Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is right that the tax adviser registration comes in from May this year—specifically, from 18 May 2026—but registration will be phased in over 2026-27 and tax advisers will have a minimum of three months to register. Most will have more time.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses cover the same topic—anti-avoidance information notices—as the previous ones. Clauses 186 to 190 set out that failing to comply or concealing information is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine. Responsible persons—for example, directors—can be prosecuted if offences occur with their consent or neglect. Clauses 191 to 196 set out the civil penalties that apply for non-compliance. The penalty for failure to comply is up to £5,000 or £300 for financial institutions. For concealing information, the penalty is up to £20,000. For inaccurate information, it is up to £20,000 per inaccuracy, and for breaching disclosure restrictions it is up to £10,000. Daily penalties for ongoing non-compliance will also apply, plus penalties based on moneys received in connection with avoidance schemes. Clauses 197 to 199 set out safeguards, which include reasonable excuse provisions, and double jeopardy protection, which means that no penalty will be incurred if a person is already convicted. Clauses 200 to 202 set out that appeals are allowed against notices and penalties, except where tribunal approval was given. Clauses 203 to 205 provide clarification on various interpretations of terminologies, application of the provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and repeals of existing legislation. I commend clauses 186 to 205 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was just enjoying leafing through the Bill. Opposition Members raise a reasonable point. I want to offer reassurance that HMRC will suspend an adviser only after due process has been followed, including offering opportunities to comply and a chance for the adviser to explain if there is a good reason why they are unable to do so. I think that is reasonable and proportionate. We also need to ensure, as I said earlier, that we have a floor in the system, so that those who do not meet the standards—and who breach them in a serious way—are unable to remain registered, and, as we shall discuss later, are not able to continue to interact with HMRC. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned the ICAEW’s views on the topic. I have been engaging with the ICAEW, and my officials have also had meetings with it over the course of many months. We have come forward with a Bill that we think is proportionate and gets the balance right. I look forward to continuing to engage with the ICAEW in the months ahead.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 242 to 246 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May 2026. We have been debating a number of similar clauses, and this is the final group concerning tax adviser registration. Overall, the measures will help businesses and individuals access more reliable advice and reduce opportunities for non-compliance.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for North West Norfolk will be glad to know that I plan to make a lengthy speech on this group, because it is particularly important that I set out the points the Government wish to make. I have been engaging in detail with stakeholders on the changes we are making, because it is important that legitimate and good tax advisers see that the Government have confidence in them and the work they are doing. [Carolyn Harris in the Chair ] Clauses 220 to 229 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May 2026. They set out requirements to register, registration conditions, definitions of tax advice and how the process for approval of registration application will work. Anyone paid to interact with HMRC on behalf of clients—for example, by submitting tax returns or other information to HMRC—will fall within scope of the requirement to register. Businesses and individuals who will be required to register come from a variety of professions, including chartered accountants, bookkeepers, payroll specialists and conveyancers who interact on behalf of taxpayers for stamp duty land tax. The requirement also applies to tax advisers based overseas who interact with HMRC on behalf of UK taxpayers. That is not the same as regulating tax advice. HMRC will not review the quality of the advice provided, qualifications or professional conduct. Instead, the measures are specifically about stopping harmful tax advisers who do not meet the basic minimum standards. At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm that they will meet HMRC’s standards for agents. The measures do not give HMRC new powers to investigate whether applicants breach the standard for agents, and registration would not be suspended if a minor breach is discovered. As part of the registration process, HMRC will also verify that tax advisers and relevant individuals do not have any outstanding tax liabilities before permitting registration. That ensures that those who assist taxpayers with their tax affairs are themselves compliant and up to date. Clause 222 sets out the information required in an application to become registered with HMRC, including the name and address of the tax adviser. For organisations, it includes the name of each tax adviser’s relevant individuals, who will be required to undergo registration checks. Clause 223 defines how registration checks will also be applied to individuals and organisations. It focuses on those who play significant roles in decision making in an organisation’s tax advice operations. Clauses 224 to 226 establish registration conditions. At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm that they understand and will meet HMRC’s standards for agents.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One of the challenges here is that asking the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s record on living standards is like asking the thief to scrutinise the workings of the CCTV—it does not make any sense. Their record was appalling: under the previous Government, we saw the deepest squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record, with living standards actually falling on their watch. We are seeing living standards rise in this Parliament. In the first year of this Government, wages increased faster than they did in the whole first 10 years under the Conservatives. We are seeing interest rates fall, because of the stability that this Bill and others have brought back to the economy, and we are making sure we get borrowing on a downward trajectory. The Government also publish distributional analysis—alongside their infamous TIINs. I therefore reject the new clause.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 241 sets out the details of reviews and appeals in relation to tax adviser registration. It introduces schedule 20, which contains details of reviews and appeals. The schedule details that a person will be offered an internal review and may appeal to the tribunal for certain decisions about their registration.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I respectfully disagree. The Government are not seeking to regulate tax advisers. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that we will not review the quality of advice provided, but we also will not be stepping in to certify qualifications or professional conduct more broadly. The Government have been listening to and engaging with the sector on these measures in recent months—indeed, I believe, over a long period—to make sure minimum standards are set out in the standards for agents. We want to ensure that there is a floor within the system so that agents meet minimum standards. That is important so that those who assist taxpayers with their tax affairs are themselves compliant. Clauses 224 to 226 establish registration conditions. At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm they understand and will meet HMRC’s standards for agents. Currently, if HMRC concludes that an adviser has significantly breached the standards for agents, it can refuse to interact with that adviser. In line with that, as a result of these clauses, a serious breach would result in the adviser’s registration being suspended—that is not the case for a minor breach. As part of the registration process, HMRC will also verify that tax advisers and relevant individuals do not have any outstanding tax liabilities before permitting registration. Clause 227 sets out the process for approval of registration applications and how tax advisers will be notified. Clause 228 allows HMRC to request information from registered tax advisers to monitor their compliance with the requirements. Clause 229 sets out that HMRC may, by notice, suspend the registration of a registered tax adviser if it is not satisfied that the adviser meets the registration conditions. To ensure powers and sanctions are targeted appropriately, the legislation includes robust safeguards that must be applied to any decision on whether to suspend registration, including the right to appeal to a tribunal. HMRC will suspend a tax adviser only after due process, including offering opportunities to comply and a chance for the adviser to explain whether there is a good reason why they are unable to do so. HMRC will not use these powers for minor breaches. Government amendments 16 to 19, 39 and 40 are simple amendments to correct the drafting and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The legislation allows HMRC to suspend advisers for 12 months when they have been sanctioned for anti-avoidance infractions, and it allows the suspension of advisers who have been issued with penalties under two information-gathering regimes. Following discussions with stakeholders, the Government have concluded that it is not proportionate to treat non-compliance with these regimes differently from non-compliance with other information-gathering regimes. I therefore commend clauses 220 to 229, schedule 19 and Government amendments 16 to 19, 39 and 40 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The difference between sanctionable conduct and dishonest conduct is an important question. The Bill updates the definition of the conduct that is in scope of these powers, and I think it does so in a way that provides more certainty and clarity, because instead of having to prove dishonesty, which is challenging, HMRC will now simply need to demonstrate—granted, it is not simple to do so—that an adviser has acted with the intention to cause a tax loss. The Government believe that the change will make the powers more straightforward to use, while still ensuring that they are targeted only at bad actors. Objective dishonesty is quite challenging to prove. It is worth repeating that any penalties issued by HMRC will always be appealable to the independent tax tribunal, which I look forward to writing to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot about in due course. The shadow City Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked about the engagement that we had before the Budget. We have had engagement with the ICAEW and others, at official and ministerial levels, on these clauses and others that we have been debating over the last half an hour or so. I will continue to engage with those stakeholders, which are an important part of the tax and advice ecosystem and provide strong representation on behalf of their members. As I have already said, I thank them and their members for their work in supporting people to get their tax right and to comply with the tax code, which, as the hon. Member mentioned earlier, is on the long side. The Government will keep doing all they can to simplify and improve our tax code. All of the people working in the sector support growth and productivity and the good functioning of the UK economy, and I commend them for it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 247 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 21 Conduct of tax advisers Amendment made: 25, in schedule 21, page 514, line 38, at end insert— “(aa) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘individual’ substitute ‘person’;”.— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment corrects a missed consequential amendment. Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to . Clauses 248 to 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 251 Fiscal mandate assessments prepared by the Office for Budget Responsibility Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses introduce new powers for HMRC to issue anti-avoidance information notices. The measures are designed to strengthen HMRC’s ability to tackle the persistent problem of tax avoidance by promoters who exploit loopholes and hide behind complex structures. Clauses 174 and 175 define key terms such as “connected person” and list the anti-avoidance enactments that the powers set out in these clauses support. Clauses 176 to 180 empower HMRC to issue information notices to connected persons suspected of involvement, third parties holding relevant information and financial institutions to access banking data, subject to tribunal approval.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One of my favourite things is checking and monitoring the targets that are set out for HMRC. I know that parliamentarians on both sides of the House like to write to the Minister with responsibility for HMRC to receive updates on our progress on meeting our targets. I am glad that our call wait times have decreased recently, and that we are doing more to have a higher share of digital interactions. On the shadow Minister’s point about the change coming in relatively soon, that is why it is really important to get the guidance published very soon, and I will be working with officials on that. It will be published in the coming weeks, to give advisers time to prepare. More broadly, it is worth noting that HMRC, alongside what is detailed in the Bill, has a public law duty to be reasonable in the way that it engages with individuals, and it will of course adhere to that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 220 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 19 agreed to. Clauses 221 to 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 225 Registration conditions: interpretation Amendments made: 16, in clause 225, page 211, line 24, leave out “an amount within paragraph (a) or (b)” and insert “a tax payable to HMRC or to national insurance contributions”. This amendment corrects an inconsistency. Amendment 17, in clause 225, page 211, line 26, leave out “including a relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18. Amendment 18, in clause 225, page 211, line 27, at end insert— “(da) a civil penalty (not within paragraph (d)) relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under any enactment relating to tax;”. This amendment provides that a civil penalty relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under a tax enactment (such as an obligation in the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions) falls within the definition of “relevant amount” for the purposes of clauses 224 and 225. Amendment 19, in clause 225, page 211, line 28, leave out “(d)” and insert “(da)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18. Amendment 39, in clause 225, page 212, line 22, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Amendment 40, in clause 225, page 212, line 28, leave out paragraph (d).— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (VAT and other indirect taxes) provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Clause 225, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 226 to 229 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 230 Compliance notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, for his engagement and diligence throughout the Committee’s six sittings in scrutinising the Government on this topic, and a whole range of others. I also thank the shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for doing the same. We have referred on a number of occasions to the tax information and impact notes. I do not know whether hon. Members have read any of those yet, but I signed every single one off in advance of the Budget, in one of the highlights of my professional career. I can let the Committee know that if TIINs do one thing, it is to detail the additional administrative burden and the costs—not the direct costs, but the indirect ones—associated with tax changes. A sum for the combined impact of the changes across the TIINs is not at my disposal, but I may have a look and seek out the shadow Exchequer Secretary to pass on such a figure in the voting Lobby—or, as I do not expect that we will be in the same voting Lobby any time soon, adjacent to the voting Lobby. To wrap up, as well as thanking Opposition spokespeople, let me thank all members of the Bill Committee as we come to an end. I thank them for their engagement and for saving me at various moments, when I seemed to lose the ability to speak, as all I could see was a vision of me and the shadow Minister on a bumper car on Valentine’s day. This is a significant Bill. It is a Bill that helps the Government to make progress with their priorities in the funding of public services, which is something that the Government were elected to do after public services were left in a state of disrepair in many ways at early 2024. We are making progress with things like waiting lists falling, and we are continuing to invest in our schools and our police. Rather than being distracted by update clauses—such updates would be required under the new clause—when we already have the tax information and impact notes, this Government will get on with the job of turning our country around for the good of the British people.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be really clear: in this Parliament, we are going to see living standards rise, and we are going to do all we can to beat the forecast that the OBR set out. We beat the economic growth forecast last year by 50%. We know the record of the Conservative party: when it was in power, living standards fell over five years—the worst squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I fully recognise the intention behind these proposals. Members on both sides of the Committee are rightly focused on how tax changes affect businesses of all sizes, across the economy and across the country. We need to make sure that we provide certainty and stability for businesses, which is what we are doing with our corporate tax road map. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary foreshadowed, however, we also need to make sure that we can raise revenue in a sustainable way to fund our public services, get borrowing down—as we do every year in this forecast—and make sure that the Government can hit our fiscal rules. As a result of some of the measures in the Bill, we intend on doing that with a headroom that is more than double what it was at the 2024 Budget. The Government recognise that it is vital to understand how tax measures impact businesses. We publish tax information and impact notes, which set out the impacts on the Exchequer, individuals, households, businesses and civil society organisations, looking particularly at the administrative and compliance burdens. We will continue to monitor this closely; we keep all of our tax policies under review. Given the existing processes and publications, the Government’s view is that these new clauses would largely duplicate work that is already undertaken and add unnecessary reporting burdens and costs. New clauses 33 and 35 should therefore be rejected as they are not needed to ensure a proper assessment of the impacts on businesses.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 182(2) sets out: “A requirement under subsection (1)(d) may not prohibit disclosure for, or in connection with, the purpose of— (a) complying with the notice, or (b) seeking legal advice.” It is the Government’s view that that provides sufficient scope for the recipient to be able to disclose information for legal advice, in line with the points that the shadow City Minister makes. I am of course happy to consider his recommendations. However, I do not want to disappoint him. I do not expect that the Government will introduce an amendment to the clause, because we think that the clause is already sufficient. Nevertheless, I will take away the points that he has made and consider them in my heart. Question put and agreed to. Clause 174 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 175 to 185 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 186 Offence of failing to comply with a notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 230 to 237 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May, as was just mentioned. The clauses set out further details of how prohibited interaction with HMRC will be treated and potential financial penalties, and include robust safeguards that must be applied to any decision. HMRC will always work with a tax adviser who is genuinely trying to comply, will never suspend a tax adviser when doing so would be unreasonable or disproportionate, and will always consider the nature of any potential breach and how a suspension would impact the tax adviser and their clients. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The tribunal will be independent to the extent that those officers who made decisions and any determinations about the matter will not be involved in the tribunal. I think that would be right. The tribunal will include decisions of an officer of HMRC in respect of approving or suspending the person’s registration and the issuing of sanctions for prohibited interaction with HMRC. Schedule 20 also sets out how a tax adviser may seek temporary relief, which delays the application of a sanction while there is an appeal or it is subject to review. HMRC will always grant temporary relief when the suspension is just due to late tax returns or payments, and will always consider whether not granting relief would put a business at risk of failing before it had been able to appeal. I therefore commend clause 241 and schedule 20 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 274 gives the Government the power to make regulations to enable testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge. As part of the changes under the stamp taxes on shares modernisation project, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax will be replaced by the securities transfer charge. This will change stamp duty from being a manually reported and processed HMRC-assessed tax, to a self-assessed and digitally reported tax. HMRC is developing a new digital service for the securities transfer charge, which will reduce processing times from around three weeks, as is currently the case, to near real time. To ensure that the new digital service functions as intended it will need to be tested. The changes made by clause 274 will allow regulations to be made that enable the testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge as part of the ongoing work to modernise the stamp taxes on shares framework. The regulations will allow returns involved in the testing to be self-assessed and digitally reported to HMRC. This change will affect only those involved in the buying and selling of securities who accept an invitation to be part of the testing process. Clause 275 enables HMRC to enter into an agreement with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to provide independent oversight of enforcement activities of HMRC officers within Northern Ireland in relation to tax. Unlike other parts of the UK, there is currently no external, independent oversight of HMRC enforcement activities in Northern Ireland; the clause will accordingly change that. Clause 276 repeals section 25 of the Finance Act 1925, which taxed the trading income of overseas dominion Governments and is now obsolete. Clause 277 provides for the repeal of further obsolete provisions and corrects wrong cross-references. Finally, clause 278 sets out the legal interpretation and clause 279 sets out the Bill’s legal short title in the usual manner. I commend clauses 274 to 279 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow City Minister is right to raise that important point on this and other issues in this space. It is important that businesses that are acting legitimately and seeking to build the future of this country by engaging with construction contractors and subcontractors are not unduly burdened by changes we make to improve the effectiveness of this scheme and minimise fraud, which sadly persists in the construction sector. The Government’s view is that compliant businesses should not be affected by these changes, as they will already be undertaking the due diligence necessary to prevent them from engaging with fraudulent businesses. These changes are focused on tackling supply chain fraud, which relies on businesses entering into transactions they know are connected to fraudulent behaviour or where there is no reasonable explanation for the transaction, other than it being connected to fraud. Question put and agreed to. Clause 217 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 218 and 219 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 220 Prohibition against unregistered tax advisers interacting with HMRC Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is right to encourage the Government, HMRC and Ministers to ensure that we get our policy right, and that we do not overreach. That is why we have engaged really carefully on this matter. We published a consultation back in October 2024, where we heard from stakeholders that there was actually strong support for some form of mandatory registration, and a view that it could enhance the security of tax adviser services and deter bad actors. We published a policy paper in July 2025, which we received 40 responses to, and we have had lots of feedback from other stakeholders as well. We will keep the policy under review. I will continue to engage with the ICAEW and other important voices and actors in the sector. We want to see a thriving and growing accountancy and tax advice market in the UK. Financial services and legal and professional services are a key part of our growth strategy and our ability to increase productivity and improve living standards for people across the country.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 217 to 219 make changes to tackle fraud in the construction industry scheme and support the Government’s objective of closing the tax gap, tackling non-compliance and making the tax system fairer. The construction industry scheme is a revenue protection scheme introduced in 1971 to tackle non-compliance in the construction sector, which has a large proportion of mobile workers. The scheme collects approximately £9 billion of deductions each year. Recent reforms are helping HMRC to tackle fraud and non-compliance within the scheme. However, serious non-compliance, including sophisticated fraud by criminals, continues to develop and remains a significant risk. A core feature of the scheme is that contractors must make deductions on payments to subcontractors and pay the amount withheld to HMRC, in a similar way to an employer. However, subcontractors that apply for and obtain gross payment status can receive payments from their contractor’s gross; that is, with no deduction on account of tax by the contractor. Gross payment status is seen as the gold standard in the construction industry, with many large clients and contractors engaging only with subcontractors that hold it. HMRC’s impact on supply chain fraud has been limited by businesses within supply chains that hold gross payment status knowingly acting as buffers between compliant businesses and fraudulent businesses that steal workers’ deductions. The changes introduced today aim to have a lasting and positive impact on supply chain fraud. They allow HMRC to disrupt this model and will deter businesses from engaging with fraudulent businesses or turning a blind eye when there are clear signs of fraud. The changes will also tackle an emerging fraud model that uses construction industry scheme credits to reduce pay-as-you-earn liabilities and create repayments. These clauses protect the Exchequer from serious non-compliance, prevent large sums of money from going to organised criminal gangs and create a level playing field for those operating in the construction industry. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 247 to 250 and schedule 21 make changes that will ensure that HMRC can take effective action against tax advisers who intentionally seek to facilitate non-compliance in the tax affairs of their clients. The clauses also introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest to do so. Clause 247 makes amendments to schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012, which introduced powers for HMRC to gather information and sanction dishonest tax advisers. It is the Government’s view that those powers need to be strengthened. For example, the maximum penalty amount of £50,000 is a poor deterrent for rogue advisers who intentionally facilitate millions of pounds of tax loss. HMRC needs stronger and more effective powers to crack down on the small minority of bad tax advisers who cause such harm to the tax system. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 will give HMRC those stronger powers. They impose a more effective regime for HMRC to gather information from tax advisers suspected of wrongdoing and to issue penalties where appropriate. At the same time—and I know hon. Members take an interest in this—there are robust safeguards, including appeal rights, and they are being maintained to ensure the powers are applied fairly and proportionately. Importantly, the powers will apply only to tax advisers who act with the intention of bringing about a loss of tax revenue, such as those who knowingly claim a tax repayment for a client who is not entitled to it or advise a client to deliberately enter incorrect figures on a tax return. This is, rightly, still a high threshold. The powers will not affect advisers who act in good faith, or who take a credible view as to what the law requires of their clients, including where they use extra-statutory concessions or HMRC guidance to form that view. They also do not affect advisers who make mistakes while trying, as the vast majority do, to do the right thing. Where HMRC have reasonable grounds to suspect a tax adviser has intentionally sought to cause a tax loss, the clause gives HMRC the power to gather information about the tax adviser’s advice to their clients. Amendment 25 is a simple amendment to correct an error in the drafting and to ensure the legislation works as intended. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 include expanding the definition of “tax adviser” in schedule 38 to cover not only individuals but companies as well. This reflects the nature of the tax-advice market in 2026. The expanded definition is achieved by replacing references to an “individual” in schedule 38 with references to a “person”. However, there is only one reference to an “individual” in schedule 38, which the Bill, as drafted, does not change. This is the result of a drafting oversight, which this amendment will correct. I will now turn to clauses 248 to 250, which introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest do so. The changes made by these clauses provide HMRC with a lawful basis for publishing the details of tax advisers who have been sanctioned for conduct-related reasons. They are in addition to the publication power in clause 247, which requires information about financial penalties to be published. Additionally, the new publication power will enable taxpayers to make more informed choices when selecting a tax adviser to represent them. Taxpayers will be made aware of which advisers face restrictions when interacting with HMRC, which will help to increase transparency and trust. It will also act as a deterrent against poor behaviour by tax advisers. I thank all the stakeholders from the tax profession who have engaged with us closely on this matter in recent months—it is greatly appreciated.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 213 to 216 make changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—and the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes for VAT and other indirect taxes regimes. The clauses grant HMRC the authority to assess penalties directly, rather than requiring an application to the tax tribunal for determination. At present, HMRC must apply to the tribunal to determine penalties where failures in either regime have occurred. That is slowing down the process of assessing and issuing penalties, which are therefore not providing as much of a deterrent to promoters as they could. The mechanism for determining penalties is out of date in comparison with other HMRC powers under other regimes. Additionally, DOTAS regimes currently allow HMRC to publish only certain information for 12 months. Again, that is out of step with HMRC’s other publishing powers, which permit information to be published for as long as appropriate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 213 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 214 to 216 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 217 Construction industry scheme: amendments

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 238 to 240 set out that when a person becomes liable to a penalty, HMRC must assess the penalty and notify the person. The notice will set out the details of the penalty, why they have received it and how they may appeal, ensuring that tax advisers have a clear path to compliance. Before issuing a penalty, the authorised officer must allow the person a period of 30 days to make representations to HMRC. The clauses also place limits on how long HMRC may delay before applying a penalty, so that no tax adviser will receive a penalty after an unreasonable delay. Question put and agreed to. Clause 238 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 239 and 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 241 Reviews and appeals Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. We will reasonably consider a whole range of points that have been raised. It is right that senior professionals who interact with HMRC on behalf of taxpayers have their own tax affairs up to date. HMRC expects that of every taxpayer. That expectation is set out in industry standards and HMRC’s standards for agents. On the point around our timelines and HMRC being prompt and efficient in its dealings—the shadow Minister raised the point around standards and responsiveness earlier—I am happy to take those points away and come back to him on if there is more detail that I can provide. Question put and agreed to. Clause 230 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 231 to 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 238 Assessment of financial penalties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.