Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We want more certainty within the system, as far as possible. On earlier clauses, we debated the uncertainty that can come from having administrative rules that HMRC can interpret. Our amendment would give people confidence that their income and the benefit they receive would continue in real terms.

Nobody disputes the need to focus support on those who need it most. Where the Chancellor got it wrong was in taking it away from people who are just over the £13,000 income threshold. If the Government insist on recovering payments, they need to get the fundamentals right, with clear definitions, robust data sharing and a simple route for challenging any mistakes that may have been made.

Let us be clear. We welcome the Chancellor’s latest U-turn, reversing the very first decision she took in office. She was wrong to remove the benefit from millions of pensioners. This clause helps her to correct her poor political choice.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I know he is trying his best, but I am surprised at the tone that he is taking and at his language around the winter fuel allowance. He can correct me if I am wrong, but the 2017 Conservative manifesto outlined stripping this benefit completely—and that was from the Government in which he served as a special adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does he not tell us what he really thinks?

[James Wild]

I may not have read that manifesto as closely as the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] For the record, I did not say that. I think the record will also prove that that measure was not put into effect. We continued the winter fuel payment. The issue is that the Chancellor came along. She was given advice by Treasury officials—no offence to the Treasury officials in the room—suggesting this was a simple way to save some money and fill a fictional black hole. Foolishly and regrettably, she went along with that advice; happily, she is now correcting her mistake in part.

I am looking to press amendment 41 to a vote, because it is important that we give pensioners certainty that the threshold will be protected.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to make a short contribution while you are in the Chair. On clause 20, I will not echo the point that has just been made, but the Minister will have seen the written evidence submitted by the Association of Taxation Technicians, which discussed potentially widening the new initiative of including flu vaccinations in expenditure deductible from employment income, so that it also includes covid vaccinations. Has the Minister given that any thought?

On clause 22, it is a pleasure to see the Employment Rights Act being enacted and to address shifts being missed by people on zero-hours contracts, such as those in my constituency. It probably takes us into a wider debate that the Opposition have raised about having oral evidence sessions. It is clear from the evidence pack that the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Association of Taxation Technicians and other taxation professionals have quite a lot of comments to make. If submissions on the clause were opened to my constituents, I am sure that there would be mass evidence from the public saying how much of a good thing it is. Does the Minister have any comments on that?

[Mr Reynolds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan]

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

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

The Minister has skirted over quite a few detailed issues rather briefly. It will reassure the Committee to know that I intend to take a bit more time to go through what are detailed and important principles, and to reflect on questions raised in an earlier clause—how competitive we are, what we want to do, and whether we want to attract wealthy people to the country.

I will initially speak to clause 43, schedule 3 and amendments 30 to 35, which were tabled in my name. Clause 43 introduces schedule 3 of the Bill, and members of the Committee will see that the schedule runs to 14 pages of complex detail, so it is important that we properly scrutinise it. Those pages make various changes to the foreign income and gains regime brought into effect by the Finance Act 2025. On the surface, this may look like a simple tidying-up exercise, but on closer inspection it raises some important questions about the coherence of the Government’s overall approach to taxing globally mobile individuals.

While we support fair taxation, this Government have once again produced needlessly complex legislation that contains retrospective elements and leaves ordinary people potentially facing unexpected tax bills.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Could the shadow Minister reflect on the fact that this clause has more amendments tabled to it than any we have dealt with so far? It deals with non-resident non-dom individuals who have previously tried to get away with paying certain levels of tax in this country. I know that he will take us through some of the details of that, but I would like to go back to the macro of his party position. If he talks about ordinary people, surely he should agree with the benefits of these changes. They would not only simplify the system but bring in much-needed tax revenue from those previously non-dom individuals who did a good deed for so long under the previous Conservative Government.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member said that he is not sure whether I believe what I am reading. I did write this myself, and I do very much believe it. We will have plenty of time to debate the business rates measures when we consider the relevant pieces of legislation and in Committee, I am sure. They are not specifically in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but I am mentioning things that are not in the Bill, so of course, he is welcome to raise things that are in the Budget, too. At Treasury questions last week we discussed at length, with the shadow Front-Bench team and others, the relief and support that is now in the system to help businesses with the increases in valuations they have seen since the pandemic—there is over £4 billion of support over the next few years, with £2 billion coming this year alone. However, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I might speak for 15 minutes, but we are 11 minutes in and I am only on page 2, so I will try to make some progress.

We are sticking to our commitments in the corporate tax road map, maintaining the headline rate of corporation tax—the lowest in the G7—and making reforms to capital allowances to support fiscal sustainability while retaining incentives to invest. We are going further to support companies to scale up and attract investment and talent by significantly expanding the enterprise management incentives company eligibility limits, to maintain the world-leading nature of this scheme. We are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, to make the schemes more generous and supportive for entrepreneurs, helping to support more investment in companies and improve access to finance for those we want to see make the transition from start-up to scale-up.

We are delivering a new service to support major investment projects with advance tax certainty, as committed to in the corporate tax road map. We are also introducing a 40% first-year allowance, allowing businesses to immediately write off a significant amount of their investment to reduce their corporation tax or income tax bill in the year that they make that investment. Overall, these growth measures and the many others we are delivering across the Government will result in the doubling of limits for our enterprise tax incentives and will support many scale-ups and businesses to attract capital as they grow.

This Finance Bill builds on many other measures announced at the Budget and delivered over this Parliament. We are expanding and continuing the work of the National Wealth Fund. We have committed £14 billion for Sizewell C, to help power more than 6 million homes. We are making rapid progress on enabling the delivery of a third runway at Heathrow, and we have provided £120 billion in additional capital investment for roads, rail and energy, including £15.6 billion for major city regions.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the £50 million or £60 million that the Government have provided to Lancashire county council to provide good roads for my constituents. On the Minister’s point about business investment, I welcome the three-year holiday from the stamp duty reserve for new listings, which we are not talking about enough. That will be a huge benefit to newly listed companies in the UK and manages our competitiveness very well.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I, too, welcome that change in the Budget, and I commend my colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the work she has been doing on that—I am sure we will hear more about it in her closing remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

It is worth noting that some 800 of the 1,200 reliefs the hon. Member mentions ensure that the tax system operates as intended by defining the scope of tax correctly and that it operates fairly and simply. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I will not be able to comment specifically on any changes that we may or may not make to tax reliefs—any decisions will, of course, be announced at the Budget, which is not today.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps she is taking to reform the financial services sector.

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

Our financial services growth and competitiveness strategy sets out the Government’s 10-year plan for the sector, making clear our ambition that, by 2035, the UK will be the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, grow and sell their services throughout the UK and to the world. To support this ambition, the Government announced the Leeds reforms, which are the most wide-ranging package of reforms to financial services regulation in a decade. The reforms will turbocharge growth, put more money in the pockets of working people and create more good, skilled jobs right across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome you to your new role.

[Oliver Ryan]

I also welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. Small businesses in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are the lifeblood of our community, providing jobs and livelihoods to our people. Growing manufacturers and exporters such as the brilliant Barnes Aerospace in Burnley are doing an excellent job at taking Britain across the world. Will the Economic Secretary set out what the Government are doing to support small and medium-sized business, particularly our manufacturers, with access to finance?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and it is very good to hear him championing businesses in his constituency. The Government published the small business strategy in July, which sets out how we will make the UK the best place to start and grow a business and puts SMEs at the heart of our growth mission. That includes tackling the barriers that SMEs face when accessing finance. That is why the Government are committed to increasing the total financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion and introducing a new business growth service, which will make it easier and quicker for businesses across the UK to get the help, support and advice that they need to grow and thrive.

Property Taxes

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

This Government were elected on a manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion. That was to be paid for through £7.3 billion of extra taxes and £3.5 billion of extra borrowing, all of which was set out in the Labour manifesto. It was a modest plan with a prudent margin—exactly the sort of plan one might expect a party in opposition to put forward to show that it can be trusted to run the public finances. Labour Members might reflect on the fact that had they implemented the plan, the British economy would be in better condition than at present.

In its first Budget, Labour increased public expenditure not by £9.5 billion, but by £70 billion. How those on the Labour Benches cheered with delight at the thought of all the extra spending: pay rises for train drivers, with no conditions; pay rises for junior doctors, with no strings; money for Great British Energy; and more money for the British Business Bank—all so the Government can invest in projects that the private sector does not think will make a return.

We all know how this story ends: Labour will use all the business acumen that the Cabinet has at its disposal to create a modern version of British Leyland. It is what Labour does best: spending other people’s money, and borrowing yet more money that other people’s children can repay. But all this extra spending and borrowing comes at a price, and the Government are now paying 5.7% interest to borrow money for 30 years. That is the highest level since 1998, and this surge in borrowing costs reflects the market’s lack of confidence in the Chancellor’s ability to manage Britain’s finances.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the surge in borrowing costs actually started with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and has not really stopped since the trajectory started?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do not accept that at all. This surge is entirely due to the Chancellor losing control of public expenditure, and the increased cost of servicing our national debt adds further pressure on the British taxpayer.

Having presented her Budget, the Chancellor said:

“We’re not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing.”

The problem is that no one believes her. The markets do not believe her, and Labour Back Benchers certainly do not believe her. They now know that they only have to threaten to rebel on any item of public expenditure and the Chancellor will cave. We saw that on the welfare reform Bill, which was brought forward to save a modest £4.5 billion. What happened? The first whiff of a rebellion, and the Bill was gutted, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the cost.

In that context, over the summer we saw briefings from the Treasury testing the water on a whole series of potential tax rises: higher rates of council tax, a land value tax, capital gains tax on family homes, lowering the thresholds for inheritance tax and an annual property levy on the family home. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is being so careful about which of her many homes is her primary residence.

The Chancellor is clearly desperate to raise more money. It is a cruel irony, is it not, that having invented a £22 billion black hole to justify her taxing and spending, the Chancellor now finds herself facing a black hole entirely of her own making? It is her jobs tax and other tax rises that have caused the economy to slow and unemployment to rise. Her increase in public expenditure has fuelled inflation, which has led to higher wage demands and increased benefit costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The support that we announced yesterday on the phase-out of internal combustion engine cars was very much welcomed by the automotive sector. It will give much more flexibility around the allowances and around plug-in hybrid vehicles. All of that is welcome, but we are keeping a watching brief as well as trying to ensure that there are new markets for cars made in Britain in other countries around the world by securing more trade deals.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

T6. What is the Chancellor doing to support businesses and boost wages in towns such as Burney, Padiham and Brierfield, which were forgotten for 14 years under the previous Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is doing great work supporting local businesses in Burnley, including the digital marketing start-up Door4, which I know he has been championing.

VAT: Independent Schools

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to speak in this debate. I am proud to do so for the first time since being put back in my place by the people of Bury North. Returners do not get to be maidens again, so I will just send my best to my predecessor and his family, as is customary. There was not much on which we saw eye to eye, but I respect his work and time in office. I know how losing feels, so I sincerely send him my very best.

It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I speak in favour of this Government’s laser focus on tackling inequality in our education system. I support Labour’s plans to end the state subsidy of private schools, and it is right that they pay VAT, as businesses expect to pay. I understand the aspirations of parents who work hard and save to provide for their children. I can introduce any Member to thousands of them in Bury North. Many live in some of the poorest wards in the country. Few could ever afford to pay for private education for their children, so I do not expect them to pay for the private education of someone else’s children with a state subsidy and their own hard-earned money.

Forty-three per cent. of children in Bury North live in poverty, and that is concentrated in just three of our nine wards. That is an abject failure of the Conservative party’s 14 years in government—a spike of 10% in as many years. We cannot ignore growing inequalities.

Under this Government’s plans, private schools will become subject to VAT. Although that presents new financial considerations for those schools, I would gently push back on the notion that the costs will automatically mean the same in terms of fee rises. Private schools have a range of financial capabilities to absorb some of these costs: reclaiming VAT on supplies and services; drawing on interest from trust funds or assets; considering how the fees for the use of school assets by the wider community can contribute to the overall budget; introducing fee structures or fees for additional specialist support; and joining with schools in neighbouring areas or nationwide to pay for centralised services. They will remain free to determine what to do, but that is necessary in considering business costs.

None of this is new to schools. I have met some of the brilliant leaders in our private school sector. They are not exclusively innovative, but on a personal and character level, I have loved meeting them and those they teach. Bury Grammar in Bury North is one example. However, as someone who served as a state school governor until recently, I have seen at first hand the budgetary pressures enforced on the schools that teach 93% of our children.

Let us take a moment to consider the Conservative party’s time in office and what has brought us to this point. Under its leadership, we saw an atomisation of our school system, zero accountability for multi-academy trusts, the narrowing of the school system, the off-rolling of children with different abilities, and many young people left without the support they need. It presided over a catastrophic financial crisis for local schools and authorities trying to support children with special educational needs, while SEN families have faced immense frustration, misery and often obnoxious bureaucratic barriers. These parents are forced to navigate labyrinthine systems in pursuit of services that they are legally entitled to access but that remain hidden from view under lock and key.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

SEND services are really important to people in my constituency as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not anti independent schools or private schools or the work that they do? He is right when he talks about the whole state sector. Does he agree that this is important?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not anti. We are for the many and the few. Conservative Members want to remain in their comfort zone following their election defeat. We have all been there, but it is the wrong place to be. It is right that people pay VAT on school fees.

I was at a termly governors’ meeting—Opposition Members will like this—when news of the last Government’s bare-minimum teachers’ pay rise came through. There was some welcome surprise that the then Government had done even the bare minimum. That was quickly replaced by the hard-headed financial reality from the business manager. They confirmed to the same meeting that, even with the 3.5% that had been kept in reserve to meet the contribution they were expecting in Bury to make the pay rise, they would face a budget deficit because the teachers would no longer be on strike. That is right—the Tories designed a system where the leaderships of our state schools have to rely on the unfair treatment of our teachers in order to come in under budget. That is the reality that we face, and it is their everyday experience. There have been no maths teachers for year 11s, and the leadership have been weighing up whether to buy in multiple teaching assistants for cover rather than a science teacher for science—if they could find one. There is a huge amount to do, and this measure will only touch on a fraction of the legacy that Labour must clear up from the last Government and their 10 Education Secretaries.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, anger and disappointment that the promises made by the previous Government turned out to be built on sand. The money simply was not there.

The decisions that we are having to take today are not easy. They are not the decisions that I want to make, but we have to put our public finances on a firmer footing. That is essential. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will meet the hon. Gentleman and others affected as soon as possible to talk through the next steps to ensure that all our constituents have the public services, including the hospitals, that they rightly deserve.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The brass neck of Opposition Members is astonishing after what we have heard from the Chancellor today. My residents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield will be so disappointed to hear of the mismanagement over the last 14 years that she has uncovered in the Treasury—it was to be expected, anyway. Does she agree that the now shadow Chancellor should apologise and that, if he will not, he should resign?

[Rachel Reeves]

I find it staggering that in almost two hours in the Chamber, not a single Opposition Member has apologised for the state they left our public finances and public services in. It has fallen on this new Government to address that challenge. We will rise to that, but they should never have been left in this state.