to embrace, concerns stablecoin, digital assets and tokenisation much more broadly. It is fair to say that we are coming at this from the same place.

With regard to stablecoin specifically, we wholeheartedly agree on the potential of stablecoin to play a really significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. The shadow Economic Secretary rightly refers to qualifying stablecoins as a definition being a subset of qualifying cryptoassets. He also recognises that this SI aims to bring the issuance of stablecoin within the FCA’s perimeter, which I distinguish from using stablecoin as a method of payment. Again, I think we are on the same page in relation to that.

There is a deliberate carve-out for stablecoin payment activities in this SI, because we have carved out any transaction for the purposes of the supply of goods or services. The intention is to deal with the use of stablecoins as a method of payment in the context of the upcoming payments strategy. An awful lot of work will be done on that over the course of this year, because, as the shadow EST rightly refers to, the UK is a leader in payments innovation, and stablecoin is a key piece of that.

There are other pieces of the stablecoin picture; as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank is currently consulting on a systemic stablecoin. Quite what will constitute “systemic” is yet to be defined, so that remains an area in which the industry is, understandably, looking for answers. As I said, the Bank’s consultation is open, and the FCA is also consulting on the detailed rules that will underpin this regime.

I note, and very much welcome, the shadow EST’s support in principle for these measures. It is critical that we make sure that every single i is dotted and every t is crossed. We all want this to go right, and I certainly do not want there to be anything that subsequently becomes an issue. I am not sure that there is at this point but, as I say, while I note his support in principle, I would nevertheless be more than happy to talk to him at a mutually convenient time, and for him to bring in the experts that he referred to. We can then hopefully persuade him that this is completely kosher as it is, or he can tell us why he does not think that that is the case. That is a meeting that I am more than happy to have.

I am grateful to members of the Committee for their consideration of this SI, and I hope they will join me in supporting these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

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

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

It is a pleasure to open this second day of our Committee stage debate. Yesterday the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), explained how the Bill gives effect to a Budget that took fair and responsible decisions to stabilise and strengthen the public finances, address the cost of living and renew our public services. We are clear about the fact that we will not repeat the mistakes of the last Government. That means no return to austerity and no completely irresponsible unfunded spending commitments, both of which, unfortunately, were features of the Conservatives’ time in power. This Government wholeheartedly reject those failed approaches and choose a different path, one of fiscal responsibility and one that will strengthen our economy so that it delivers for people throughout the country. Today the Committee will consider a further set of important and targeted measures relating to pensions, gambling duties and alcohol duty, which reflect this Government’s commitment to a tax system that is fair, modern, and aligned with the realities of today’s economy.

Our approach to changes in gambling taxation is fair and proportionate, as the Committee will hear later this afternoon, and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained in her Budget statement, those reforms will contribute significantly to the Government’s efforts to lift an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. The pensions clauses will ensure that generous tax reliefs continue to support the core purpose of pensions, which is to help people to save for retirement. They address long-standing inconsistencies, and will ensure that pensions are not used primarily as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax, but instead continue to protect the vast majority of estates and maintain strong incentives to save.

I turn to clauses 63 to 68. Pensions enjoy significant tax benefits, with gross income tax and national insurance contributions relief costing £78.2 billion in 2023-24. It is therefore crucial to ensure that these reliefs are used for their intended purpose, which is to encourage saving for retirement and later life. Changes to pensions tax policy by the previous Government over the last decade led to pensions being used, and increasingly marketed, as tax planning vehicles to transfer wealth, rather than holding true to pensions’ primary purpose, which is of course to provide a way to fund retirement.

As hon. Members will know, there are also long-standing inconsistencies in the inheritance tax treatment of different types of pensions. Most UK-registered pension schemes are discretionary, meaning members can nominate whom they would like to receive death benefits, but the scheme trustees are not obliged to follow members’ wishes. Under existing rules, any unused pension funds and death benefits from discretionary schemes are not subject to inheritance tax. By contrast, some pension schemes are non-discretionary, and these are subject to inheritance tax under existing rules.

The changes made by clause 63 mean that most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. Clause 64 ensures that personal representatives are responsible for paying any inheritance tax due. Clause 65 means that personal representatives will be able to request that the pension scheme administrator withhold paying a proportion of benefits where certain conditions are met. It also allows both personal representatives and pension beneficiaries to make pension scheme administrators pay inheritance tax due on pensions directly to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—again, provided certain conditions are met.

Clause 66 makes some consequential amendments to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to ensure that the existing exemption for spouses and civil partners and the treatment of payments to charities continue to apply. Clause 67 changes the income tax rules for pensions to provide for the payment of inheritance tax, including in respect of direct payment by pension schemes. Clause 68 ensures that the changes take effect from 6 April 2027.

These clauses ensure that pensions are used, as I have said, for their core intended purpose, rather than as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax. They also remove long-standing inconsistencies and deliver on the Government’s promise to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long-term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions.

As has been mentioned, the chartered institute and the ATT have raised concerns about this group of clauses, which shoehorn pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executives or administrators. Personal representatives are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries. They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that someone being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives, such as professionals or friends of the deceased, much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate.

Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this would have a knock-on effect on not only the estate but all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund. It is far from uncommon for people to have had different jobs with separate pension plans, so the risk of miscalculation is obvious. If someone passes away before they have had the chance to consolidate their pension funds, tracking down the unused pots within six months of their death will be very difficult for executors and will mean that the initial IHT calculations could be wrong. The Government must recognise that and amend this measure. If they do not, and Ministers simply ask future executors to sign some sort of disclaimer form, they will soon find that nobody will want to take on that role.

Our new clauses 18 to 20 raise the clear need for significant reforms and are a means of pressing the Government to protect individuals from being liable for private pensions that they did not know about and could not reasonably know about either. Finally, there is widespread worry that family members might have to wait up to 15 months before they are able to access their inheritance, during what is bound to be a hugely straining period of loss and grief. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 20 urges the Government to recognise that reality and take steps to address it.

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this group of clauses. Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I will reflect briefly on the core purpose of the Bill.

The Bill contains fair and necessary reforms to the tax system, which unfortunately have been ducked for far too long. They will help to strengthen our economy for the long term, ensuring that we can cut the cost of living and inflation, and restore our public services and the public finances to health. The Tories and Reform—who are increasingly indistinguishable, it might be said—have already set out their choice: a return to the chaos and instability of the past. That approach failed before, and we are not going back.

The clauses in this group restore pensions to their core and intended purpose, which is funding retirement. We are not allowing them to function as a tax-free vehicle for the transfer of wealth. Generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. The clauses ensure that pension wealth is treated fairly and consistently for inheritance tax purposes. They protect ordinary families, with more than 90% of estates still paying no inheritance tax at all each year after the changes.

Let me turn to the non-Government amendments in this group. New clause 18 would require the Treasury to review the effects of the changes to pension tax policy, including their impacts on individuals, administrators and behaviour. A report would need to be laid in Parliament no later than six months from when the Act comes into force. This new clause is not necessary. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on the changes in the normal way. It sets out the impact on individuals, and accounts for the impact on personal representatives.

As hon. Members know, the Government keep all tax policies under review through the monitoring of returns and communication with representative bodies and taxpayer groups. A review within six months of the policy taking effect on 6 April 2027 is not practical, not least because the data relating to inheritance tax in 2027-28 will not be fully available until the summer of 2030. That is the normal timescale, and it operates because tax liabilities data is available only with a long lag, partly because the filing of the relevant inheritance tax accounts is due 12 months after a death. For those reasons, new clause 18 should be rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

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

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 84 and 85 stand part.

Schedule 13.

New clause 21—Review of the impact of sections 83 and 84: free bets and freeplays—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the impact of implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act in respect of the treatment of free bets and freeplays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets.”

New clause 25—Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) sports and horseracing,

(b) the number of high street betting shops,

(c) the gambling black market,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 make changes to the gambling duties regime, to better reflect the modern gambling market and to raise more than £1 billion a year to support the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. I will first speak briefly to the broader context of the package, and I will then turn to each clause.

Gambling is a significant part of the UK economy, generating an annual gross gambling yield of around £16.8 billion in 2025, according to figures from the Gambling Commission. The industry has changed markedly in recent years, while the duty system has not changed since 2019. Most notably, there has been a structural shift from in-person to online gambling. Between 2015 and 2025, remote gambling grew by 80%, while land-based gambling has declined by 10%. At the same time, evidence of gambling-related harms has become even clearer.

The estimated cost to the Government and society of gambling-related harms in England alone is between £1.05 billion and £1.77 billion a year. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers using online slots, bingo or casino games are considered to be at risk, compared with less than 15% of those betting in person on horseracing. Referrals for gambling addition have risen sharply—NHS England has doubled the number of clinics for problem gambling. I am grateful for representations from so many MPs and campaigners on this matter, alongside those with constituencies where horseracing plays an important role in the community and, indeed, the local economy.

In the Budget, the Chancellor made it clear that changes to gambling taxation are fair, proportionate and for a purpose, as they will directly contribute to lifting an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. This Government are very proud of that. Unfortunately, the Opposition showed little regard for child poverty when they were in government, and it is entirely in character, albeit no less shocking, that they oppose this Government’s changes and would increase child poverty as a result. Reform UK is even more brazen.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way during an excellent speech introducing what I think is an extremely positive change. Like many Members, I have campaigned for some years to ensure that the most harmful and addictive forms of gambling attract tax that is commensurate with those harms, so I welcome this measure, as I am sure do others who have campaigned on this issue. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which recommended this change in a report just before the Budget, I am very glad to see it. Will the Minister confirm that some of the revenue raised will be used to help the Government reach their objective of lifting half a million children out of poverty, and say how that relationship works? The Treasury clearly does not want to see a hypothecation of that sum, so how does the connection between the money raised by the tax and the lifting of children out of poverty work?

[Lucy Rigby]

The tax changes in the Bill disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. We have also introduced a statutory levy to pay for the prevention of some of those harms arising in the first place, and of treatment, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has said that the tax change will disincentive the most harmful form of gambling, but can she cite any evidence that will demonstrate that? I have no problem with taxing a profitable industry to pay for the wonderful policies that we announced for the sector, but the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility states that there will be a drive towards the black market as a result of these taxation changes. That is much more damaging, will raise much less revenue and, ultimately, will be much more damaging to our economy.

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers who use online slots, bingo and casino games are considered at risk, compared with less than 15% of those who bet in person on horseracing, so that is an important contrast, and the NHS figures bear that out.

Reform UK’s position on the two-child cap is even more brazen. The party went into the election promising to scrap the two-child limit but has now abandoned that position, and its Members will be traipsing through the Division Lobby with their ideological bedfellows, the Conservatives. Indeed, on any given day it is hard to keep track of who is supposed to be sitting on the Conservative Benches, and who has moved to the Reform Bench.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the important point that the OBR says that these measures will drive money towards the black market, potentially not benefiting the taxpayer and the Treasury as much as the Minister says. Will she explain what she will do to avoid the black market benefiting from these tax changes?

[Lucy Rigby]

The right hon. Member raises a good point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), about the illegal market. We are reassured by the fact that the illegal betting market in the UK is relatively small, representing between 2% and 9% of legal online market stakes. The Gambling Commission is already tackling this risk and seeking to protect consumers. The additional £26 million that we will provide to the Gambling Commission over the next three years will go to better and further enforcement against the illegal market in this space. I hope that reassures him.

At the autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of remote gambling, including a proposal for a single duty covering all remote betting and gaming. The consultation ran from April to July 2025. Respondents strongly opposed a single duty, arguing that remote betting and gaming significantly differ in operating costs and harms. The Government have listened to those concerns and are not proceeding with a single remote betting and gaming duty. Instead, the Bill implements a targeted package of rate changes that will raise over £1 billion a year. It focuses on remote gambling, which has grown significantly, it protects UK horseracing and it supports lower risk community-based activities by abolishing bingo duty.

I will now turn to the individual clauses in the Bill. The changes made by clause 83 will increase the rate of remote gaming duty, which applies to online games such as slots and roulette, from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026. Remote gaming has relatively low operating costs and has grown rapidly in recent years, with gross gambling yield rising significantly above inflation, from £2.5 billion in 2015-16 to £5.2 billion in 2024-25, based on Gambling Commission figures. It is associated with higher rates of gambling-related harm, relative to other products. As we have discussed, NHS data shows that online slots and casino games have much higher proportions of problem gamblers than betting on sports, for example. By increasing the rate on remote gaming more significantly, this measure intends to reduce the incentive for operators to push customers towards higher harm products.

Clause 84 will increase the rate for remote betting. General betting duty is currently charged at 15% for both remote and in-person betting, but the betting market has changed significantly in how it operates. Clause 84 will create a new, higher rate of general betting duty that will apply to bets placed remotely, such as online sports bets, from 1 April 2027. The new remote rate will be set at 25%, while the existing 15% rate will continue to apply to bets placed in person in licensed betting premises. The new 25% rate will not apply to remote bets on UK horseracing. Those bets will remain taxed at 15%, in recognition of the fact that operators already pay the 10% statutory horserace betting levy on horseracing bets, creating a de facto 25% burden when the 15% levy is taken into account. The new remote rate will also not apply to bets placed via self-service betting terminals in UK-licensed betting premises, pool bets and spread bets.

Finally, clause 85 will abolish bingo duty, which is currently charged on the gross gambling yield from bingo, including in dedicated bingo halls. Bingo is a much lower-risk and community-based form of gambling, often providing an important social outlet, and it supports local venues, including around 250 bingo halls right across this country. Clause 85 and the associated schedule 13 will abolish bingo duty with effect from 1 April 2026. The Bill also makes consequential changes to ensure that bingo played in UK licensed bingo halls does not become liable to other taxes or duties as a result of that abolition. This Government know the importance of bingo halls in our communities, and we are proud to back them with this tax change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I confess to my hon. Friend that I will need to write to her on that specific issue, because I do not have notes in front of me to that end. We are on the same page in terms of the principles she raises and the values that she seeks to put forward, and I welcome her welcoming of this Bill.

Taken together, clauses 83 to 85 modernise the gambling duties regime. As I said, they raise more than £1 billion a year to support public services and lift children out of poverty. They also focus tax increases on higher-harm, fast-growing online products while protecting UK horseracing and land-based betting and supporting bingo halls.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For clarity, bet365 is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but—

[Adam Jogee]

It is one of the largest private sector employers in Newcastle-under-Lyme—that was not in my hon. Friend’s notes. [Laughter.] Can the Minister touch a little bit on the engagement with some of these companies to ensure that the workers, many of whom live in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, will not be adversely impacted?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important point around jobs in the industry. He will be aware that employment in the gambling industry as a whole declined by around 20% between 2015 and 2023, so it is in gradual decline, and the trend predates this Bill. The jobs in his constituency are incredibly important, which is why the measures in this Bill deliberately focus on online gambling, rather than betting shops and casinos, which support more jobs and face higher operating costs, as I am sure the institutions in his constituency do.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Central specifically, 5,500 people are employed by bet365. It is not just a significant employer; it is the most significant employer. What actions or interventions is the Treasury looking at taking to try to offset some of the potential job losses that these policies will cause?

[Lucy Rigby]

As I said, employment is an important consideration that has been borne in mind for the purposes of this Bill, and there has been considerable engagement on all these issues. If the right hon. Member seeks further engagement, I am more than happy to have it.

I was just about to conclude.I commend clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 to the Committee.

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

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

These changes will raise over £1 billion a year to support the public finances and Labour’s mission to lift half a million children out of poverty, which will affect more than 4,200 children in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. They will protect families from harm, support communities and make sure that those who profit from misery finally pay their fair share.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for their heartfelt speeches in favour of these measures. I also note the comments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), which I can assure her I did listen to in full, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), both of whom, I accept, have tremendous expertise in this area.

As I have set out, we believe that the measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation because they reflect the reality of how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as these changes continue. The Government’s objective is to strike a balance by raising revenue fairly while avoiding further pressures on land-based operators. New clauses 21 and 25 ask the Chancellor to review the impact of and make a statement on the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of gambling, with 3% of adults classified as problem gamblers and 5% at moderate risk. I welcome her efforts in this regard, and the money that the proposals will raise. Will she give a commitment to the Committee that she will enter into conversations with the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland getting its fair share of this levy, to ensure that organisations that help those with gambling addictions are able to avail themselves of this funding to help people in that situation? I spoke recently to a constituent who had started gambling at the age of six, and it really struck a chord. Those people need help and I just ask her to do that.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Before I commit to her that I will take that forward, I would like to check what discussions have already taken place. I hope she will accept that that is necessary from my point of view.

Both the proposed new clauses focus on the impacts of the changes to the gambling duty and ask for a commitment to update Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed. First, this Government did not announce, and are not proposing to make, any changes to the treatment of free plays or free bets through this Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not make any changes to the duty charged on bets placed on horseracing in high street betting shops.

Secondly, on the illegal market, which has been raised a number of times, the Gambling Commission is already tackling that risk and is protecting consumers, but we recognise that modern technology makes it easier for illegal websites to target consumers. To strengthen enforcement and protect consumers from dangerous illegal sites, we are providing an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years. I hope I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that the £100 million a year in the form of the statutory levy is ringfenced for prevention, treatment and research in this area.

The Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure at the Budget. As is set out in that note, consideration will be given to monitoring and evaluating the expected Exchequer impacts of the policy after at least two years of monitoring data has been collected and analysed. More broadly, the Government continually monitor the operation of all taxes and keep them under review to ensure that they deliver on their intended outcomes and, indeed, are fit for purpose. For those reasons, the proposed statement and the impact assessment are not necessary.

The measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation. They reflect how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as those changes continue. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised levels of employment. He will know that right across the piece, the OBR expects that employment levels will rise in every year of the forecast. Costings were also raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. The OBR has taken account of behavioural impacts within its costing. Of course, those costings have been certified and scrutinised in the usual way.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about engagement with industry. I can confirm that the Government, as I hope she would expect, engaged with a number of stakeholders, including from the gambling industry, as part of the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central also raised Gibraltar. Of course we recognise that Gibraltar has a gambling industry that very much faces the UK. I can assure him that there has been engagement, not by me, but by some of my colleagues in the Treasury, with Gibraltar to that end.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that she has consulted and that Ministers have had engagement with the industry. I was specifically wondering whether in the course of that consultation with the industry, there was discussion about using a different measure and choosing a different tax base for the calculation of this particular tax, because it seems as though the tax base could have been bigger if they had used the measure already in the Finance Act, rather than this new measure that seems to shrink the tax base. Did the Treasury have a particular reason for using a different measure for calculating this remote gaming duty?

[Lucy Rigby]

It was not me who had those engagements, but as I said, I confirm to the hon. Member that we are not proposing to make any changes to the treatment of free plays and free bets through the Bill, which I hope reassures her in that regard.

I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 21 and 25 and agree that clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

New Clause 25

Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) sports and horseracing,

(b) the number of high street betting shops,

(c) the gambling black market,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”—(James Wild.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 8—Review of impact of section 86 on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the measures contained in section 86 on the hospitality sector.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of section 86 on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade, and

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established.

(3) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the impact of the alcohol duty measures in Clause 86 on the hospitality sector, including effects on employment and business viability.

New clause 9—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—

(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and

(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—

(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,

(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and

(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and

(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.

(4) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.

New clause 26—Statements on increasing alcohol duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase to alcohol duty made under section 86 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) the hospitality sector,

(b) pubs,

(c) UK wine, spirit and beer producers,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in alcohol duty.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am pleased to open this session—the sixth and final session in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill—on clause 86, which concerns alcohol duty. This Government’s approach to alcohol duty is one of proportionality. Indeed, we are taking a fair and coherent approach to alcohol taxation as a whole. The measures in the Bill take account of the important contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector, the Government’s commitments to back British businesses, and the need to maintain the health of the public finances.

Clause 86 makes changes to alcohol duty rates from 1 February 2026. Specifically, the clause changes the rates of alcohol duty for all alcoholic products in schedule 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 to reflect the retail prices index.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister says that she has considered carefully the fairness of the changes in this clause. Has she considered at all the compound effect of this and all the other taxes that are currently killing hospitality businesses?

[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.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for speaking about an imminent decision on business rates, but this is not just about business rates. The Victoria Inn in Mumbles in my constituency has not banned me as a Labour MP—it has not banned any Labour MPs—but it would like to extend an invitation to those on the Front Bench to visit Mumbles, come to the pub and have that conversation, because it is a positive conversation about how the Government are listening and moving forward.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that invitation. It is one that I will be taking up, as I would love to join her in that public house in her constituency.

Importantly, continuing to freeze alcohol duty would primarily support cheaper alcohol in the off-trade—for instance, alcohol sold in shops and supermarkets—and have only a small indirect impact on the hospitality sector. That is because, as hon. Members will know, alcohol duty is paid by producers, not by pubs, and 73% of alcohol consumed in the UK is purchased from shops, rather than in pubs, restaurants and bars. The Government’s decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with inflation is therefore not only prudent for the public finances; it also balances important considerations, and the contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector, with the need to support public services such as the NHS.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the Minister giving way. I have noticed that more and more of my constituents are drinking non-alcoholic beer, and that there the number of people taking alcohol is reducing. That sometimes puts pubs under particular pressure, but people can still go out socialising and have a meal and a non-alcoholic drink. Would it be possible to promote that through this Bill, because I believe we should be looking at that growing market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as always, for his intervention. I was about to talk about the strength-based duty system introduced by the previous Government on 1 August 2023, following the alcohol duty review. The new alcohol duty system taxes all alcoholic products according to their strength, so duty increases with alcohol content, which represents a progressive shift. The reforms introduced two new reliefs: the draught relief, which reduced the duty burden on draught products sold at on-trade venues; and small producer relief, which replaced the previous small brewers relief and aims to support small and medium-sized enterprises and new entrants.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Minister rightly refers to draught beer and cider relief, and she said earlier that her concern about freezing alcohol duties was that most of the benefit would be going to supermarkets and other places that sell beer cheaply. Surely she recognises that what the Chancellor should have done is reduce the draught rate, as happened last year, so that the full benefit would have gone to licensed premises, as they are the only venues that can sell the draught drinks covered by that rate.

[Lucy Rigby]

My point was that the benefit of the decision not to update alcohol duty will be felt mostly in the off-trade, which is a point that the hon. Gentleman appears to understand.

The small producer relief aims to support SMEs and new entrants by permitting smaller producers to pay reduced duty rates. Clause 86 maintains the generosity of the small producer relief, compared with main duty rates. The changes introduced by the clause maintain the real-terms value of alcohol duty, and balance the need to support alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector with the need to support the public finances. Further to that, the changes also support smaller producers by maintaining the generosity of small producer relief. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Both the publicans I am talking about are working in excess of 70 hours a week. They have laid off staff, meaning fewer jobs for those who might be able to engage in entry-level occupations. It is hitting employment as well as other aspects of the economy.

Too many local pubs in my constituency, as in so many others, have shut, and other publicans are considering leaving the sector. When they go, communities lose a key institution that brings people together at the heart of their villages. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 9, which would ensure an assessment of the cumulative effect of this Government’s careless assault on the hospitality sector.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. Almost all of them have spoken passionately about their local pubs. I specifically acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), just to deny him the pleasure of my not doing so.

We are taking a prudent and responsible decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with RPI. That is fully assumed in the OBR’s baseline forecast, so failing to uprate would come at a real cost.

[Mike Wood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am going to make some progress. Based on HMRC’s ready reckoner, freezing alcohol duty would cost the Exchequer around £400 million a year. That money, despite the Opposition’s best efforts to pretend otherwise, would have to be found elsewhere. This is one of the measures that assists in ensuring that our economy is strengthened and our future prosperity more secure. Indeed, it does that without taking the axe to public services or to investment. Those policies from the Conservatives had catastrophic consequences for all our constituents.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

New clauses 8, 9 and 26 would require the Government to publish reports on the impacts of alcohol duty. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), invited me to refer to our tax information and impact note, and I will take him up on that invitation. As is usual practice, our note was published at the Budget. It outlined the anticipated impacts of this measure for alcohol producers and the hospitality sector. Because this uprating maintains the current real-terms value of the duty, the Government do not expect it to have significant macroeconomic impacts, including to the employment rate or hospitality businesses’ costs, where a duty on drinks will have comparable relative bearing as now.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make some progress.

On the impacts on the public finances, HMRC publishes data on alcohol duty receipts quarterly. That data is reviewed alongside other evidence by the OBR when it produces its forecasts of alcohol duty receipts, as it did most recently alongside the November Budget. The Government’s view, as is evident from OBR-certified policy costings in recent years, remains that freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates reduces duty receipts.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens raised the importance of producers of Scottish whisky, and I agree with him about that. This Government are supporting key Scottish industries, including whisky, such as through our free trade agreement with India, which will boost exports of whisky and add £190 million a year to the Scottish economy.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

No, I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—he represents a wonderful place in the world, which is where I was between Christmas and new year—referred to the difference between CPI and RPI. As he knows, we are uprating alcohol duty by RPI, as with many other taxes expressed in cash terms. He will know that RPI is widely used, and moving away from it is fraught with difficulty.

I want to address the important points about business rates and employer national insurance contributions. We have discussed this already and, as Members will know, the Bill does not contain measures on either of those subjects, so I will not accept an amendment relating to them. I reiterate, however, that pubs are at the heart of our communities and we want them to thrive. As I have said, today we have heard some heartfelt references to particular pubs and the role that they have played in each of our lives. I could tell my own stories in that regard, but none of us would get home in time.

As Members know, in the Budget the Chancellor introduced a £4.3 billion support package to give relief to those seeing increases in their business rates bills. As I said earlier, we have made it clear that we are continuing to work with and talk to the sector about that support, and about what further support we can provide and what action we can take.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Lucy Rigby]

I want to make this point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked several questions. We will come forward with a support package—any further support that we will make available—when we are able to do so. As for her point about VAT, I know that an answer has been given to the parliamentary question asked by one of her colleagues about exactly that point, but I gently say to her—as, indeed, I have said to other Members during the debate—that if we want to cut taxes, the money has to come from somewhere. That has not been acknowledged at all.

I therefore propose that new clauses 8, 9 and 26 should be rejected and that clause 86 should stand part of the Bill.

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

Contingencies Fund Advance: National Savings & Investments

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Written Statements

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

HM Treasury has agreed additional resource departmental expenditure limit and capital DEL funding for National Savings & Investments, supporting NS&I’s business transformation programme, which will see it transition to a modernised operating model, with multiple service delivery partners.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £40,000,000 and capital of £69,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for NS&I. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £109,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS1233]

National Savings & Investments: Contingent Liabilities

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that National Savings & Investments is retrospectively informing Parliament about two new contingent liabilities not previously disclosed, due to procedural oversight by NS&I.

These contingent liabilities have arisen from NS&I’s transition from a single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. They relate to operational losses and fraud losses. Operational losses are compensatory payments made to customers due to error, default, fraud or change in the administration of NS&I’s products. Fraud losses are a subset of operational losses and in this instance relate to customer compromise through no fault of the suppliers.

In 2020, NS&I launched a transformation programme to modernise its operational systems, transitioning from a long-standing, single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. This transformation introduced new service delivery partners and redistributed responsibilities across the entire customer journey.

Due to multiple handovers within NS&I and increased complexity of processes, it became necessary to redistribute loss liabilities among suppliers and assign them based on fault. Unlike the previous service model, no single supplier has end-to-end ownership of the service. Consequently, suppliers have limited or no control over certain stages and the associated risk management. Each supplier is therefore accountable only for the areas they directly manage. Where a customer is compromised through no fault of any of the suppliers, liability rests with NS&I, who may then seek recovery from third parties such as the customer’s nominated bank.

Following the delivery of a major programme milestone at the end of September 2025, the number of processes split across multiple suppliers has reduced as of October 2025. This will lessen the complexity associated with establishing and apportioning liability. However, some risk will remain in allocating responsibility. This is because multiple suppliers continue to deliver elements of the end-to-end service with underlying processes measured by their customer outcomes rather than by their individual components.

A key benefit of NS&I’s revised delivery model is that, unlike the previous single-supplier arrangement where potential losses were built into a risk premium, NS&I will now only bear actual losses that occur. This change ensures greater transparency and delivers better value for taxpayers. Under the new framework, NS&I will determine liability based on clear evidence of fault across multiple suppliers, reinforcing accountability and improving cost-efficiency.

A small portion of the estimated operational losses has been identified for the 2025-26 financial year; however, no disbursements have yet occurred pending HM Treasury consent. Where investigations subsequently identify a responsible supplier, NS&I will seek recovery of costs under contractual provisions.

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for that Department’s Minister to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

However, at the time the potential liabilities were initially assessed, NS&I concluded that they constituted part of its “normal course of business” as described by “Managing Public Money” and the contingent liability approval framework. This was on the basis that the occurrence of such liabilities was considered to arise from its core function of raising cost-effective financing for Government by issuing and selling retail savings products to the public. Following a more extensive review and discussion with HM Treasury, NS&I has subsequently determined that the new service delivery model resulted in NS&I taking on liabilities that were previously retained by a single supplier, giving rise to the two contingent liabilities.

Given the initial assessment of the nature of the expense, it is regrettable that NS&I was unable to provide the House with the normal period for consideration prior to the contingent liabilities being entered into. NS&I therefore acknowledges that Parliament was not informed earlier and apologises for this procedural non-compliance. Steps have been taken to strengthen internal assurance processes to ensure full compliance with parliamentary expectations and “Managing Public Money”.

The lifetime potential exposure for operational losses excluding fraud losses is estimated at £460,000, with only a small portion currently identified for clearance. Actual costs are expected to be materially lower, and some may be recoverable from suppliers. In addition, the lifetime potential exposure for fraud losses is £1.6 million bringing the total combined lifetime exposure to approximately £2.06 million.

NS&I has sought retrospective consent from HM Treasury.

If any of these contingent liabilities crystallise, provision for payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

[HCWS1201]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), took the time to mention Father Christmas and Tinder. I thought he might also have taken a moment to welcome the fourth major trade deal secured by this Government and signed today with South Korea, which is set to boost our economy by £400 million, but that was obviously too much to ask.

It is an honour to close this Second Reading debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for opening the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made contributions. I look forward to hearing further contributions during the rest of the Bill’s passage.

Before I turn to the points made during today’s debate, let me be clear about the purpose of the Bill. I will frame it in the context of choices, because so many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done the same. Put simply, the Bill delivers the fair, responsible and necessary choices required to strengthen our economy and cut borrowing, to return our public services to health, to back British entrepreneurs and to make people better off. Those are the choices that this Government are making.

[Dave Doogan]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

Not yet.

We have heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition that acknowledges that they made the wrong choices. Indeed, what we heard just now from the shadow Financial Secretary and earlier from the shadow Chancellor was a masterclass in selective amnesia. People would be forgiven for thinking that Members on the shadow Treasury Bench were not living in this country during their period of Government, let alone running it. They have conveniently forgotten that their choices gave us appallingly low productivity, threadbare public services, ballooning welfare spending and real wage stagnation. Those were their choices, and it is little wonder that they do not to want to remember them, let alone be judged on them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make a bit of progress. Our choices are different: they seek to rebuild and repair our country and our economy. They are choices to renew our public services and reform our welfare system; we are rebuilding our NHS, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and investing in getting more people into work. They are choices to strengthen our economy; we are maintaining the highest level of public investment for 40 years, backing British aspiration and, importantly, cutting borrowing and doubling the headroom against our fiscal rules.

[Graham Stuart]

If we look at employment over time, we see that employment was growing every month until a certain thing happened in July last year: Labour came to power. As of this morning, unemployment has officially gone up 5.1%. As it stands today, there is a 25% increase in the number of people who are not in employment. How can that possibly correspond with a mission for growth?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.

[Dave Doogan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she concede that approximately three quarters of the last three hours of debate on this Bill has been devoted to the egregious family farm tax, including two noble and articulate contributions from Labour Beck Benchers, which took some bravery? Will she take that message back to the Chancellor, and get her to finally scrap the family farm tax?

[Lucy Rigby]

It is not a concession to acknowledge that that was the topic of much of the debate. We are more than aware of the strength of feeling on inheritance tax and the cost pressures that farmers are under, and I appreciate the compassion with which hon. Members have made their arguments. I remind them that that is why the Government came forward with the changes announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago. Following those changes to both APR and BPR, surviving spouses can pass on double the tax-free allowance, making the system more fair and simple for farmers.

A core part of strengthening our economy is about backing British businesses to reach their full potential. That means backing British innovation and aspiration and giving entrepreneurs what they need to start up, scale up, list and grow here in the UK. That is why this Bill significantly expands the enterprise management incentive scheme limits to maintain the world-leading nature of this relief.

[John Grady]

Does the Minister agree that it is due to the careful management of the public finances that we have record investment in defence and other areas of the Scottish economy, creating lots of well-paid jobs in Glasgow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement—a £820 million boost in this Budget—that takes the total additional funding for the Scottish Government from this Labour Government to more than £10 billion.

I was talking about the entrepreneurship package in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) said, we are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the generous enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. We are making them more generous, and are supporting more investment in companies that are making the transition from start-up to scale-up, and we are not stopping there.

When some of our most innovative, high-growth companies succeed, bringing jobs and growth to our economy, we want them to list here, too. That is why this Bill ensures that companies that list here in the UK will benefit from a stamp duty holiday on their shares for the first three years on the market—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We are backing British entrepreneurs and ensuring that the UK remains one of the most attractive places in the world to found, scale and list a business.

Let me address the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) about the application of the measures that I have just spoken about to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that Northern Irish service companies will benefit from the expansion of the scheme, and goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the previous scheme limits.

[Jim Allister]

The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.

[Lucy Rigby]

I assure the hon. and learned Member, who makes a valid point, that there are hardly any—very few, if any—of these types of goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland that come close to the existing limits of the scheme, let alone the extended limits.

We are very clear about the role of business and economic growth in improving household incomes, but we are also clear that after the Opposition gave this country the worst Parliament on record for living standards, far too many people are still struggling with the cost of living. This Government are already making progress to tackle that. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Government. Real household disposable income was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament than in the last year under the Tories, but we know that there is more to do.It is because of the fair and necessary choices in this Bill that we are able to help ease the cost of living for millions of families across this country. Those choices are how we are cutting energy bills for millions of households by an average of £150 per year and extending the warm homes plan. They are how we are lifting the two-child cap and, with it, lifting half a million children in this country out of poverty. They are how we are freezing prescription charges and rail fares, and increasing the national living wage while protecting the triple lock on pensions. This is a Government who are committed to helping people with the cost of living, to putting more money in people’s pockets, and the choices we are making in this Bill do just that.

My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) are absolutely right that the choices this Government are making in this Finance Bill will help restore our public services. Those choices are why the Chancellor is able to put libraries in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, and they are why she is able to protect NHS budgets as well. They are why she is able to invest an extra £300 million in NHS technology, roll out 250 new neighbourhood health centres right across this country, and continue to get waiting lists—which stood at a record high when this Government came to power—back under control. That means millions more people able to access the healthcare they need, free at the point of use; millions more people getting the operations, preventive care and scans they need. It is how we will be able to repair our NHS and ensure it will continue to exist for the next generation and for many generations to come.

This Finance Bill is about delivering on our commitments. It is about building a stronger economy in which prosperity and living standards rise, child poverty falls, businesses succeed and public services are renewed. Every measure in this Bill is geared towards that goal. We promised change and fairness, and we are delivering both. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

5. What progress she has made on the financial inclusion strategy. [R]

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

We published the financial inclusion strategy last month, outlining ambitious measures that will improve financial inclusion right across the country. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on this issue through the all-party parliamentary group on debt and financial inclusion. In line with the priorities outlined by the APPG, the strategy champions inclusive design to make products more accessible, increases debt advice capacity and supports financial independence for survivors of economic abuse.

[Katrina Murray]

I welcome the Minister’s response. I am a long-standing member of the NHS credit union, which is one of the credit unions affected by the withdrawal of the family protection plan by CMutual on 30 November. Policyholders over the age of 70 who have paid premiums well in excess of what they would have expected to have paid out have been left in the lurch with no alternative provision given. I thank the Minister for what she has done so far in pursuing peace of mind for those who have tried to do the right thing and planned for their funerals, but in the interim, can she bring all the stakeholders to the table to try to reach a solution that benefits those policyholders in particular?

[Lucy Rigby]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have been very sorry to hear of the difficulties of those affected by the withdrawal of that product. I pay tribute to her for all her efforts and those of her colleagues. They are doing everything possible to assist constituents. My officials are monitoring the matter very closely. We encourage anyone with information relevant to the Financial Conduct Authority’s investigation to go straight to the FCA. However, I would be more than happy to do as she suggests and get the stakeholders together.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Access to banking is surely a key part of financial inclusion. The high street banks save £2 billion a year from having abandoned our high streets and town centres. Our post offices pick up the tab and we are glad that they do, but they are not funded by the banks anywhere near enough to be able to maintain their presence. In Westmorland, we have lost Hawkshead, Staveley and Grasmere post offices, and we are set to lose Shap and Tebay largely because the banks do not fund the post offices for doing their jobs properly. What is the Chancellor going to do to make them do that?

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. We very much understand the importance of in-person banking, including in beautiful, rural communities such as those that he represents. That is exactly why we are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs right across the UK by the end of this Parliament. Over 240 hubs have been announced so far and more than 190 are already open.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Minister makes reference to a number of changes in the Budget that were pragmatic, responsible and fair. I contrast that with the Conservatives’ approach, which would return us to austerity. That would be both irresponsible and unfair.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates on the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support entrepreneurs.

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

The recent Budget backed British innovation and aspiration by supporting businesses to start, scale and list in the UK. We have put in place a three-year listing tax relief for firms that list here, and we are expanding enterprise tax reliefs to incentivise investment in scaling firms. That means more jobs, more growth, and more British companies competing globally.

[Jack Abbott]

Over the last 18 months I have been working hard to drive investment into my town, county and region, and I was proud to unveil the east of England’s £4 billion investment prospectus at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum earlier this year. I am also keen to encourage our own home-grown entrepreneurs in Ipswich and Suffolk so that we can better support innovative and high-growth businesses. Can the Minister outline how the three-year stamp duty exemption on shares, alongside other measures in the Budget, will seek to do that?

[Lucy Rigby]

At the Budget, we introduced the UK listing relief, which incentivises companies to list in the UK. The UK raised more equity capital in 2024 than was raised in the next three European exchanges combined. I look forward to seeing the brilliant entrepreneurs in my hon. Friend’s constituency benefit from these deep pools of capital.

[John Slinger]

In my constituency, I can combine rugby and gin, so I am grateful to the Chancellor for the measures in her Budget to help the hospitality trade and small businesses. Following, my visit to the family-owned Rugby Distillery—branded and flavoured around the game—can I ask what steps her Department could try to level the playing field, such as by extending small producer relief to alcohol above the 8.5% ABV limit? Small-scale producers find it harder to compete fairly with big producers, and we must help them to tackle their challenges and convert their entrepreneurial spirit into greater success.

[Lucy Rigby]

As someone who enjoys both rugby and gin, sometimes at the same time, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the businesses in his constituency. To support spirits producers, the Government have put in place a range of measures. As for small producer relief, I know that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is open to evidence on the operation of the new system. I should add that the Government plan to evaluate the reforms in late 2026, which will be three years after they took effect.

[Mr Speaker]

I presume you mean rugby league as well.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In east Kent, an entrepreneurial chain of 25 coffee bars employs young people who otherwise would probably be unemployable. The profit margin on those 25 coffee bars for the last year was £12. The hospitality industry is on its knees. Will the Chancellor recognise the need to cut VAT on hospitality to 10%?

[Lucy Rigby]

As has been covered by my colleagues, we are putting in a £4 billion support package and continuing to engage with the hospitality sector. I should also add that we are easing licensing to help venues offer pavement drinks and one-off events too.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the changes to the listings review, but will the Minister look at what is happening with research and development tax credits and the efficiency of the delivery of those tax credits, because when the system does not work well enough, businesses are struggling before they get to listing?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his question, as I always am. We are doing an awful lot to support R&D in this country, including through many of the measures announced at the Budget. That includes putting an additional £7 billion into specific areas within the industrial strategy.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

9. What fiscal steps she is taking to support industry in the Forth valley.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Government of course recognise that innovation is key to our long-term economic growth and to higher productivity, and indeed to living standards. That is exactly why we are investing more in R&D, and we have made other incentives available too.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been a rocky week for the Office for Budget Responsibility, so I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognises and has reiterated the value of an independent regulator in this space. Nevertheless, a lot of criticism of the OBR is swirling around. Would the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor like to remind people about the role of the fiscal risks and sustainability report, which does look longer term at the economy, and the importance that this has in planning? As the Chancellor said, it is not destiny just because of the figures, but that report is particularly useful in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T7. There is agreement across the House on the importance of access to cash, as well as on the importance of access to banking services, which are critical for high streets in areas such as Cupar and Letham in my constituency. When will the Government agree to have the Financial Conduct Authority review the criteria for access to banking services? There are to be 350 banking hubs, but that is a meaningless number if communities continue to lose face-to-face services.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that 350 is a meaningless number, but of course we understand the importance of in-person banking for rural communities. The location of banking hubs is determined independently by Link, and the criteria are a matter for the FCA, but I regularly meet MPs to discuss the adequacy and the application of those rules. In fact, there will be a banking hub surgery for Members of Parliament tomorrow, and she is more than welcome to join it.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the second rise in the national minimum wage under this Government. Some 160,000 workers in Wales have already benefited since the rise in April. Many of them are younger workers, particularly in the retail and hospitality sector, which is so important to my constituency at Christmas and beyond. What assessment has been made of the impact of the national minimum wage rise on younger workers, and what progress has been made on equalising the national minimum wage with the national minimum wage for under-21s?

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

I turn first to the environmental, social and governance ratings order, which I note the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged as an instrument of interest in its 41st report. The draft order will bring the provision of ESG ratings within the regulatory perimeter of the Financial Conduct Authority. Regulation will improve standards in the market, boost investor confidence and reduce greenwashing, and it has strong support across the financial sector.

As hon. Members will be aware, ESG ratings are a spectrum of products usually marketed as providing an assessment of the ESG profile, characteristics, risk exposures or impacts associated with a company, fund or other financial instrument. ESG ratings are widely relied on by investors to guide investment decisions in line with sustainability risks, opportunities and preferences. Of the £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK in 2024, half had integrated ESG factors into the investment process. In the UK in 2024, more than 5,400 firms were using ESG ratings.

However, the ESG ratings market has developed rapidly and without formal oversight. This has led stakeholders and users to raise concerns about transparency, governance, internal controls and potential conflicts of interest within ESG ratings providers. Identifying these concerns, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions published recommendations for ESG ratings and data providers, calling for higher standards and sufficient oversight in the sector. The Government have acted quickly to deliver progress on this important agenda.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome this measure, but what work have the Government done to ensure that the regulation will be in line with that of international regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to reduce the burden on our businesses?

[Lucy Rigby]

We remain open to the prospect of regulatory alignment with other regimes. We want to get this done first, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

As I say, the Government have acted quickly to deliver progress. As hon. Members will know, a consultation was issued by the previous Government; this Government have ensured that the consultation response and draft legislation were published for technical comments as part of the Chancellor’s first Mansion House speech. That draft legislation has been refined into the ESG ratings order before the Committee.

The draft order will create a new regulated activity of providing an ESG rating where that rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment. This will require providers of ESG ratings to be authorised and be supervised by the FCA. In recognition of the fact that ESG ratings are provided by a range of different persons, the scope of the regulated activity is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm, avoiding dual regulation and maintaining consistency with the existing regulatory framework. The draft order contains specific exclusions to that effect, for example where a firm is providing ESG ratings as part of another regulated activity.

To support the integrity of the UK market and ensure a level playing field, ESG ratings that are provided to a UK customer by an overseas provider will fall into the scope of the regulated activity, except where those ratings are provided without remuneration or financial incentive. The Government support open, competitive and internationally connected financial markets, and we therefore intend to give further consideration to market access arrangements for overseas ESG ratings providers.

In the interests of allowing plenty of time for industry to engage, while also delivering a regulatory regime in a timely manner, the FCA launched its consultation on the specific regulations for ESG ratings providers on 1 December, on the basis that the draft order had been laid on 27 October. The FCA rules will be designed to be proportionate and tailored to address harms while protecting innovation, in line with the regulator’s secondary growth and competitiveness objective.

The proposal to bring ESG ratings providers into regulation has received strong support from industry. The move will strengthen market integrity and boost investor confidence, helping the sector to attract new users and providers. The draft order is a core part of the Government’s agenda to drive growth in the UK’s sustainable finance market.

The draft prudential regulation of credit institutions regulations are a technical instrument that makes changes to support reforms to UK banking regulation. The regulations will keep our legislation for financial services effective, and they will assist the Treasury in applying the FSMA model of regulation to set a prudential framework for banks. The regulations do not introduce any new regulatory requirements for firms.

As hon. Members will be aware, banks are required to follow a set of prudential regulations to manage their risk appropriately and maintain adequate levels of capital to protect against any losses. In addition, the biggest banks are required to hold additional loss-absorbing debt to ensure that they can be allowed to fail without the need for taxpayer-funded bail-outs such as those seen during the global financial crisis.

A significant amount of prudential regulation is set out in the capital requirements regulation, or CRR, which formed part of domestic law during our time as an EU member state. Following our exit from the EU, the Government have been tailoring the existing financial services framework to the UK’s needs. That includes the CRR, which will be removed from the statute book and largely restated in the Prudential Regulation Authority’s rulebook, providing more flexibility and allowing the PRA to set the relevant requirements.

To do that, legislation has been passed to revoke the CRR—notably in FSMA 2021 and FSMA 2023. In that context, the Government have brought forward these technical regulations to make a small number of consequential amendments to pieces of legislation that refer to specific CRR articles—specifically, they amend the Banking Act 2009 to ensure that definitions relating to share capital instruments and banks’ own funds reflect the revocation of certain CRR articles.

In summary, although these draft regulations are technical and do not introduce any new rules, they are nevertheless a necessary step in continuing the reform of our banking regulation to ensure that our regulatory framework remains coherent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the consensus on the draft regulations. Four principal points were raised in relation to the draft order. The first was on the international position, and the recommendations we are putting in place in this draft order are in line with the IOSCO and OECD recommendations. The EU framework has been legislated for, but it will not come into force until 2026. In many areas of financial services, we have the ability to put in place an overseas recognition regime—an ORR. We do not yet have the ability to do that in relation to this, but we hope to take the power in the next financial services Bill to enable us to bring forward exactly this kind of measure where we wish to do so. The shadow Minister might be aware that Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have codes of conduct of this nature.

In relation to charities—this is a good point and was considered—the scope of the regulated activity set out in the draft order is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm. As such, charities will be excluded from regulation where a rating is provided on an occasional or one-off basis, or where there is no remuneration or other financial benefit provided to the charity. As I said, this approach, informed by consultation, ensures that the regulation is risk-based and proportionate while avoiding loopholes.

The shadow Minister also mentioned defence. The Chancellor has stated very clearly her view that supporting the defence industry, and indeed Ukraine, is consistent with ethical investing. The regulation will allow investors to more fairly evaluate ESG risks and opportunities related to defence companies. I should make it clear that we have engaged extensively with the defence sector, and we think there is quite limited evidence that defence firms have struggled to access finance on ESG grounds.

Briefly, the fiduciary duty is important and, as the shadow Minister knows, it has been much discussed. The Pensions Minister will address it further in subsequent stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.

[Gareth Davies]

I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.

[Lucy Rigby]

The point in relation to oil and gas is exactly the same as that for defence. There is no conflict between what we are doing here and investment in those areas. If anything, it will be helpful across the board. Fiduciary duty was the final point raised, so I will leave it there.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000 (REGULATED ACTIVITIES) (ESG RATINGS) ORDER 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.—(Lucy Rigby.)