Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Matt Turmaine Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

As the Minister said, these clauses are mainly technical, tidying-up measures, but they are worthy of debate none the less.

Clause 31 clarifies the corporation tax treatment of payments made in return for the surrender of research and development expenditure credit, audiovisual expenditure credit or video games expenditure credit for payments made on or after November 2025. This technical clarification ensures that, when companies sell or surrender tax credits, the accounting treatment is consistent and correct.

R&D expenditure credit has been in place since 2013 to support companies carrying out R&D, and these creative industry expenditure credits will fully replace the old film, high-end TV, animation, children’s TV and video games tax reliefs from April 2027. At the moment, there is no agreed approach between tax authorities and companies on how to treat payments received when these credits are surrendered for corporation tax purposes, which has created uncertainty.

Clause 31 will hopefully put that beyond doubt by setting out a clear tax treatment in law, and HMRC will update its guidance manuals to reflect the new rules. Does the Minister have any figures—I do not have the TIINs to hand on this one—on whether that uncertainty has cost companies, or cost the Government, in lost revenue?

Clause 32 corrects transitional rules between the video games tax relief and the video games expenditure credit to ensure that the new expenditure credit works fairly for games that are moving over from the old relief. It corrects how the expenditure credit is calculated for transitional games—those that already have tax relief claims and then opt into the new scheme—so that companies do not get too much or too little relief, simply because the old regime used European expenditure while the new one uses UK expenditure.

In effect, clause 32 ensures that companies switching schemes do not get double relief or under-relief. Can the Minister provide an estimate of how many video games development companies will be affected by this transitional correction, and whether any have suffered financial detriment under the previous rules?

Clause 33 makes changes to the special credit for visual effects, which is part of the audiovisual expenditure credit, as the Committee will be aware. It prevents the calculation for additional credit from producing incorrect results, correcting anomalies in the visual effects credit calculation. The explanatory notes explain that, without this fix, certain combinations of expenditure could generate incorrect credit amounts or negative values, so clause 33 ensures that the scheme operates as intended and that the special credit scheme is neither more nor less generous than intended. Does the Minister have any figures on how many production companies have experienced calculation errors as a result of the previous rules?

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak briefly on clause 32, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for video games and esports, to say to the Minister that I welcome the closing of this loophole. Does she agree that the change will support the British video games industry, which is industry-leading across the world, and deliver the best for our economy?

[Lucy Rigby]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 34

R&D undertaken abroad: Chapter 2 relief only

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

Covid-19: Financial Support

Matt Turmaine Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely; I fully agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that is one of our asks, so that we do not make the same mistake again.

My constituent Victoria, who is in the Gallery, ran an events business hosting exhibitions and award ceremonies. She was ineligible for any scheme. A bounce back loan was taken out simply for the business to survive. Five years on, the debt remains, the recovery never fully came, and the business is now closing. Another constituent of mine moved roles, and was informed that he would not be furloughed by his new employer, as the cut-off for furlough through payroll had passed. There was little consideration of people in that position.

Another constituent was a director of a small education consultancy. They were told that income as dividends could not be distinguished from unearned income, despite verified accounts and professional oversight. The effects of that decision did not end when lockdowns lifted. The financial impact of exclusion was severe, but the human cost was greater still. Campaign groups have documented widespread mental distress across those excluded from support, including cases of suicide linked to financial hardship during the pandemic. There were people who felt hopeless, abandoned and unseen. The mental health consequences of exclusion are still being felt, and they should weigh heavily on this House.

The excluded have three requests of this Government: an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned; parity of support; and an acknowledgment of the loss of earnings and consequential losses. I ask the Minister to meet the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, so that he can hear directly from those affected.

At the same time when millions of taxpayers were excluded from support, vast sums of public money were spent on dodgy personal protective equipment. The National Audit Office has confirmed that billions were lost through error and fraud across covid-19 schemes. The PPE MedPro case starkly illustrates that imbalance: a company fast-tracked through the Government VIP lane was paid £122 million for surgical gowns that were later ruled unfit for use, and has since been ordered to repay £148 million to the public purse.

This debate is not just about reflecting on what went wrong; it is about recognising and acknowledging the injustice, starting with an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned under the Conservative Government. We also must prepare properly for the future. Public health experts have been clear that we should be talking about not if, but when, there is a future pandemic or national emergency. When the moment comes, this House will have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the gaps again.

Emergency support schemes must be designed around the reality of how people work in this country. Millions of people do not fit neatly into a single employment category. They combine PAYE work with self-employment, run a small limited company, take time out for caring responsibilities or build new businesses from scratch. That diversity is a strength of our economy, not a problem to be designed out of eligibility. The state already holds vast amounts of information through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and other bodies. The lesson of covid is that the issue was not a lack of data, but a lack of willingness to use it flexibly and fairly.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

I worked in health and social care during the covid pandemic, so I did not experience furlough—in fact, we worked very hard indeed. Some of the excluded self-employed people that the hon. Member refers to are still suffering today. Does she agree that they are paying the price for the previous Government’s sheer incompetence in managing the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this really important debate. When the covid-19 pandemic unfolded, it tested every part of our society. It pushed our health system, our communities and our economy to the brink. In that moment of crisis, emergency financial support was rightly created at unprecedented speed. Those measures protected millions, but despite the scale of that effort, far too many people were left behind. The ExcludedUK campaign emerged because an estimated 3.8 million individuals fell through the gaps in pandemic financial support. Those were freelancers, newly self-employed people, small business owners, PAYE short-term contractors and others whose circumstances simply did not fit the rigid eligibility rules. They were contributing members of society who paid taxes, built businesses and supported local economies, yet at the moment they needed help most, many found none.

That includes constituents in Mid Cheshire, many of whom contacted me ahead of the debate. They had done everything asked of them—they had built livelihoods and paid their taxes—but still found themselves excluded from support when the pandemic hit. People saw their livelihoods disappear overnight. Some were forced to drain life savings, sell belongings or take on unsustainable debt just to survive. They felt unheard, unseen and unvalued by the systems meant to protect them.

Tragically, for some, the emotional and financial devastation became unbearable. Each of those lives lost is a reminder that policy decisions are not abstract; they reach deeply into homes, families and futures. We must not only recognise and acknowledge the impact that exclusion had on those individuals but show renewed determination to ensure that such gaps never re-emerge. The pandemic has taught us something essential: economic resilience is public health resilience. There can be no effective emergency response if large groups of people are left without support. A society is only as strong as its most vulnerable moment.

As the UK continues to develop its preparedness planning for future pandemics and national emergencies, it is vital that support systems are designed with the flexibility to meet people where they actually are, not where policy assumes them to be. That means ensuring that any future emergency financial support schemes are properly stress-tested in advance against real-world employment patterns so that they reflect the diversity of modern working lives before they are ever deployed. No one contributing to the economy should face a crisis without a lifeline.

Mental health impacts must be treated as a central component of emergency planning, not an afterthought. Just as importantly, the voices of those previously excluded should be included in future policy discussions so that lived experience shapes the solutions of tomorrow. Preparedness must mean more than storing equipment or writing contingency documents; it must mean designing a compassionate, comprehensive safety net that recognises the full spectrum of working lives in the UK and ensures that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

[Matt Turmaine]

Covid-19 clearly had an enormous impact on the economy of the world and the UK. In terms of preparing ourselves for any future threat under these circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the fraud and corruption facilitated by the previous Government was an absolute disgrace? It is up to this Labour Government to get our money back and solve those problems.

[Andrew Cooper]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done exactly the right thing by setting up the covid corruption commissioner. During the pandemic, there were those who saw it not as a moment of national emergency in which we should all get together, but as an opportunity to line their own pockets. The Chancellor is doing exactly the right thing by trying to root out those people and make sure that they suffer the consequences.

We cannot change what happened, but we can choose what happens next. Let us learn the lessons from past schemes that left too many people excluded, and move forward by building systems that protect everyone. Let us ensure that in any future crisis, we never again leave millions to face hardship alone. What specific steps will the Government take to ensure that any future emergency financial support schemes are designed with the flexibility, fairness and real-world applicability needed to prevent millions from ever again being excluded in their moment of greatest need?

Financial Inclusion

Matt Turmaine Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree that we need to look right across the board at the different ways in which people are excluded from financial services, including people living in smaller villages and towns. I also agree about the importance of credit unions to financial inclusion.

It has been reported that 41,500 people in Glasgow North are in financially vulnerable circumstances. That is 44% of the adult population, which is far higher than the national average of 38%. With financial exclusion increasing, the Government must take steps to mainstream inclusive policies and practices in our financial system, which is why I support the Government’s appointment of the Financial Inclusion Committee and the soon-to-be-published financial inclusion strategy.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the publication of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy is welcome, given the urgency of the circumstances that many people face? For example, 37,000 people are affected in my constituency of Watford, and we are higher than the national average in three major metrics of need for this vulnerability.

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree that the financial inclusion strategy is a very welcome step in developing, co-ordinating and implementing interventions to support financial inclusion in the UK.

Subsequent policy decisions stemming from the strategy will have to work for a broad range of groups in society. Many face financial exclusion for different reasons, including older people, disabled people and young people.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Matt Turmaine Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The spending review will focus on both integration and prevention, because we know that that saves taxpayers’ money and delivers better outcomes for people.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chancellor for her candour in her statement to the House. My constituents will be bitterly disappointed by the consequences of the announcement made, in particular in relation to the rebuild of Watford hospital. It was promised under the last Labour Government and scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and then promised again and again in the run-up to the general election, when the Conservative party said that the money was definitely there. Can the Chancellor tell me: where was the money?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have heard today that hon. and right hon. Members across the House campaigned in good faith on projects that they thought the money was there for. The money simply was not there. We cannot go on like that, which is why I have been open, transparent and honest about the state of our public finances and the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and all MPs who are affected by the problems left by the previous Government.