Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Joshua Reynolds

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

--- 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.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Joshua Reynolds

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Amendment 37 agreed to.

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

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

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

Clause 14

Enterprise investment scheme: increase in amounts and asset requirements

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 24

Umbrella companies

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Joshua Reynolds

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Anti-avoidance: collective investment scheme reconstructions

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Non-residents: cell companies

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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

“for the sole purpose of”

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

[Mr Reynolds]

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

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Tainted charity donations: replacement of purpose test with outcome test

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Joshua Reynolds

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Joshua Reynolds

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I have heard from Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors about the deplorable actions that the smugglers take in not only facilitating very young children being aboard the boats, but even sedating them to ensure they are compliant during the crossing. My hon. Friend is right that the dangers faced by people, particularly children, when they cross the channel are extremely grave. This Government are absolutely determined to break the business model of the people smugglers, so protecting our borders and stopping lives, including young lives, being put in such danger.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Will the Solicitor General commit to working across Cabinet to publish the number of people smuggling cases that have collapsed before trial over the past five years, and the reasons why they have collapsed?

[The Solicitor General]

I think this is important to look at, and I want to highlight that the CPS is taking considerable action to prosecute these offences. We have given the CPS extra funding to increase its capacity to work on Border Security Command cases, and the money will allow the CPS to recruit additional staff in the areas at the frontline of combating organised immigration crime.