Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That this Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Lucy Rigby]

Both statutory instruments are made under FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Together, the two instruments will help to deliver a more agile and responsive capital framework for UK banks and investment firms.

Following the EU exit, the UK retained a body of financial services legislation known as assimilated law, which includes the capital requirements regulation, which sets the detailed and often technical capital rules. As hon. Members know, the UK follows the FSMA model of regulation, which involves regulatory standards being set by expert independent regulators that work within a policy framework set by Government and Parliament.

The Government are now applying the FSMA model to the CRR by revoking the CRR, so that the Prudential Regulation Authority can replace requirements in legislation with requirements in PRA rules, resulting in a more user-friendly, single-source book of prudential rules for firms. Where important elements of the CRR need to stay in legislation to provide the policy framework within which the PRA must operate, those elements are restated, using powers provided under FSMA 2023.

The first SI that I will discuss is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which simply restate important definitions from the CRR that need to stay on the statute book. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated in legislation, rather than being defined by the PRA rule book. That is necessary for the continuity of existing legislation and to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of which regulatory activities should be regulated. The instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, and it does not make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and to ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended as we complete the move to the FSMA model.

The second SI that I will discuss is the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms, and the PRA intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027. That will help to ensure that the banking system is well capitalised, while giving domestic-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and to invest in the real economy, including small businesses and infrastructure projects.

We recognise, however, that the timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions remains unclear, in particular for certain market risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. That is particularly relevant for the internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms and potentially misaligned implementation, which is exactly why the Government, in conjunction with the PRA, decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach.

For the new internal model market-risk requirements, the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets, implementation will be delayed until 1 January 2028. The draft instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated internal market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 and, during that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions. The draft regulations also provide the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations. Any such extension would be time limited, subject to parliamentary approval and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.

In summary, the draft regulations bring near to completion the work to deliver a more agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am very grateful to the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their input on the draft regulations. Their questions are very apt and go straight to the nub of this issue.

What is happening in other jurisdictions is really important, and that is why we are seeking to include a degree of flexibility in the draft regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we are postponing a certain element until 1 January 2028 for internationally active banks, and I set out why doing so is really important. However, there is potential for further flexibility, exactly as I said, subject to what goes on in other jurisdictions.

As I am sure the shadow EST knows, the US recently put out some revised proposals in March. Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the upshot is that the revised US proposals remain broadly aligned with international standards and the UK’s rules. Briefly, I also want to touch on the EU, because that is also very important. Again, there is broad alignment, although there has been some commentary in the press that the EU banking union is thinking about going out to an even longer date—they were talking about 2030. I think I am right in saying that we are yet to have that fully confirmed. If anything, that comes back to the importance of building in flexibility. We, particularly the PRA, need to have a sufficient degree of agility and nimbleness built into what we can do, which is the approach that we are taking. Should international circumstances change, we and the PRA need to remain alert to those positions.

For all the reasons I have set out, which I will not repeat, the draft regulations are designed to ensure that, for our internationally active banks, we do not create an undue, unnecessary and problematic degree of inconsistency between all those very important jurisdictions. As I made clear, the draft regulations allow the Treasury the power to extend the transitional period that we are putting in place, if necessary, which would then be subject to the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS (MISCELLANEOUS DEFINITIONS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)

Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent.

From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today.

To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag.

Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses.

It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years.

Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar.

I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence. Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event.

The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.

I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected.

There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective. Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out.

In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing. It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today.

With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed.

However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail. I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively. Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today.

Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues.

I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion.

In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.

Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time.

I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would be the right course to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed.

I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust. We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth.

We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly.

The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.

[John McDonnell]

There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?

[Lucy Rigby]

My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Banking Services: Accessibility

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate. I thank him for setting out the concerns of his constituents very well, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions: they have been powerful and in some cases very heartfelt.

It is fair to say that access to banking continues to attract significant interest from colleagues across the House. The hon. Member is right that that interest is increasing. He referred to his own experience of the trajectory of this issue, and I agree: I am seeing hon. Members raising this issue in the House with increased salience, which I am sure reflects how our constituents feel. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to share their experiences and those of their constituents.

Some hon. Members who spoke in this debate have attended my banking hub surgeries, which I hope the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), found valuable. The fact that I hold those surgeries, which Members of Parliament from any party can attend, demonstrates that the issue is being raised more and more by Members across the House.

I recognise that rural and coastal communities such as those in the constituencies of the hon. Member for St Ives and of the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) face particular challenges in accessing banking services. I very much appreciate the fact that in many circumstances local geography and transport may make it more difficult for elderly and disabled people, as well as those who are vulnerable or digitally excluded, to reach face-to-face banking when branch provision changes locally.

The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned services in his constituency being provided in an upstairs setting. I will come on to address accessibility issues, but I was sorry to hear that example. On transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) raised concerns about travel times, which I will also address. Many points have been raised, and I will do my level best to address them all.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), rightly referred to the fact that the banking landscape has changed in recent years. Many people have greatly benefited from digital innovations that allow them to manage their finances more easily. For many, those changes have increased accessibility and convenience. Many of us are able to access banking services just from an app on a phone. It has been clear in this debate, however, that although digital services work well for many people, others still want, need or prefer to access banking in person or use cash in their daily lives. That includes some older customers, people who are more vulnerable, or those—as with the family member of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—who have been through a significant life event. Being vulnerable at that point, they may just want to speak to another human.

This Government are on the side of each of those categories of people. We recognise that cash remains important for people and businesses right across the country. That is why we have been clear that, alongside digital innovation, it is critical that people have access to the services that they need. Hon. Members know that access to cash is protected in legislation and the FCA has responsibility and powers to ensure that people and businesses can continue to withdraw and deposit cash.

I want to address the serious concerns that have been raised by hon. Members about the impact of bank branch closures on our communities. In particular, the hon. Member for St Ives articulated his concerns about the closure of a Lloyds branch in Penzance. I fully understand his concerns about that situation. The Government understand the importance of those services, and there are other similar instances across the country. Banking services and other services must reflect customer and community interest.

I welcome the fact that some banks have made commitments to maintaining or improving their existing branches, because they recognise just how important they are to their customers. Nationwide Building Society has committed to maintaining 605 branches until at least 2030 and HSBC UK has committed to keeping 327 branches open until at least 2027; we very much welcome those important commitments. I also draw attention to the fact that, according to the Building Societies Association, 35% of the branch network is currently provided by building societies. As a Government, we fully support and value the role that mutuals play in our economy and society.

Branch access is an important feature for a number of customers. Many have used the free current account switching service to change provider. The switching service ensures that all payments and balances are automatically transferred to a new account, but for those firms that are changing their branch network, there are rules and obligations. In those circumstances, it is important that all Members know that decisions to close branches must be taken with regard to their impact on customers and communities. The FCA’s branch closure guidance is very clear that firms must carefully assess the effect of a planned closure on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs.

Let me underline that point: it is very important, not least because of some of the contributions to today’s debate. Banks are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place. Where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused and I fully support those FCA powers. As a Government, we expect the FCA to use them where they consider it necessary to do so. Crucially, we also believe it is right that no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place.

[Andrew George]

At the end of the day, the issue is that the FCA and Link primarily undertake an assessment of access to cash, and not to the full range of banking services. The Minister says that adequate alternatives are in place. Of course, the banks will no doubt attempt to put some facade in place to satisfy that requirement—as she notes, I am unimpressed by the case in Penzance—but fundamentally, the test is access to cash, and that is insufficient. Surely that measure needs to be significantly widened.

[Lucy Rigby]

I appreciate that there is a difference between access to cash and access to banking services; I will come on to the latter, if the hon. Member will give me a moment.

The Government wholeheartedly recognise the importance of banking services to local communities; that recognition underpins our manifesto commitment to support industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across this country by the end of this Parliament. I think I am right to say that the hon. Member attended the opening of a banking hub in Helston in his constituency.

[Andrew George]

I did.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is always welcome when Members attend such openings. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but I was pleased to hear him welcome the upcoming opening of the banking hub in Ilkley. I note what he says about the need for a hub in Keighley as well.

[David Chadwick]

Mine is the biggest constituency in England and Wales, and four or five towns in it sorely need a banking hub: Brecon and Presteigne are two such examples, beyond the hub that has already opened in Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more than the 350 hubs that the Government have already committed to?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member has tried to trick me into saying the name of his constituency or the towns in it before; as he well knows, I cannot pronounce them anywhere near as well as he can. I was about to answer the exact point that he makes. It is really important to note that the 350 figure is a floor, not a ceiling. Our manifesto commitment sets that floor of 350 hubs. I appreciate that the hon. Member is not asking me to call it right now, but I will: the Government, working with industry, hope to go above that number. That is not least because more than 270 hubs have already been announced. Our commitment is for 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament, and 18 months into the Parliament we are already at 270—hon. Members will see the trajectory. Of the 270 hubs that have been announced, 225 are now open. The remaining hubs that have been committed to are yet to open, but we expect them to in due course. To answer the hon. Member’s question, it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed, as and when more communities need banking hubs. I would welcome that, it sounds like he would welcome it and I am sure that other Members across the House would too.

Banking hubs provide assisted cash services through post office counters alongside community bankers from individual banks who meet customers face to face in a private room to offer support, as they would in a traditional branch, as has been mentioned. I was very sorry to hear the experiences with community bankers noted by the hon. Member for St Ives; that was not what I understood from colleagues in this place and what I have heard anecdotally outside this place. Indeed, when I visited the banking hub in Warwick in your constituency, Mr Western, I did not see queues of people waiting to see a community banker. Everything was happening in an orderly way, and community bankers could see people in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, I note the experiences that the hon. Member put on the record, and I am more than happy to look specifically at the issues in that banking hub.

[Andrew George]

I want to make sure that the Minister understands that I was simply describing what the community banker working on behalf of Lloyds was providing. I was referring to the Lloyds replacement for the closed branch, not a banking hub.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Member that he will have time to wind up at the end. Perhaps the Minister could start to conclude her remarks.

[Lucy Rigby]

On that cue, I will skip further ahead in my speech. I was going to talk about all the services that are available at banking hubs, which the industry is working hard to increase. Customers can now open accounts, change names and addresses, register complaints or receive help with online and telephone banking. I have met the industry on a number of occasions and I would like to put on record that we are working to try and make sure that the services provided at banking hubs meet the needs of communities. Fraud and scams were mentioned; they are concerns that the Government are thinking about.

Let me cut to the chase and answer many of the questions that have been raised. Despite everything that I have said about the importance of banking hubs and our manifesto commitment to open 350 of them, it would be premature to conclude that all communities are consistently receiving sufficient support for their banking needs. That has been clear from the contributions of hon. Members in this debate. In direct response to one question was raised by the hon. Member for St Ives—a point that was also well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—that is why, as might be expected, we are keeping any need to go further, including on access to banking services, under close review.

There is much more I could say about the health of our high streets, digital and financial inclusion, and alternative options to banking services, but in the light of the time and your strong cue, Mr Western, I will wrap up there.

Credit Union Common Bond Reform

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Written Statements

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

Credit unions play a vital role in promoting financial inclusion and providing affordable financial services to communities across the country. However, the current common bond framework in Great Britain presents barriers to sustainable growth, expansion and merger activity in the sector. The Government are committed to addressing these barriers while preserving the community-focused ethos that makes credit unions distinctive.

In November 2025, as part of the financial inclusion strategy¹, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward a package of growth-focused reforms to the common bond in Great Britain. This followed a call for evidence on the common bond, launched by the Chancellor at Mansion House in 2024, as part of the Government’s commitment to double the size of the mutuals sector.

The Government are today announcing the following changes that seek to remove barriers to the growth of the credit union sector in Great Britain. When parliamentary time allows, the Government will legislate to:

Increase the potential membership cap on the locality bond from 3 million to 10 million. This will significantly expand the potential size of locality-based credit unions, which make up 79% of the sector, and reduce uncertainty regarding mergers;

Allow credit unions to permit students to join locality-based credit unions, in addition to those who reside or work in the geographical area;

Allow credit unions to admit members’ relatives into a credit union regardless of whether they live in the same household as the qualifying member, as well as individuals who live in the same household as the qualifying member. This will better reflect modern family dynamics and broaden the membership base; and

Allow credit unions to retain members of occupation and employer bonds as fully qualifying members upon retirement, including allowing retirees to join a credit union after retirement has begun. This will also apply to locality bonds where members are eligible based on employment within the locality.

These reforms will help credit unions grow sustainably so that more people across the UK can access affordable, community-based financial services.

This announcement complements broader work to support credit unions, including the Prudential Regulation Authority’s policy statement on credit union service organisations², the £30 million credit union transformation fund for England announced as part of the financial inclusion strategy and led by Fair4AllFinance, and the FCA and PRA’s planned review of the regulatory framework for credit unions, as set out in the mutuals landscape report published on 5 December 2025.³

These reforms also form part of the Government’s work on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutuals sector, in partnership with the sector.

The full call for evidence response describing these reforms in detail is published on gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/credit-union-common-bond-reform

¹https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6909ed8db04a520c5051843f/Financial_Inclusion_Report.pdf



² https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2026/february/credit-union-service-organisations-policy-statement

³https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/publication/2025/december/mutuals-landscape-report-2025.pdf

[HCWS1418]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Budget in November was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy. It contained fair and necessary choices to deliver the public’s priorities by cutting the cost of living, cutting debt and borrowing, cutting child poverty, and cutting NHS waiting lists. At its heart were three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability and getting inflation and interest rates down, we gave businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected over £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing British companies of the future, we supported the investment, the innovation and the economic dynamism that will increase growth, raise living standards, and boost the country’s prosperity in the next decade and beyond. The measures in the Bill deliver on those choices by introducing tax levers to unlock investment, back our wealth creators and attract talent by sticking to commitments in the corporate tax road map to provide certainty for businesses, and by doubling the limits for our enterprise tax incentives so that scale-ups can attract the capital and talent that they need in order to grow.

The Bill contains a series of other responsible decisions on tax, and that is because, at the time of the Budget, the Government faced choices. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services as the Conservative party did and undermining capital investment, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure and to build a better, stronger, more secure economy.

In line with our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at the current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 until April 2031. It also contains measures to strengthen the integrity of the tax system by closing loopholes and removing barriers. That includes reforms to collect more unpaid taxes and to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time. We are introducing new powers to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, and to challenge those who knowingly engage in fraudulent business in the construction industry. Alongside the measures announced in the 2024 Budget, the measures in the Bill to close the tax gap will bring the total revenue from tax gap measures announced in this Parliament to £10 billion in 2029-30.

I wholeheartedly thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill contains the right choices for the public finances, the right choices on investment, the right choices for businesses and for working people, the right choices for our public services, and the right choices for Britain. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

7. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce the level of use of food banks by families.

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

We became inured to the presence of food banks under Tory Governments over the last 14 years, but we should always remember that despite the incredible work done by those who run them, food banks should not need to exist, and this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. That is why we have extended free school meals to children in families receiving universal credit and removed the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and—according to the Trussell Trust, as the Chancellor said earlier—will significantly reduce the number of families using food banks.

[Catherine West]

Does the Minister agree that everyone—including financial institutions such as the mutual sector, which often outperforms the private banking sector in access to finance and branch closure issues—needs to play their part in helping families and households at this critical juncture?

[Lucy Rigby]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are a strong supporter of the mutual sector, for exactly the reasons that she has given. As part of our financial inclusion strategy, we are backing the sector with initiatives such as the new £30 million credit union transformation fund and reform of the common bond, which I look forward to introducing shortly.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the food banks, not only in my constituency but across the United Kingdom, in stepping up to plug gaps for families? Does she accept that urgent improvements in respect of benefit transitions and deductions are needed to prevent households from being pushed abruptly into crisis?

[Lucy Rigby]

As I have said, food banks should not need to exist, which is why this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. I have also mentioned the importance of lifting the two-child limit on universal credit, which will result in the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament since records began.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the state pension increase in April 2026 on pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T6. In my constituency, Co-operative Care Colne Valley is testament to the value and importance of co-operatives. It delivers ethical, not-for-profit home care services for the disabled and elderly. The group’s community ownership and local empowerment demonstrates the value of co-operatives. Will the Minister advise me what steps her Department is taking to drive the growth of co-operatives across our communities?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Co-operative Care Colne Valley, which is an excellent example of how co-operatives can deliver high-quality community-owned care for elderly and disabled people. His constituency is home to a number of other fantastic co-operatives, including the Green Valley Grocer and the Handmade Bakery. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the co-ops and mutuals sector, exactly because we recognise the very positive role that it plays.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T3. David, who owns the Steam Town Brew Co. in my constituency, tells me that his biggest concerns right now are inflation and the ability to plan ahead. What reassurance can the Minister give him that businesses in my constituency will be supported with the stability and certainty that they need?

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

T9. Young people in North West Cambridgeshire and across the country are struggling to access mortgages and get on to the housing ladder due to thin credit files. Will the Minister explore requiring lettings agents and large landlords, with the consent of tenants, to report rental payment data to credit reference agencies so that a record of paying rent on time can contribute to tenants’ credit histories and help them access mortgages?

[Lucy Rigby]

I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about the Government’s priority to get more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. As he and I have discussed before, people looking to buy a home can build their credit history through rent payments by using third-party services that report these things to credit reference agencies. I think that he and I would agree that better awareness of such services and the mortgages available that take account of tenants’ rental payments would be a good thing.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T7. Even while sitting here, I have had word from a constituent whose heating oil cost has risen, in one go, to 129.9p plus VAT per litre. I recognise that the Chancellor has been pressed by a number of Members on this. Can she assure us of immediate action, as vulnerable residents are in immediate crisis?

Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

In my very best Welsh, I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—she is smiling, which makes me think that I may have got that pronunciation ever so slightly wrong—for securing the debate. It is clearly an important topic to her, given the passionate way that she spoke, and to Members, given the number of interventions. I know from my experience, not least in Treasury orals, the correspondence that I get, and the banking hub surgeries that I run in Parliament, how important this issue is to Members right across the House, so I thank her again for securing this very important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions thus far, including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Conservative Government passed the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2023, which gave the FCA powers to set up banking hubs and give access to cash. Does the Minister think that that was a missed opportunity at the time to prevent banks from closing high street branches in the thousands, as they have since continued to do?

[Lucy Rigby]

If the hon. Member would let me progress just a little further, I will cover the issues he refers to.

As I said, the strength of feeling expressed today, and more broadly in parliamentary interactions, shows just how important this issue is to Members, and to people right across the country, particularly in the types of communities that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin represents. I recognise the particular concerns about rural and post-industrial areas, where longer travel distances, which were referred to, more limited transport and, in particular, uneven digital connectivity make the loss of a bank branch especially acute.

It is right to acknowledge that banking has changed very dramatically in recent years. Many customers have benefited from digital innovations that allow them to more easily manage their finances. For those who have benefited, those types of innovations have increased accessibility and convenience.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Minister mentions the need to recognise innovations. At the same time, we have to recognise that organisations such as banks, and also the Post Office, are very much inclined to be self-interested. In my own constituency a year ago, we lost 21 out of 25 locations for vans. The Government surely need to intervene to make sure that remote and left-behind communities are not left even further behind because these large financial organisations are looking after their own interests.

[Lucy Rigby]

I was going through some of the changes in the landscape of banking, and will come to a slightly more negative aspect of that, if the right hon. Member will allow me to do so. I hope that will cover the substance of her question.

The most recent data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app in 2024. We also know, alongside the statistics on digital innovations that I just referred to, that around a quarter of adults carried out banking face-to-face in a branch over the same period. I put that alongside the statistics that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin referred to about cash usage, which I will not repeat. I make no judgment about why I am a little old school on occasion with my attachment to cash, as she put it, but we know that many of those who still rely on in-person services are older customers and more vulnerable individuals. We also know that many businesses right across this country continue to depend on cash.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we have faced exactly the issues that the Minister highlights, and I am grateful for the work on this, in particular, on the needs of elderly people, which is being investigated by the Government, and those who are elderly and possibly frail, who find it difficult to travel on public transport. One of the issues we have faced is a lack of access to immediate parking and support for elderly people to get in and out of branches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Right.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take another intervention on that point?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will.

[Douglas McAllister]

Alexandria is one of many post-industrial communities within my constituency, and the Bank of Scotland recently announced the closure of the town’s last remaining bank, but as a result the new Alexandria banking hub opened in my constituency in November 2025, which is a very welcome addition to the high street. Does the Minister agree that that ensures crucial access to cash and face-to face-banking services for businesses and residents, especially the elderly and vulnerable, in Alexandria in West Dunbartonshire, and adds to our high street work with the Pride in Place scheme?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises very important issues, including in relation to Pride in Place. What is so important about this debate and about banking hubs is that there is an interaction between access to cash, and the ability to speak to a bank or a community banker, and the health of our high streets and how people feel about their towns and communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lucy Rigby]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

My constituency, including the main town of Coalville, has a strong industrial past. Coalville is not entirely rural, so it does not qualify for a banking hub. Lloyds is abandoning my community and will close a branch in Coalville in June, despite how busy and well used that branch, on a main high street, is. Does she agree that we need to ensure that gaps in bank provision are filled as soon as possible with banking hubs, and that banking hub assessment should include access to business banking, because that is what we really lose when a main high street bank goes off the high street?

[Lucy Rigby]

The House will forgive me for not commenting on individual cases, but it is safe to say that I am familiar with the circumstances that my hon. Friend refers to, and I know the urgent nature of some of the issues that she—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Torcuil Crichton]

rose—

[Lucy Rigby]

I will give way first to the right hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Library has made it clear that many groups beyond the elderly and the disadvantaged, including people with mental health difficulties, people with physical difficulties and people who rely on others to pay bills for them, struggle with these issues, and they struggle all the more in rural areas like Lincolnshire. That is why 98% of MPs surveyed have said that they think there should be a banking hub wherever the last branch has closed. When 98% of MPs think something, a wise Government listen carefully and act quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman gives me good advice and, as ever, I shall pay close attention to what he says. He rightly refers to different aspects of vulnerability and I will come on to some of those slightly later in my remarks. What is clear from the interventions that we have just had is, again, how passionately Members from right across the House feel about these issues, which is why the Government have been clear that it is critical that people have access to the services they need.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I have come to Westminster Hall today following discussions with Lloyds Bank, which has decided to close the Benbecula branch of the Bank of Scotland in my constituency; there have now been two bank closures in my constituency in a few short years. That closure decision appears to be as irreversible as it is regrettable, but the danger now is that we will have no banking hub, because the banking population of Uist is too small to fit within the parameters of one. Will the Minister ensure that the banks, Link and associated authorities expand and adjust their parameters, so that sparsely populated areas and island populations continue to have access to banking services?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will come to—

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

Yes, I will.

[David Smith]

The Minister has been very generous. On the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), similarly in Alnwick and Berwick, in my constituency, there is an issue to do with the diminution of high street banking. Only three years ago, there were three banks in Alnwick and now there are none, and one bank is now closing in Berwick. Regarding the criteria for community banking, will the Government look at Link and other such services, and say that it is not just access to cash that should be a statutory right but access to banking?

[Lucy Rigby]

I can answer that very directly. We keep these issues under review, as my hon. Friend would expect. Prior to those interventions, I was talking about action that the Government have taken. Our recognition of the importance of banking services to local communities underpins what we put in our manifesto, which was a pledge to work with the industry, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin rightly said, to get to at least 350 banking hubs across the country.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being exceptionally generous with her time. I want to emphasise the point on banking hubs. I have been particularly frustrated about the town of Haltwhistle in my constituency. It is a smaller town but has a huge area that looks to it, going from Slaggyford and Gilsland up to communities nearer the Scottish border. On the current criteria, it is too small to attract a banking hub by itself, but the businesses that look to it are now forced to look to Hexham or, further afield, to Newcastle, or indeed to the west of Carlisle. That risks strangling the growth of economic enterprise in the west of Northumberland, which is already, I must say, very poorly supported by Northumberland county council.

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend sums up very well the links between some of the issues that we are discussing today and wider economic growth, which, as Members will know, is the Government’s principal mission.

Any hope that I might have had of reciting the names of the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate is fast evaporating. What I will say, on our 350 banking hubs in the course of this Parliament, is that it is important to note that that is a floor rather than a ceiling, so it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed. More than 270 hubs have already been announced, and more than 210 are now open. In Wales specifically, 17 banking hubs have been announced and 12 of them are already open.

Banking hubs do not just provide assisted cash services through post office staff and allow customers to withdraw and deposit cash. They also of course, as Members will know, provide community bankers from customers’ banks, offering customers the opportunity to speak to someone face to face about their banking needs, as they would in a traditional bank branch. I was in the banking hub in Warwick just last week and was able to meet community bankers and customers who were coming in. I saw at first hand the important benefit that having someone there whom people were able to engage with brought to those who were coming in.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that these hubs offer that wider range of banking services, and I draw her attention to the plight of community bank account holders, who often need to have access to a service that currently is available only in a bank branch, but could be provided in a banking hub in the future.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers.

I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy.

The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Attorney General’s Office

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on the Serious Fraud Office on 3 June 2025.

[Lucy Rigby]

As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £160 million between March 2021 and March 2024.

[Official Report, 3 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 115WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby):

[Lucy Rigby]

As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £145,787,440.40 between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2024.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 113 to 116 stand part.

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

It is good to be back, Sir Roger.

The vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. The changes made by clause 112 will create a new charge to excise duty and set out the rate, which is £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. The changes made by clauses 113 and 114 will define a vaping product and what constitutes production for the purposes of the vaping products duty. The changes made by clause 115 make clear the powers under which regulations on the vaping products duty will be made, in anticipation of its entry into force on 1 October 2026. Finally, the changes made by clause 116 will allow HM Revenue and Customs to manage and collect the vaping products duty and provide administrative powers around the storage of vaping products before duty has been paid, as well as penalties.

Together, clauses 112 to 116 will establish a coherent and enforceable framework for the vaping products duty and will ensure that vaping products are taxed appropriately. I commend them to the Committee.

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

Good morning, Sir Roger and members of the Committee. As the Minister says, clauses 112 to 116 will introduce the UK’s excise duty on vaping products and set out the legal and administrative framework for its operation.

Clause 112 will establish the new vaping products duty, setting a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. Clause 113 sets out what counts as a vaping product; the definition is drawn deliberately widely to encompass any liquid that contains nicotine and the solvents used with it, and even liquids without nicotine if they are intended for vaporisation. That means that the apparently popular zero-nicotine shortfills used by smokers who are trying to quit or taper down will be taxed, too. I am advised that shortfills will be the hardest hit by the new duty; Vape 360 reports a 203% price increase. That raises an interesting public health question about the rationale for taxing zero-nicotine liquids in the same way as addictive nicotine-containing liquids. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concern that by adopting this taxation approach we might be discouraging people from switching to less harmful or nicotine-free alternatives.

Clause 114 defines when a product is regarded as produced for duty purposes, not just when liquids are mixed but when they are packaged, labelled or marketed as suitable for vapes. Clause 115 leaves it to future regulations to set out when duty becomes payable and who is liable. Clause 116, the final clause in this group, gives HMRC new powers to control vaping products before duty has been paid. The Opposition will not oppose the clauses, but we do want to probe the Government’s thinking.

Vaping has become increasingly common across the UK. According to the Government’s own tax information and impact note, approximately 5 million people in the UK vape. For the first time, according to the Office for National Statistics, more over-16s in Great Britain are using vapes or e-cigarettes than are smoking cigarettes: 5.4 million adults vape, compared with 4.9 million who still smoke.

The duty was first announced by the then Conservative Government in the spring Budget of March 2024. Alongside the announcement, a consultation was launched on how the duty should work in practice. The Government have since opted for a flat-rate duty rather than the three-tiered structure originally proposed, which would have varied the rate according to nicotine strength. Having read the responses to the consultation, I know that that decision clearly reflects the bulk of the evidence provided and will create a system that is simpler to administer. As the Exchequer Secretary might say, that is evidence of consultation working and the Government listening, which we are becoming very used to.

The tax will raise significant amounts: £400 million in 2027-28 and £465 million in 2028-29, with revenue then increasing further. When introducing a new tax, implementation matters. The Government’s own impact note shows that HMRC expects to spend £140 million just to deliver this measure, of which £20 million will be spent on IT systems, while the other £120 million will be for staffing and compliance costs. I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether the headline figure includes the £32 million contract that HMRC is currently advertising to deliver the vaping duty supply contract for five years.

As Border Force will also receive up to £10 million to prepare, delivering the new duty will cost about £150 million, all in. That is a pretty significant sum, so we need to be sure that it will provide proper value for money. Can the Minister give a little more clarity and break down the costs, particularly the £120 million on staffing and compliance? How many people will that involve bringing into HMRC? What exactly will they be doing? Why is the figure seemingly so high in comparison with the take?

Some consultation respondents have questioned whether the new duty will actually shift behaviour. If producers simply absorb the cost, as tobacco firms once did, prices may barely change, which will undermine the public health rationale behind the policy. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? Will the duty rate remain under review if outcomes fall short of the expected impact?

We can also look at the experiences of other countries such as Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% when a similar duty was introduced—not because consumers quit, but because purchases moved to the black market or unregulated online sellers. That takes us back to one of this Committee’s themes, which is about how raising taxes to a certain level drives people into the black market, and about where the sweet spot is for raising revenue without driving illegal behaviour. We will come on to the enforcement powers in some detail shortly, so I will not get into them now.

This measure will play a useful role in regulating a growing sector, but the Government need to strike a balance between discouraging youth vaping, supporting smokers to quit and maintaining a workable, enforceable tax regime that does not cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised, and particularly the point about zero-nicotine vapes being treated in the same way as nicotine vapes.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is good to hear that the shadow Exchequer Secretary will not oppose the clauses. He is right about the policy impetus behind what we are doing. For the first time in the UK, more people vape than smoke. The chief medical officer has been clear that vaping is not risk-free, and those who do not smoke should not vape.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Vaping is a difficult issue, particularly when it comes to recycling. I understand that vape shops are expected to take them back, but local authorities have real problems with the disposal of used vape canister things—I do not know what they are called—with batteries in them. Will the Minister consider helping local authorities with vape recycling, and providing funds to give them more facilities and a way to dispose of them?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which I will come to in a second.

On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s central point about the definition of vaping and the inclusion of nicotine-free liquids, the definition is deliberately broad to reflect how the market operates and to support what we hope will be effective enforcement. Most liquids used in vapes contain nicotine and either glycerine or glycol. The clause therefore focuses on those ingredients and on whether the liquid is intended to be vaped. Bringing into scope liquids that need to be mixed before use closes a potential loophole in a manner that I am sure we all want, because products could otherwise be sold in separate components to avoid their duty. Nicotine-free liquids are included because it would be easy to misdescribe or mislabel liquids and, in doing so, evade the duty.

The approach that we are taking will give Border Force and HMRC clear rules to work with, enabling quick decisions at the border. That is in line with how other excise regimes define products to minimise avoidance.

As to the cost of implementation, the cost of the duty stamps contract was considered in the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s beloved TIINs, but the industry will pay for it through the stamps.

Finally, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot raised a fair point about recycling. We are considering the impact of recycling and existing Government contracts, so this will be considered in the round.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Stamping of vaping products

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 118 to 120 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

As I stated in our debate on the previous group, the vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. Clause 117 is important in setting out what a duty stamp is for the purposes of the vaping products duty and the conditions under which a vaping product is considered sufficiently stamped and compliant with the vaping duty stamps scheme.

The changes made by clause 118 will allow HMRC commissioners to appoint an approved supplier to produce and distribute vaping duty stamps. In addition, the clause allows a fee to be charged for the duty stamp, separately from the liability of vaping products duty, and explains that that charge may not be offset against duty liability.

The changes introduced by clause 119 will establish a formal approval requirement for UK businesses to purchase duty stamps under the vaping duty stamps scheme, which will allow HMRC commissioners to maintain control over the scheme and ensure compliance.

Clause 120 will ensure that overseas vaping manufacturers have a representative in the UK who is legally and financially responsible for their compliance with the vaping duty stamps scheme, to ensure robust oversight. We are safeguarding compliance by requiring overseas manufacturers to operate within the framework of UK law, strengthening control and accountability across the supply chain. There will be impacts on all overseas importers and manufacturers of vaping products, who will be required to appoint a UK representative in the manner that I have described.

Together, the clauses will ensure that the vaping products duty is robustly enforced through a secure duty stamps regime and that all manufacturers, whether they are based in the UK or overseas, are subject to clear accountability. I commend clauses 117 to 120 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clauses 117 to 120 will introduce the new vaping duty stamp scheme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to move forward with a duty stamps regime for vaping products: it is, after all, a measure that can help our enforcement agencies and responsible businesses alike to distinguish legitimate duty-paid products from those that are illegitimate and being traded illicitly and illegally. We know that there is a substantial illicit market for vapes across the country; without a credible system of verification and traceability, it will continue to undercut legitimate producers, harm public health and cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue, so we need to address it.

Clause 117 will establish the legal framework for the duty stamps system. It defines when a vaping product is considered to be stamped, and it sets out that the duty stamp, whether affixed to the product or to its retail packaging, must comply with regulations made under the Bill. Importantly, the clause will enable each stamp to be digitally linked to the product that it marks, and will allow HMRC to collect specified information about those goods, marrying the physical and digital trails of compliance. That is a positive step, and I am pleased that the Government have adopted at least some of the approach for which the Opposition argued during the passage of last year’s Finance Bill when we considered the introduction of the duty stamp regime.

In essence, these measures will bring to the vaping market a track and trace model that is similar to what already exists in the alcohol and tobacco sectors. Clearly, when used properly, such tools can be an effective enforcement system. They allow officers, retailers and consumers alike to verify legitimacy at a glance, building confidence in compliant businesses and exposing those who seek to cheat the system and the taxpayer.

We should be clear, however, about the scale of the challenge that could be created for smaller manufacturers and importers. In implementing this approach, we should ensure that the practical burden of stamping, activating, tracking and reporting, alongside new IT infrastructure, is proportionate for the many businesses that may not previously have had to operate at such a level of compliance. We cannot allow a regime that is intended to fight the black market to end up driving responsible producers to consider joining it.

Clause 118 will give HMRC the authority to issue and manage the duty stamps and to charge administrative fees. It also allows a third-party issuer to be appointed, as I referred to in my comments on the previous group of clauses. I hope that the Minister can confirm how those fees will be set. Will HMRC consult on the level of those fees? What safeguards will exist to ensure that the fees are proportionate and transparent so that businesses do not find themselves paying unpredictable charges that bear little relation to the cost of the compliance regime?

Clause 119 will establish who can hold and use duty stamps: only approved stamp holders may do so, and they must operate from a fixed location within the United Kingdom. That makes sense in principle—it limits the opportunity for diversion or counterfeiting—but the practical implementation will matter greatly. Subsection (5) grants HMRC wide powers to restrict transfers, to define what counts as a fixed place and to cap the number of stamps issued to a business. If the system becomes too bureaucratic or opaque, small UK producers could find themselves struggling in the market while larger incumbents consolidate their position.

The Minister referred to the logic behind clause 120 and the concept of a UK representative for overseas businesses that lack a domestic base. Clearly, there needs to be someone within UK jurisdiction who can be held responsible for compliance and any penalties that may be applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury back from her visit to China, which I am sure was slightly more exciting than the Thursday we had in Committee in her absence—although obviously we will never be short on excitement.

Duty stamps are proven anti-illicit trading measures. Digital tracking can enable supply chain monitoring, support enforcement and ensure that black market products are easier to identify, which makes it easier for trading standards officers and consumers to catch illegal products. However, as we have seen with duty stamps on spirits, there is significant counterfeiting within the market, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister and the Government have learned from duty stamps on spirits that they have been able to apply to duty stamps on vaping products.

It is interesting to see, in clause 118, the potential cost that will be associated with these duty stamps. We have already debated the additional duty that would be applied to vapes and the closing of the gap between the price of vape liquid and the price of cigarettes in our discussion on previous clauses. How much further does the Minister think that gap will close?

Additionally, on duty stamps and being able to track sales from a specific product or potentially even from specific stores, many people in this House and among the wider public believe that quite a lot of vaping shops have links with money laundering scams. Does the Treasury have an understanding of how tracking could be used to compare the money going through on the duty stamps with the store data to see if any money laundering is going on? That may be able to help trading standards in future.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, for their comments. I think we are all aiming for the same thing: a robust and tight enforcement of all the measures. On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about moving towards a purely digital system, the reality is that that would be harder for consumers and for trading standards officers to use on shop floors, and consultation responses highlighted that it could impose greater burdens on small retailers than a visible stamp.

The scheme is designed to have a physical label with embedded digital features, and that two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy. A visible, secure stamp gives retailers, consumers and enforcement officers an immediate way to spot non-compliant products at a glance, without the need for specialist equipment. As I said, however, the digital element is very important; it is similar to a secure QR code, allowing stamps and products to be scanned and verified in real time. That two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy.

On the question of fees, they have been set to cover the cost of operating the scheme. The Government conducted a competitive tender process for the broader scheme. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is absolutely right that HMRC has promised clear guidance in this area, and that will be published in due course.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson fairly raised a comparison with alcohol duty stamps. HMRC consulted the alcohol industry and enforcement authorities and determined that alcohol duty stamps now play a minimal role in tackling alcohol duty evasion and that more effective controls now exist. HMRC is introducing duty stamps alongside the vaping products duty because of the distinct and significant non-compliance risk associated with the vaping market; it is about the utilisation of modern technology and digitalisation to support the delivery of the vaping products duty. I hope I have explained to him that we have examined the alcohol duty comparison and do not see a direct read across.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also raised an important point about money laundering and anti-money laundering, which the Government take extremely seriously—in fact, we are reforming the supervisory function and compliance on AML.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Forfeiture

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 122 to 125 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Anyone selling illicit vapes puts the public at risk and undermines legitimate businesses. One million illegal vapes were seized by trading standards in the last full year for which statistics are available, so we know that this is a significant enforcement challenge.

Clause 121 introduces enforcement powers to protect the integrity of the vaping duty stamps scheme. The changes made by clause 122 support robust compliance efforts under the vaping products duty and the stamps scheme, ensuring that only legitimate vaping products are supplied in the UK and penalising those who do not comply with the law. The changes made by clause 123 penalise those who lose stamps or attempt to use invalid stamps on illegitimate products to circumvent the rules. Clause 124 ensures that those who do not comply with the relevant regulations for the duty and stamps scheme are liable to penalties. Finally, clause 125 provides for the forfeiture of legitimate vaping products to complement the penalties imposed under the previous clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I rise to speak to clauses 121 to 125, which set out the framework on forfeiture and civil penalties for the new vaping duty regime. As the Minister said, this is a very important part of the new regime, given the impact that illicit vapes could have.

Clause 121 establishes a general liability to forfeiture for three categories of non-compliant goods, namely: an unstamped vaping product that should bear a duty stamp, any invalid duty stamp along with the product that it is attached to, or any unused duty stamp not affixed or returned within 12 months of issue. In plain terms, it gives HMRC the power to seize non-compliant vaping products. An invalid stamp is defined broadly, and includes any stamp that has been altered, forged or voided by HMRC. Other forfeiture triggers are linked to the wider civil and criminal offences contained elsewhere in this part of the Bill, which I am sure we will come on to. These powers are designed to allow both HMRC and local enforcement bodies to remove illicit or suspect products and counterfeit stamps from circulation. That is clearly an important deterrent against the black market in vaping products.

Can the Minister assess the risk of the 12-month rule on unused stamps, and the broad definition of invalid stamps, inadvertently capturing legitimate business activity? For example, operators may over-order stamps as a contingency or make administrative errors. How will the Government ensure that, in those circumstances, genuine stock is not caught up and lost alongside contraband products? Once forfeited, what will happen to those goods? Will they simply be destroyed? It would be helpful to get clarification on that point. Crucially, what safeguards will ensure that forfeiture powers are used proportionately, and that any minor administrative mistakes by otherwise compliant firms do not result in legitimate products being seized and destroyed at the first opportunity?

Clause 122 introduces a civil penalty regime for those who sell, offer for sale or deal in unstamped vaping products packaged for retail sale. The penalties set out are banded according to scale and repeat behaviour, rising to a maximum of £10,000 for 500 or more units, with escalating amounts for repeated contraventions within a rolling two-year period. It provides a strong financial penalty and a disincentive for retailers and wholesalers to stock unstamped products, and it complements the criminal provisions that follow later in this part of the Bill.

Clause 123 creates penalties for approved stamp holders who lose stamps or fail to use, return or destroy them within 12 months of issue, unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss. In those circumstances, the penalty is set at five times the monetary value of duty per lost stamp, equating to £11 per stamp when the scheme goes live. That comes alongside the existing Finance Act 1994 penalties for altering or misusing stamps. The intention is clear: to encourage tight control of duty stamps, treating them almost as cash equivalents, and to discourage casual or insecure handling that might enable diversion or counterfeiting, which is welcome.

Clause 124 introduces a broad, catch-all civil penalty for failure to comply with the vaping products duty regime using section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 as its legal framework. That is intended to ensure that HMRC can act where non-compliance occurs, but no specific penalty is written into the legislation, reinforcing the need for accurate record keeping and full compliance with operational rules. I can see why a general power may be convenient for HMRC, but for smaller businesses it could increase the risk of innocent mistakes attracting financial penalties. How will HMRC ensure that this general power is used proportionately? Will education and guidance be issued to firms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

I have few points to make about clause 122, which refers to a

“person who sells…unstamped vaping products”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that person is the shop owner, the shop manager or the shop worker who is physically behind the till on that day. Could an 18-year-old shop assistant be charged the £10,000 fine? The phrase “a person” needs a definition. If that person leaves the business in which they serve, will the fine stay with the individual, or will it be on the business? Could somebody get around this clause by closing down their limited company and opening a new one tomorrow, so the offence would then be their first?

[Lucy Rigby]

The comments of the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, refer to the deliberately tough nature of the enforcement regime; there is a real emphasis on deterrence, and there are penalties that apply. It includes the forfeiture powers, which are targeted at serious non-compliance. Where retailers are found selling unstamped products outside duty suspense or breaching key obligations under the scheme, HMRC and Border Force will have the power to seize associated vaping products, including legitimate duty-paid stock. As I said, that is part of a deliberately tough enforcement regime and is a strong deterrent aimed at those who choose to mix illegal products with legitimate ones on the same premises. I am sure we all understand that without such powers, rogue traders can treat penalties as simply a cost of doing business while continuing to profit from illicit trade, and I am sure we all want to avoid that.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary made a number of points about ensuring that the use of powers is proportionate. Given the judicial or criminal processes associated with the use of these powers, it is entirely fair to say that all the usual processes around charging, in a criminal sense or otherwise, will apply. Inherent within those processes are balance and fairness, including taking into account the rights of the accused.

It is good to mention the draft guidance, which will be shared with HMRC-run industry groups well ahead of the go-live date on 1 April, which I hope is sufficiently specific for the shadow Exchequer Secretary. He will be pleased to know—he may already know—that the interim guidance is already on gov.uk, if he is stuck for things to do this evening. I think I am right in saying that the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, as to liability under these offences will be made explicitly clear in the guidance, such that there is no doubt in those circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 122 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Dealing in duty stamps

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 127 to 130 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clause 126 introduces two new criminal offences, to which we have already alluded, for possessing or transferring duty stamps in contravention of the scheme rules. Clause 127 introduces the two new criminal offences that I have just described, and sets out a defence for the purposes of those offences. Clause 128 introduces the power for a court to ban the sales of vaping products, along with an associated criminal offence for non-compliance with the order. Clause 129 sets the level of the penalty associated with the offences, according to the respective legal systems of the devolved nations. Clause 130 introduces additional powers to allow HMRC to enforce the new rules around vaping products by taking illicit products off shelves.

In summary, the clauses represent a comprehensive suite of enforcement tools that support the Government to address the illegal trade and support the legitimate industry. I therefore urge that clauses 126 to 130 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary raised a point about the strong penalties associated with the regime. I have already set out the Government’s aim: that the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill are deliberately tough and are aimed at being a strong deterrent. We believe that the strong penalties, including custodial sentences, are justified due to the size of the illicit vaping market in the UK. Indeed, that goes to the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about our assessment of the illicit market and the assessment of abuse. We understand that there is a large illicit market in this area. The powers are deliberately tough, with the aim of ensuring that there is no circumvention.

I will now address the fair points that were made previously by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot and raised again in the context of these clauses. All prosecutions, as hon. Members will know, must meet the public interest test. The test that the Crown Prosecution Service must meet has two limbs: the evidential and public interest elements. Both limbs must be met for prosecutions to be brought. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot referred, fairly, to clause 126(3) and 127(3), which outline the defence that is applicable to both offences. As he helpfully mentioned, it is a defence for a person charged with offences under sections 126 and 127 to

“prove that they did not know, suspect or have reason to suspect”

that they were possessing or transferring a duty stamp that had not been affixed to a vaping product. In that regard, on the question about proof of knowledge, I return to the CPS’s test and to the burden of proof that applies in proceedings in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

Publication of information

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 132 to 136 stand part.

Schedule 14.

Clause 137 stand part.

Government amendments 13 and 14.

Clause 138 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 131 to 138 and Schedule 14 set out general provisions to ensure the effective implementation of the duty and the scheme.

Clause 131 allows for the publication of information to ensure effective enforcement of the duty and the scheme. Clause 132 details the instances in which information may be shared between the commissioners and any persons with functions relating to the duty. It will allow information to be transferred in both directions, ensuring successful implementation and the proper joining up of compliance efforts. For any unauthorised disclosure, the clause includes an offence under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.

The changes made by clause 133 provide a definition for local enforcement authorities and allow them to investigate whether businesses in their local areas are compliant with the duty. Clause 134 ensures that HMRC can make regulations and publish notices to make further provisions in relation to both the duty and the scheme. Clause 135 provides that regulations must be made by statutory instrument and sets out circumstances in which the made-affirmative procedure must be followed, including any provision that extends the cases in which vaping products are required to be stamped.

Clause 136 allows for schedule 14 to the Finance Act 2020 to make changes to the Finance Acts of 1994, 2007, 2008, 2017 and 2021. Clause 137 does not make changes to legislation but merely ensures that the Bill is interpreted correctly. Clause 138 provides that the duty and the scheme will commence on 1 October 2026, and that vaping products manufactured or imported before that date will be liable if a duty stamp is affixed to that

product.

Two technical amendments are proposed to clause 138. Amendment 13 clarifies the drafting to ensure elements of the regulations can come into force at the proper time. Amendment 14 puts beyond doubt that the criminal offences under these schemes can apply to vaping products, regardless of the date that they were produced or imported. The amendments ensure that the duty can be successfully administered, and neither one reflects any change in Government policy.

[James Wild]

We come to the final group of provisions on the important issue of the new vaping duty. I speak to clauses 131 to 138, which concern the general provisions underpinning the new vaping products duty regime. Clause 131 authorises HMRC to publish information about stamped vaping products, for the purposes of enabling retailers, consumers and other persons to assess whether a duty stamp has been activated in respect of a duty product. That is clearly a sane, sound aim, which gives retailers a way to distinguish between legal stamped products and illicit ones. However, that will only work if the data HMRC publishes is accurate and accessible. Mislabelling would harm legitimate firms, and if the system is cumbersome it will put people off using it.

Can the Minister tell us when HMRC will make available a practical, user-friendly checking mechanism—whether that is a public database, an app or some other technology—so that retailers and consumers can verify stamps quickly and easily? What safeguards will exist to correct errors swiftly where inaccurate data risks unfairly damaging a compliant business?

Clause 132 sets out a new information-sharing framework specific to the duty, letting HMRC exchange data with other bodies involved in enforcement. This is a legitimate and useful tool, but can the Minister give assurances about how the data will be logged, audited, and subject to clear internal controls?

Clause 133 delegates day-to-day enforcement to local authorities and trading standards teams, which makes sense. Last year trading standards seized over a million illegal vapes inland and detained 1.2 million at ports in England. Those powers need to be properly resourced if they are going to be effective in stamping out illegal trade, as we know that trading standards is already under considerable pressure to deliver on its various legislative requirements. It is fair to say that there is patchy implementation across the country.

What support will Government provide to local authorities to ensure consistent enforcement and genuine deterrence everywhere, not just in well-resourced areas? Counties, such as my county of Norfolk, have suffered as a result of the revised local government funding formula that the Government have put in place. I want to see them able to deal with the threat of illicit vapes in the same way as the metropolitan areas that benefit from the new formula that the Labour Government put in place.

Clause 134 gives the Treasury wide discretion to make supplementary transitional regulations under the regime. In practice, it is a broad power to fill in the blanks. Can the Minister give some confidence that it will not lead to a complex, rapidly changing rulebook? The Minister referred to the parliamentary procedure for such regulations under clause 135. To be clear, those regulations include the ability to amend an Act of Parliament, which is a considerable power. If such measures came forward, it would clearly be right to properly consult and debate them before they took effect. Will the Minister commit to formal consultation in such cases?

Clause 136 simply implements consequential amendments so that vaping products are recognised across the existing excise framework. Clause 137 deals with the definitions that determine which products fall within scope—clearly, they need to be kept up to date.

Finally, clause 138 sets the commencement and transitional arrangements. As we have discussed, businesses are expected to register from 1 April, with liability beginning from October. That is an ambitious timetable, but I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the interim guidance is available on gov.uk. I was not aware of that, so I will look it up later this evening, as she suggested.

We do not oppose any of these clauses, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether there will be formal consultation, particularly where Acts of Parliament will be changed by regulations. That is something every member of the Committee should expect.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary asked about HMRC making compliance-checking methods available. There will be an app for access based on scans of products. It will be available before 1 October, and no scanning will be required before that date. He, fairly, asked a question about the flow of information. That is covered by subsections (3) and (4) of clause 132, which ensure that information can be used only for the purposes for which it was disclosed. Indeed, any other purpose would require further permission from the commissioners. Subsection (4) sets out the penalties that would apply for contravening the preceding provisions.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary also asked about the resources available to trading standards and local authorities. He mentioned Norfolk, is that right?

[James Wild]

Yes—come visit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Beautiful Norfolk—I know it very well. He compared Norfolk with more metropolitan areas. Local enforcement authorities, particularly trading standards, play a central role in tackling illicit vapes on the high street, and as has been mentioned, over 1 million illegal vapes have been seized in a single year under existing powers. Clause 133 gives local authorities the powers they need to conduct inspections and checks relating to both the duty and the scheme, to ensure that compliance work can be carried out effectively at retail level. That will complement the work of HMRC, which happens upstream.

We have already announced additional funding for trading standards in the context of wider tobacco and vaping measures, alongside £10 million for Border Force and the recruitment of over 300 HMRC compliance officers focused on this area. Giving these powers to local authorities, backed by additional resource, will help to ensure that the new regime is enforced on the ground and that compliant retailers are protected from what would otherwise be unfair competition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 132 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 13, in clause 138, page 146, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Sections 114(4) (production only in accordance with regulations) and 117(1) (duty to stamp in accordance with regulations) come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment would allow the requirements to produce and stamp vaping products in accordance with regulations to be brought into force at the same time as the regulations.

Amendment 14: in clause 138, page 146, line 27, after “2027” insert

“, and have effect in relation to vaping products irrespective of when they were produced or imported”—(Lucy Rigby.)

This amendment would clarify (in light of the fact that stamping requirements are to be set out in regulations) that the criminal offences can apply to vaping products produced or imported before the Act is passed or the regulations are made.

Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

Introduction to CBAM

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 16.

Clause 149 stand part.

Schedule 17.

[Lucy Rigby]

I appreciate your accommodation of the cold in the room, Sir Roger. I hope this afternoon proves that we can be both sartorially elegant and warm. Committee members may take their own view, but I look forward to this afternoon.

Clauses 148 and 149 and schedules 16 and 17 provide the administrative and enforcement framework necessary to ensure the effective operation of CBAM. They ensure that CBAM can be administered properly by HMRC, complied with by businesses, and enforced where necessary.

The clause introduces schedule 16, which makes detailed provision for the administration and enforcement of CBAM, including requirements for registration, accounting periods, CBAM returns, record keeping, payment deadlines, assessments, penalties and appeals. The schedule aligns CBAM administration with established HMRC processes where possible, helping to minimise additional burdens on businesses while ensuring robust compliance.

Clause 149 introduces schedule 17, which provides for criminal offences relating to CBAM. Those offences apply in serious cases, such as deliberate evasion or fraudulent behaviour, and mirror existing approaches taken elsewhere in the tax system. The inclusion of criminal offences ensures that appropriate deterrents are in place, protecting the integrity of the regime and ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses.

Together, clauses 148 and 149 provide the necessary administrative and enforcement backbone for CBAM. They ensure that the regime is credible, enforceable and fair, while giving HMRC the tools it needs to administer CBAM effectively. I commend the clauses and schedules 16 and 17 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

We are sorry to see the Exchequer Secretary disappear. I hope that he comes back this afternoon for our further deliberations.

The clause introduces schedule 16, providing for the administration and enforcement of CBAM. They hand responsibility for managing this new carbon import charge to HMRC, and set out detailed compliance rules, including registration, accounting periods, returns, assessments and appeals. The schedule runs to 27 pages of text. Under these measures, any business importing CBAM goods worth more than £50,000 in a 12-month period, or expecting to reach that threshold within 30 days, must register, report each quarter and keep detailed records potentially for up to six years. HMRC will have wide discretion to make “best judgment” assessments and to counteract any artificial separation of business activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

The EU, for its CBAM, has not set a specific number in that way; it has set a number of tonnes of product. I would be interested to hear from the Government what work has been done to analyse the different impacts of £50,000, £100,000 and £250,000. The Treasury must have done some work on this, but I could not see any. We need the answer to that in order to find out where we stand.

Let me finish by saying that a transitional period may be quite beneficial. It would make sure that we are not setting our small and medium-sized enterprises up to fail and penalising them when they try to do the right thing but unfortunately, because of the complications in the system, they are unable to.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary’s points about the criminal offences are similar to some of the points that were raised earlier in relation to other criminal offences set out in the Bill. I made the point in relation to those other offences, and I make it again here, about the standards that the CPS, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, has to meet in satisfying both the evidential test and the public interest test. I am not sure that I need to take up the invitation to liaise with the Law Officers in that regard.

Questions were fairly raised about proportionality and the burden on businesses. The UK CBAM will operate like a conventional tax, in order to simplify the administrative and compliance burden for those who need to comply without, we think, undermining the environmental integrity of CBAM. However, the Government recognise that alignment with existing regimes—the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, referred to the EU CBAM and, indeed, to the ETS—can reduce administrative burdens, so where possible we will align with and build upon existing methodologies for calculating embodied emissions, as well as rules for monitoring reporting and verification under the ETS.

As hon. Members know, CBAM is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts or a significant impact on prices for individuals, households and families. CBAM imports make up only around 1% of average UK industry input costs. Therefore, as the Exchequer Secretary said, the Government do not expect CBAM to have a material impact on food prices, and the impact on farmers would be modest.

On the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s point about thresholds, the threshold will retain over 99% of CBAM imports while removing 80% of otherwise registrable businesses, and over 70% of those removed from CBAM altogether by the threshold will be micro, small and medium-sized businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 148 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 150

Supplementary amendments

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 18.

Clauses 151 to 155 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 make the general, supplementary and commencement provisions for CBAM. They are designed to ensure that CBAM integrates properly with the wider statute book, operates coherently over time and comes into force as intended from 1 January 2027.

More specifically, clause 150 introduces schedule 18, which makes supplementary amendments to other legislation to ensure that CBAM operates consistently alongside existing customs and tax law.

Clauses 151 and 152 provide key definitions and interpretation provisions, including the meaning of “emissions”, “carbon dioxide equivalent”, “importer” and “CBAM good”. These clauses are designed to ensure clarity and legal certainty across the regime.

Clause 153 provides a power to make provision in relation to linked emissions trading schemes. This allows imported goods originating in countries with linked emissions trading scheme arrangements to be excluded from CBAM, reflecting international co-operation and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

Clause 154 sets out how regulations and notices under CBAM are to be made, including the applicable parliamentary procedures, to ensure appropriate scrutiny, with affirmative or made affirmative procedures applying where regulations have a significant impact.

Clause 155 provides for commencement and transitional arrangements. CBAM will apply to goods imported on or after 1 January 2027, with powers to smooth the transition during the initial years of operation.

In summary, clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 provide the essential supporting framework that allows for the effective functioning of CBAM, and I commend them to the Committee.

[James Wild]

We come to the final group on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Clause 150, along with schedule 18, makes the technical but critical changes needed to fit CBAM into the UK’s existing tax and enforcement framework. These measures ensure that the new tax uses the same information gathering powers, collection mechanisms and penalties already in place. It is sensible to integrate CBAM in this way without creating a new process.

Clause 151 defines what we mean by “emissions” for CBAM purposes and firmly anchors the tax in the existing climate policy framework by adopting the definition in the Climate Change Act 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions will be measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is sensible.

Clause 152 sets out the interpretive rules for part 5 of the Bill, working alongside clause 151 and schedule 16 to ensure that terminology throughout CBAM is coherent.

Clause 153 gives the Treasury the power to adjust CBAM if the UK’s emissions trading scheme is linked to another country’s carbon pricing system. The Minister touched on this briefly, but as I mentioned in the debate on an earlier group, in May the Government and the EU formally agreed to work towards linking their emissions trading systems to align carbon markets. I do not think the Exchequer Secretary responded to me on that point before he left the Committee. I am conscious that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, but can she give an update on where the EU-UK negotiations on the linkage have got to? This is a broad delegated power that could have real implications for competitiveness, trade and treatment of foreign carbon prices. We have expressed concerns previously about the linkage with the EU ETS and the higher charges that might hit UK businesses as a result. I would be grateful for an update on where the negotiations have got to—if they have actually started—and how the Treasury will ensure that there is proper consultation and debate before using the powers.

--- Later in debate ---

Regulations are only as good as their implementation, and businesses, in particular smaller ones—the hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to the £50,000 threshold and how that could affect fairly small businesses—will want the guidance and practical support well before 1 January. I will be grateful for the Minister’s responses to the several questions I have raised.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary referred to some of the points agreed at the EU-UK summit last May. As he knows, the EU and the UK agreed to work towards linking our respective ETSs. He will not expect me to comment on ongoing negotiations, so I will not do that, but I will say that we are committed to working closely with all interested stakeholders, including international partners, through the CBAM policy design process and, of course, we consulted extensively on the design and implementation of this measure.

We have conducted information sessions at the World Trade Organisation and had extensive bilateral engagement with over 30 jurisdictions since announcing our intention to introduce a CBAM in December 2023. The UK will also engage through the UK CBAM international group, which serves as a forum through which the UK Government can understand the views of international partners and share updates.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary will forgive me for reiterating what I know he already knows, which is that all tax policy is kept under review. He rightly refers to our desire to smooth the transition—that is absolutely key. We will ensure that there is sufficient time built in to facilitate that smooth transition, and time to test systems as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 150 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 151 to 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 156

Prohibition of promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 157 to 162 stand part.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 156 to 162 introduce a new statutory prohibition on the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will set out a little more background on these clauses than I have on others, which I think is important.

HMRC already can and regularly does stop people promoting marketed avoidance schemes, where it can identify the person or company doing the promotion. However, the controlling minds behind avoidance schemes often simply close down the company they use to promote the scheme before promoting a very similar scheme from a new company with different directors—everyone will be familiar with that concept of phoenixing. HMRC needs to identify and issue a new stop notice to each new entity and, during that time, promoters continue to sell the scheme and cause harm to taxpayers and the UK tax system. This measure will prohibit certain tax avoidance schemes from being promoted without HMRC first having to notify promoters, and will put a stop to promoters playing a game of cat and mouse with HMRC.

These clauses are about targeting those who continue to promote tax avoidance. They are not intended to be directed against legitimate tax advisers who are operating to a high professional standard but, while acting in good faith, make genuine mistakes. Furthermore, the Exchequer Secretary has asked HMRC officials to work with stakeholders in developing published guidance to address the fine detail of exactly how the prohibition will work in practice.

I turn to the individual clauses. Clause 156 will prohibit the promotion of avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success, as well as enabling HMRC commissioners to prohibit further arrangements in regulations. Any arrangements specified must have been, or be likely to be, marketed to seek a particular tax advantage, unlikely to result in that tax advantage, and likely to cause harm to taxpayers.

Clause 157 provides for the definition of “promotion” of arrangements. It includes important exemptions, such as where goods and services are provided on commercial terms without the knowledge that they are being used to promote tax avoidance, or where legally privileged advice or information is provided.

Clause 158 requires regulations implementing this policy change to be subject to the made affirmative procedure. That will ensure that the regulations take effect immediately, protecting the Revenue and taxpayers, while also ensuring proper oversight by this House.

For anyone breaching the prohibition or the regulations, civil penalties may apply under clause 159, or a criminal offence under clause 160. Under clause 161, where a responsible person has led an entity or partnership to commit a criminal offence through their consent, connivance or neglect, that criminal offence will also apply to them. Clause 162 contains relevant definitions and commencement provisions.

In summary, this measure will allow HMRC to stop the promotion of tax avoidance and tackle the persistent group of promoters. It will ensure that taxpayers and the UK tax system are protected from the harm caused by these promoters.

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.)