Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 94 will make changes such that the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement threshold is increased to £50,000 for zero emission cars, from its current level of £40,000. This change will take effect from 1 April 2026 and will apply to zero emission vehicles first registered on or after 1 April 2025 for tax renewals from April 2026. The expensive car supplement is a supplement to VED payable by vehicle keepers for five years, from years two to six following a car’s first registration. The rate is currently £425 a year; that will increase to £440 from 1 April 2026, in line with RPI, and is charged in addition to the standard rate of VED. The additional charge was, I believe, originally introduced in 2017 under a previous Government so that those who can afford the most expensive cars pay more than the standard rate paid by other drivers. Clause 94 will increase the threshold for zero emission cars from £40,000 to £50,000. This measure is projected to benefit over half a million drivers of zero emission vehicles over the next five years. It will also incentivise electric vehicle take-up. Increasing numbers of motorists will benefit in future years as the zero emission vehicle population grows. New clause 19 “would require the Chancellor…to report on the impact of section 94 on the automotive sector” and on other issues. As is usual practice, a tax information and impact note was published at the Budget, outlining the anticipated impacts of this measure as well as the expected revenue impacts of the change. The Government remain fully committed to the EV transition, which will drive economic growth, help the country meet its climate change obligations and improve air quality. By increasing the ECS threshold to £50,000 for zero emission vehicles, clause 94 supports those goals.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 110, page 134, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) In consequence of the amendments made by the preceding subsections, in section 189 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in subsections (3)(b)(ii) and (11) (which operate by reference to provisions amended by this section), for ‘large or very large’ substitute ‘in any of bands B to D’.” This amendment makes a consequential amendment as a result of the new bands.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the shadow Minister’s question, the Government do consider the impact of each individual tax measure on businesses and consumers in the round with the others, at Budgets and in between them too. As a result, we have concluded that this is the right and proportionate way forward, to protect revenue and make sure that we can increase revenue in line with inflation, rather than beyond it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 90 Vehicle excise duty for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to tell the shadow Minister that this matter is not being legislated for in this Finance Bill; it will be for next year’s Finance Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 99 Rate of aggregates levy Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Our approach to uprating taxes is plain to see for all the different approaches that we have taken. The Government set out their position on fuel duty, for example, and we have discussed many upratings today in Committee. The Government’s judgment in this specific circumstance was that uprating in line with inflation, as in previous years, was an appropriate step to take to protect the real-terms value of the SDIL and to maintain incentives for manufacturers over time. The Government are happy to stand by that position, although of course it is well within the rights of the Opposition to take a different approach. Question put and agreed to . Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 106 Amendment of customs tariff power Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Of course there will be companies that will list under the current tax regime, and changing the tax would lead to lower revenues for the companies that would have listed anyway. We have to look at both sides of the coin. [ Interruption . ]

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As with other measures that have been debated this week, for example on business rates, it seems that the Conservatives were just getting around to reform on the issue. Now they are in opposition, they seem to have developed a significant zeal for reform and tax cutting that they did not show at all when they were in government—for example, leaving business rates unreformed, as well as leaving this measure totally unreformed.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Opposition Members for their contributions and for welcoming the Government’s decision on this matter at the Budget. I find it a bit tiresome that the Conservatives, when we consult, accuse us of consulting, and when we do not, accuse us of not consulting. It is right and proper, where possible, for the Government to engage with industry on proposals and then come forward with good policy outcomes. I am glad that there has been acknowledgment across the Committee that we have listened, engaged and come forward with proposals that are proportionate.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On competitiveness, the Government of course do not place any additional burdens on businesses lightly, but reducing economic crime helps the good functioning of the UK economy and our competitiveness, so we think that this is a proportionate change. The shadow Minister is right to identify that there are significant changes in band C. Previously, businesses with revenue of £500 million paid only 0.007% of their UK revenue, while those with revenues of, for example, £36 million paid 0.1%. That was a significant imbalance. This change seeks to address that disparity by aligning contributions more closely with revenue size so that contributions are proportionate to revenue—more proportionate, but still bands over the broad swathe of business size. This is to make contributions fairer and more consistent, and it will ensure that larger businesses contribute proportionately to the overall funding requirement. Amendment 12 agreed to . Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 111 Removal of time limit to claim relief under section 106(3) of FA 2013 Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One thing to note about Labour Back Benchers is that they are on the Government Benches, making changes for their constituents. They are supporting the work of this Government to improve living standards for people up and down the country, to ensure economic stability and to bring down interest rates. They are doing the right thing by their constituents.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, Mrs Harris. I respect your judgment and authority in such matters. As I said, the Government carefully considered the scope of the relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are vital in establishing longer-term liquidity, the most important period coming right at the start. The benefits of extending the relief significantly beyond that period, in our judgment, would not represent value for money for the taxpayer.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his romantic invitation to King’s Lynn; I may be otherwise engaged on that date, but I thank him for it all the same. I am interested to see whether any Members wish to intervene to say whether they will be taking up the invitation, but it is good to hear that he is an active constituency MP. We do, of course, look at measures in the round, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk implored me to. We did so ahead of the Budget, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on tax policy in the run-up to the Budget at the end of the year. We are providing stability this year for the private sector and for individuals by moving away from the relatively chaotic approach under the previous Government of having multiple tax events with big swings and roundabouts twice a year, so future tax changes will not come until the end of the year, but that will give me more time to consider things in the round.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to report to the Committee that when the Chancellor and I made the decision to increase the threshold ahead of the Budget, I was not aware of the representations that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk had made in last year’s Finance Bill Committee. If I am still in my role in the run-up to the Budget later in the year, of course I will bear in mind everything he has said today. I have already taken some notes that I will take back with me. The hon. Member is right to note the important role that hybrid vehicles play in the transition. Ultimately, however, to move towards our goal of net zero by 2050, we need to move to a fully clean vehicle fleet over the coming decades, so we want to particularly encourage fully electric vehicles. We will keep this measure under review; it is important that we do so. This has been an ask of the car manufacturers here in the UK that we want to support. I take the points from the hon. Member for Maidenhead about making sure that consumers can buy vehicles that are produced here in Britain. I hope that a change such as this, which shows the Government’s intent to support the electric vehicle transition, will be a consideration for vehicle manufacturers as they choose where to produce new EV cars in the years to come. Along with other measures that we set out in the Budget, this shows our intention to work alongside the industry to support that transition. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised a point about how high the supplement is. He said that many constituents in rural Norfolk, but also in north London, will find it very challenging to afford to buy a new car that costs between £40,000 and £50,000. That is true in lots of parts of the country, but as I am sure he is aware, it is important that we seek to encourage those who can afford such a car to do so, because they will then sell their cars on at a cheaper value that people may be able to afford. It supports the general health of the car market overall if we can increase the affordability of these—granted—relatively expensive vehicles. That is why the Government have brought forward this change: to support the transition and to reduce the cost of purchasing new vehicles within the £40,000 to £50,000 bracket. Question put and agreed to. Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is right that high energy costs are one of the big challenges facing industry and consumers. The Government are doing all we can to accelerate the roll-out of clean power. That includes nuclear power, which as a country we have not invested in for way too long, and we desperately need more of that firm baseload power. We also need more intermittent clean power through wind and solar. We cannot turn things around overnight, but in time, I hope and expect that these interventions will lead to lower bills for both businesses and consumers. However, I would be the first to say there is much more to do on this, given the high energy costs and surging inflation we inherited from the previous Government, particularly after 2022. Question put and agreed to. Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 98 Rates of landfill tax

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Local authorities have usual and long-standing mechanisms for handling their VAT liabilities, including reclaiming the VAT where permissible. I hope that I have responded with sufficient thoroughness to the points that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge that amendment 42 be withdrawn and new clause 14 be rejected.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead is aware of the answer to the written parliamentary question. I have also responded in writing to Members who have written to me about this issue, and the rationale has been set out in that correspondence. Question put and agreed to. Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82 UK listing relief Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 90 to 93 will make changes to the vehicle excise duty rates for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units, the cab of an articulated lorry, rigid goods vehicles with trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. Clause 95 will make changes to uprate the heavy goods vehicle—HGV—levy. The registered keeper of a vehicle is responsible for paying VED. The rates depend on the vehicle’s revenue weight, axle configuration and Euro emissions status. The HGV levy is payable for both UK and foreign HGVs using UK roads. A reformed HGV levy was introduced in August 2023, which varies according to the vehicle’s weight and Euro emissions status. New clause 18 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House—in a similar way, I believe, to new clause 17 that we just discussed—on the increases to HGV vehicle excise duty under clauses 90 to 93, and the HGV road user levy under clause 95. Similarly, given that the uprating is in line with inflation and that rates will remain unchanged in real terms for vehicle owners, it is the Government’s view that the new clause is not therefore necessary, and I urge the Committee to reject it.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The refining fire of a consultation process is something that I am happy to stand behind. On the shadow Minister’s important point about the decision to remove the dredging exemption, I have received correspondence from the sector on the issue and will continue to engage with it. The change is not scored in the Budget. To be very clear, it was not made with the express intention of raising revenue; the Government’s judgment, after consultation, was that it would get the balance right between supporting the circular economy and encouraging more environmentally friendly ways of carrying out the activity. I want to continue to engage sincerely with the sector, so I will be responding to the correspondence I have received. I am sure that we will continue to engage.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 105 legislates for the new rates of the soft drinks industry levy to apply from 1 April 2026. It amends section 36(1) of the Finance Act 2017 to reflect the new rates of the levy to apply from 1 April 2026. Those rates are £2.08 and £2.78 per 10 litres of prepared drink, for the lower and higher bands respectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are confident that the exclusion drafted in the Bill is carefully targeted and will not have unintended implications by limiting the activities of legitimate tour operators. It is right to make this change, which will raise £700 million of tax revenue that the Government believe should already be being paid. It will be a vital contribution to the public finances.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government will consider all tax measures in the round in the usual way in the run-up to the Budget. It would not be right for me to speculate on what will or will not be in the Budget; it is a long way away, and there is much to consider in the meantime. Conservative Members decided to bring up inflation, which hit 11% under them in 2022, pushing up prices for everyone up and down the country, leaving businesses and consumers significantly worse off in the worst Parliament on record for living standards.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not expect that the changes will result in significant cost changes. How ports that currently benefit from the inland border facilities choose to recover any costs is a commercial matter. It is worth noting that the ports have benefited from significant public investment that has already been made in the development and operation of inland border facilities since we left the EU. Question put and agreed to. Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 110 Increases to rates of levy

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 109 amends sections 20 and 20A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to update HMRC’s existing powers to require all ports to provide and fund customs infrastructure. Customs infrastructure is essential to protecting the UK by ensuring that risk-based checks on goods entering and leaving the country can take place. Provision of that infrastructure by ports is a long-standing requirement. When we left the EU, the Government funded and operated customs infrastructure at inland border facilities for ports that do not have enough space for this infrastructure within the port itself. Only two inland border facilities remain: Sevington inland border facility in Kent and Holyhead inland border facility in Wales. As confirmed in the border target operating model in autumn 2023, Government provision of these inland border facilities was always intended to be temporary. Clause 109 would, first, require the small number of ports assessed as having insufficient space on site for customs infrastructure to provide equivalent infrastructure at an offsite location, which must be approved by HMRC. Secondly, all ports will now be responsible for providing and funding the customs infrastructure required for border checks on goods. This levels the playing field between ports, bringing all ports into line with the long-standing model. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the question asked by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and implied in the specific question about HS2 impacts from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, the key thing is that the aggregates levy provides a price incentive to use more recycled aggregate, which we would all support, rather than virgin aggregate. Increasing the aggregates levy rate in line with inflation will ensure that the value of that price incentive does not fall in real terms. It is important for administrative reasons and for our ability to collect tax without undue complexity that, even where services are provided ultimately for the benefit of the public sector, the taxes apply in a uniform way. It would become more complicated than it would be worth to apply the tax differently to parts of different industries, or to different contracts, depending on whether they were being used for HS2 or something else. Question put and agreed to. Clause 99 accordingly order ed to stand part of the Bill. Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 23 Aggregates levy: amendments relating to disapplication of levy to Scotland Amendments made: 27, in schedule 23, page 535, line 22, after “from” insert “premises in”. This amendment together with Amendments 28 and 26 revises the inserted sub-paragraph (za) of regulation 13(2) of SI 2002/761 to accommodate expected changes to provisions of the law relating to Scottish aggregates tax. Amendment 28, in schedule 23, page 535, line 23, after “Ireland” insert “operated or used by a person registered under section 24 of the Act for any purpose specified in subsection (6) of that section”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27. Amendment 26, in schedule 23, page 535, line 24, leave out from “waters” to end of line 25.— (Dan Tomlinson.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27. Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to. Ordered, That Schedule 23 be transferred to the end of line 5 on page 468.— ( Dan Tomlinson.) Clause 101 Rate of plastic packaging tax Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are doing a lot to continue supporting the UK’s vibrant capital markets. We have some of the deepest capital markets globally. We have, for example, changed UK listing rules to bring the UK into line with international best practice. We are also changing and improving the prospectus regime, significantly cutting the amount of paperwork that a firm needs to produce while providing better and more relevant information to investors. We are taking a range of actions to support our capital markets and to support firms to list here. We have seen some good progress in recent months, with more companies choosing to list in the UK, and I hope and expect that we will see more of that soon. Question put and agreed to. Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 87 Rates of duty effective from 6pm on 26 November 2025 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.