Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s debate is progressing rapidly—so rapidly, in fact, that I am yet to turn to the speech in my folder. It is a privilege to close this rapid debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank Members for their contributions, as well as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for opening the Government’s arguments. She was right to point out that the conflict in the middle east has imposed additional costs on the British people, which is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been careful throughout the conflict—from the beginning, when other parties took a different approach—to tread carefully, be cautious and not rush to entangle ourselves in a foreign conflict, risking national security and potentially further harming our economic security. The measures we are considering are an example of how the Government have responded in a proactive and positive way to the impact of the conflict in the middle east on households, families and businesses. Reasonable people can disagree about how the Government could have best responded to the conflict as it played out. It is this Government’s judgment that we have taken the right approach to ensure that we support those families and businesses that most need it. We have been there for them with the changes in this Bill and others—either already passed or making their way through the House via instruments of some form—such as continuing the freeze in fuel duty. We wanted to ensure that our response was proportionate and targeted so that we could continue on the path that this Government have set out to bring down the deficit and bring down borrowing sustainably over the course of this Parliament. This year, for the first time since the 2000s, we have a lower deficit than the G7 average—something that the Conservatives never managed to achieve, despite all their talk about wanting to manage the public finances well. I will not run through the measures in detail, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already done so. Instead, I will take the chance to respond to the questions asked by Opposition spokespeople. I can confirm that the consultation on the electricity generator levy will come before the end of this year. It is being worked on at the moment by officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We will ensure that we consult on this at the end of the year. Questions such as auction allocation and details of the way the wholesale contracts for difference will work will, I am sure, be raised in the consultation or elsewhere in engagement.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. If prices are slightly above the threshold set in the electricity generator levy, as they are at the moment, I believe, those taxes will be due now, from 1 July, whether or not businesses make decisions down the line after the consultation, after engagement and after the detail of the wholesale contract for difference policy has been set out by the DESNZ Secretary of State. Both the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked how much revenue will be raised by this and other measures. It is a good tradition—a tradition set in place, in fact, by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—that the Office for Budget Responsibility set out the costings of policy decisions when they are made. That is important. This Government and this Chancellor have been keen to protect the independence and integrity of the OBR, rather than throwing it under the bus and causing market turmoil, as Liz Truss did. At the Budget later this year, the OBR will, in the usual way, confirm the costings of the changes announced by the Chancellor and included in the Bill. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that the costings the OBR put out initially on the EGL ended up being very different from the revenue that it has pulled in. That is why it is right that we have an independent forecaster, so that even if things materialise differently than was forecast, we have forecasts that are robust to the information at the time and can be relied on by all. The hon. Gentleman questions whether the Government have provided sufficient support more broadly. I would just mention that we have taken the decision to extend the fuel duty freeze. Going into the general election, the previous Government’s plan, as set out by the OBR, which we have already talked about, was for fuel duty to continue to rise and for the 5p cut to unwind. I believe that motorists would be paying a further 11p of fuel duty if it was not for their choice in 2024 to elect a Labour Government and not go ahead with the plans that the Conservatives set out. A couple more points have been raised. The shadow Minister mentions a review of indexation. We will, of course, keep the mileage rates under review. The Chancellor announced a few weeks back that we will have a review. We have somewhat pre-empted that with this 10p increase, because we wanted to respond to the conflict in the middle east and the impact on households, but that review is still ongoing and will report if further changes are to be made to the policy at the Budget. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made the important point that many care workers and people who drive for work may be working for an employer who does not provide a mileage rate. It is not compulsory for employers to set the rate at the HMRC rates. We have increased rates from 45p per mile to 55p per mile up to 10,000 miles, and I encourage employers across the country to adopt that higher rate. For employees who work for an employer who does not do so or who persists in having a significantly lower rate, as I am aware that some do, it is possible to claim back marginal tax up to that amount, so 55p per mile now. A basic rate taxpayer can in effect get 20% back on that. It was a pleasure to meet care workers and members of Unison, the trade union, a couple of weeks ago at No. 11 Downing Street. Some questions were raised about whether that process could be made any easier for workers to navigate, and that is something I certainly want to look at with my officials. This is a complex area of policy. I encourage Members to inform care workers and others who drive for work and who do not have mileage rates provided by their employer that they can claim the tax back from HMRC. I hope that responds to many of the points made.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for their scrutiny and attention to the measures contained in this short Bill. I am proud that, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary said, we removed three taxes, and I am glad to say that, on a temporary basis at least, one tax is being put down to £1 as a result of the legislative changes that the House is about to vote on. It is a privilege to close this brief debate on behalf of the Government. Let me turn to each amendment. New clause 2 would require a report to the House of Commons on the approved mileage allowance payments system, including the adequacy of the rate for care workers. The hon. Member for St Albans spoke powerfully about the work done by care workers in her constituency, who she has the honour of representing. I think that all Members will know—from personal experience of family members who have either worked in the sector or been cared for by those who work in the sector—just how valuable care workers’ time, effort and care is. I am glad that the hon. Lady is now aware that care workers can claim back the tax. They cannot claim back the whole amount—it is not fully equivalent—but they can claim back the tax relief, as it were, on the amount. I want to look at whether we can make that process simpler and easier to use. As the Department does so, I would be happy to provide further updates—if not at the Budget, then beforehand. We have said that the Government’s review of the rates is not over. We came forward with the 10p increase, and we are continuing the review and will update the House further at the Budget. I therefore urge Members to reject this new clause. New clause 3 would require a report to the House on the impact of haulage costs and consumer prices, including the operating costs for and overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators. As I am sure the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note setting out the expected impact of the measure. The costing for it will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and set out at a future fiscal event. It is therefore the Government’s view that the new clause is unnecessary. New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the EGL rate rise, including on investment, electricity prices and energy security, and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028. The EGL was carefully designed to avoid disincentivising renewable generation, which means that since its introduction in 2023 it has had no adverse effect on energy security or new investment; in fact, we are having record levels of new investment in renewables under this Government. It is worth noting that new investments made since 2023 are exempt from the EGL and will continue to be so. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on this measure, too, which sets out clearly that the Government’s view is that this rate rise is not expected to have an impact on electricity prices or investment in renewable generation going forward. The note also explains the rationale for the new EGL, which we have discussed. I will be consistent in reminding the Committee that, of course, the Government keep all taxes under review and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis, and that, unless responding to international conflict, in order to be there for households and businesses, tax policy decisions are usually best made by Chancellors at the Budget in the usual way.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for that. As I said, we are consulting on that policy before the end of the year. It was the Chancellor’s and this Government’s decision that the better thing to do for the country—for businesses and for households—was to respond to the conflict in the middle east with pace and appropriate responsiveness rather than waiting until the next fiscal event, which is scheduled for the autumn. I turn to new clause 5, which would require a report to the House of Commons on the impact of the measure on UK public finances, the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector and the contribution of the temporary VED rate to efficient supply chains, and whether the measure remains appropriate beyond the next 12 months. As always, taxes and reliefs will be looked at ahead of the next fiscal event in the context of the public finances. Consistent with the Chancellor’s approach, this is a targeted and time-limited intervention in response to the conflict in the middle east, in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods—including food—across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider further action as and if that may be necessary. As on other measures, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note, and the costing for the measure will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Finally, the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked of this measure as a short-term fix. I hope he is aware of and has seen the impact of the long-term decisions that the Government have made over our time in office to ensure that we can have higher economic growth, as we have had, and higher living standards—rather than their falling by 2%, as they did in the previous Parliament, they have already risen so far by 2% in this Parliament—in part because we have brought back economic stability and had wages rising faster than inflation in every single month since we took office. That has supported stability in the economy which has delivered six interest rate cuts. We have made sure that we are increasing capital investment and that we work with the private sector to get growth up and to invest in our public services and important infrastructure. We have done that in a way, along with investing in our NHS, that has enabled us to manage the public finances well and get borrowing falling in every year of this forecast, with the deficit lower than the G7 average, which the previous Conservative Government never achieved, despite how much they talked about it. They talked a good game on the public finances, but they were never able to deliver that. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clause. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition. I commend the clauses in this short and well-formed Bill to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 2 Approved mileage allowance payments: review of rate for care workers “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a review of the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. (2) The review under subsection (1) must consider— (a) whether the rate of 55 pence per mile adequately reflects the costs incurred by paid care workers when travelling between the homes of those for whom they provide care; (b) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who are required to transport specialist equipment, medication or mobility aids in connection with their caring responsibilities; (c) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who make three or more separate care visits in a single day; and (d) the interaction between mileage reimbursement practices in the social care sector and the effective hourly rate received by paid care workers relative to the National Living Wage. (3) In preparing the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult— (a) representatives of paid care workers; (b) representatives of employers in the social care sector; and (c) such other persons as the Chancellor considers appropriate. (4) In this section “care worker” means a person employed to provide personal care to individuals in their own homes, whether employed directly or through a domiciliary care agency.” —(Daisy Cooper.) Brought up, and read the First time . Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says it was for covid, but he forgot to mention Liz Truss. This Government’s record shows that despite that instability, our plan is working. UK GDP growth in the past two years was the second fastest in the G7. Real household disposable income per person has grown by more than 2% so far in this Parliament, compared with a fall of more than 2% in the last Parliament. Real wages have increased in every single month since this Government took office, with wages rising faster than inflation. These measures will continue that track record and demonstrate that this Government are committed to supporting working people.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We have a tax on profits in the UK, which is corporation tax. In our corporate tax road map, we have committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament, rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. It is important to have a broad tax base, so it is reasonable for business rates to continue to be—as they have been since the late 1980s—set in accordance with an estimate of the rents of properties. I do not think it would be right to change that.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I spent four weeks deliberating on whether to put out that video and I deeply regret the decision to do so. As ever, the shadow Exchequer Secretary asked important and pertinent questions. He asked why the dates do not align with those of the games. That is because many athletes will not be here for those precise dates. Those involved with the sporting teams or with the relevant accreditation may come here in the previous days and weeks. The dates have been set in the usual way; it is typical practice. On the hon. Gentleman’s first question about accreditation, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will work closely with the Commonwealth games on that, as they have done for previous sporting events, to ensure that the right people are accredited. He also asked whether HMRC will ensure that income is treated and taxed correctly and appropriately. I give the previous Government credit for making progress on closing the tax gap. We are glad to continue with that. The tax gap has fallen this year and is set to fall further over the rest of the Parliament. We will of course keep a weather eye on the activities of those coming here. The hon. Member for Torbay asked an important question about what else the Government are doing to support the Commonwealth games. Last June, we pledged to spend at least £400 million on grassroots facilities over the next four years to support those who live in close proximity to the games. I hope that those who are considering competing will not just think about whether they have to pay tax in two countries or the double taxation treaties, but will find an inducement in participating and celebrating their skills, training and hard work. Perhaps the joy of a medal will also be an inducement. Again, I thank Members for their contributions and commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right: the Opposition are totally on the wrong side of common-sense public opinion in this country. On the most important of tests, they have failed. He is also right to point out that the fuel duty increase is pencilled in for September, as the Chancellor set out in last year’s Budget. I think it is worth reminding the House that fuel duty right now is lower than it was in 12 of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and all the way up to 2022, fuel duty was higher than it is now. In the 2025 Budget, we extended the temporary 5p per litre cut in fuel duty until the end of August this year, and we cancelled the inflation-linked increase that had been planned for 2026-27. Taken together with decisions made since the 2024 Budget, the Government’s fuel duty freeze will save the average motorist more than £90 compared with the plans that we inherited. Conservative Members, who have made contributions in this debate, stood in the July 2024 general election on spending plans that would have had fuel duty increase by 5p— [Interruption.] Yes, it is true. Unless the Conservatives are disowning the official forecasts that were published before the general election and the manifesto on which they stood—which, by the way, did not mention plans for fuel duty—I think we are again discovering that there were further black holes in the Conservatives’ spending plans. Their plans, which were set out in the official forecast in the run-up to the general election, said that fuel duty would increase by 5p last year—by RPI last year—and then by RPI again this year. We have instead chosen to freeze fuel duty both last year and this year and to maintain the 5p cut until September of this year. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and other Members made very important points about the impact of fuel price increases on those in rural communities. He will be aware, as I believe it applies to his constituency and to some of the others mentioned today, of the rural fuel duty relief scheme, which does provide a reduction to motorists in those parts of the country that are more rural. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, which some in this Chamber attended, I am always happy to receive representations on whether that scheme should be widened. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about the electric vehicle excise duty change that will be introduced in the coming years, and whether it will be extended. No, it will not. The plan is as set out at the Budget last year. Government Members think that it is fair that all vehicles that contribute to the wear and tear on our roads should also contribute towards the repair costs and to the public finances, and they will do so at a lower rate of 3p rather than 6p, which was the average amount paid by those who pay fuel duty.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for making his representations again and for his ability to mention Harlow in his interventions. It is a fantastic part of the country, not too far from my constituency in north London, and I know just how strongly he seeks to represent it and to make sure that the public services in his patch—the local hospitals and schools—get the investment they need. That is why he and I are able to proudly support this Government’s decisions to bring the public finances back into good order, as well as to invest in our public services and to get borrowing down. Of course, though, since the Budget, and particularly in recent days, the world has changed. As the Chancellor set out last week in responding to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s spring forecast, it is more important than ever that the Government continue to deliver on our economic plan. The choices that we have made at previous Budgets will fix long-standing issues in the taxation system, restore economic and fiscal stability, and lay the economic foundations that we need for higher growth and higher living standards across our fantastic country. The Bill legislates to deliver on those choices, all while sticking to our commitment not to raise the main rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. We are also providing stability for businesses by keeping to important commitments in our corporate tax road map to keep our corporation tax rate at 25%—the lowest in the G7—rather than having it chop and change up and down, like it did during previous Administrations. I thank all those who have submitted written evidence throughout the Bill’s passage. Following concerns raised by professional bodies and concerns discussed in the Public Bill Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my reassurances to the sector that measures that directly impact tax advisers are intended to create a fairer tax advice market. I have heard concerns that tax advisers might be penalised if they file a client’s tax return late when their client has not provided their approval for filing the return on time. I want to clarify that these powers are not designed to penalise responsible tax advisers who act in good faith, and in that specific scenario, a tax adviser would not be penalised under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ stronger powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that the tax system works effectively for everyone, which is why we are introducing a number of amendments on Report to ensure that the tax system is working effectively and as intended. I turn to the first group of Government amendments. New clause 5 removes specific provisions that could prevent offshore income gains from being designated under the temporary repatriation facility, or TRF, to ensure that they can be designated as intended. The amendments also simplify the existing treatment of offshore non-reporting funds held by offshore structures for all taxpayers. New clause 6 introduces transitional provisions for offshore income gains arising before 6 April 2025. Following the abolition of the lifetime allowance, new clause 7, as we were just discussing, ensures that multiple different regimes do not apply, providing clarity for pension schemes and members. It ensures that any necessary regulations can have a retrospective effect back to 6 April 2024, clarifies the scope of the original power, extends the power by a further three months and ensures that regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. The Government are making a number of minor and technical amendments to help provide greater clarity and address important points that have been raised by stakeholders, particularly during the passage of the Bill. These amendments simply put the original legislative intent beyond doubt. Amendments 12 and 13 ensure that clause 23 will apply only to general earnings for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years that are paid on or after 6 April 2026. Amendment 14 tightens the existing provisions under clause 24 to ensure that those rules do not catch legitimate agency structures. Amendments 48 and 51 remove legislation that is not necessary under clause 43 and ensure that the TRF legislation works as intended, so that beneficiaries from overseas trusts are able to make designations in connection with offshore income gains. Amendments 49, 50 and 52 are consequential amendments to schedule 3 and clause 43. They remove references to omitted legislation and insert wording to clarify reference to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. Amendment 53 to clause 49 makes clear that a person concluding contracts on behalf of a non-resident company must be present in the UK when concluding those contracts in order to create a permanent establishment in the UK. Amendments 56 to 61 to schedule 11 concern the rules preventing fund managers from circumventing the revised carried interest tax regime. These amendments ensure that the provision operates as intended, where two connected persons work in the same business, with each connected person only taxed on their own carried interest.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to return to the Commons to debate the Finance Bill on Report. Although I am sure that it would have been of interest to Members on both sides of the House, I am also glad that we have not just had a set of two 45-minute debates on the Ways and Means motions. The opportunity was there, but I am glad that Members did not take it in full. We now have ample time for this important Report stage. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions in Committee. I thank in particular the shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for his scrutiny and challenge, and for the invitation to his wonderful constituency, which I hope to take up one day. As yet, no other Opposition Front Bencher has offered me such an enticing prospect as a visit to their constituency, but I look forward to those invitations. Before I turn to individual amendments, I wish to reflect briefly on the Budget that was delivered in November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Budget took fair and necessary decisions to deliver on the Government’s promise of change, to support cuts in the cost of living, to enable NHS waiting lists to continue falling, and to ensure that our national debt fell as a share of GDP and that borrowing falls over the course of this Parliament. As the Chancellor said in this place yesterday and on Monday, Government borrowing—public sector net borrowing—has fallen from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, which is a fall of 1 percentage point. That is very significant and means that our borrowing is coming down, as part of our plan to bring stability back to the public finances.

• 10 Mar 2026 · High Street Businesses: Tax Changes · Hansard source

  More

  One reason we have a challenge with youth participation in the labour market is the broken welfare system and the broken support system that we inherited from the previous Government. The proportion of young adults who are not in education, employment or training is broadly unchanged since the general election. It is too high, and it has to come down. That is why we are reforming our system and providing more support through actions such as our jobs guarantee. That is the right approach, as is the approach we are taking on business rates.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the representation that she provides in this place for the small businesses in her constituency—it is a wonderful part of the world. If my team have not been in touch already today, I am hoping that we can find time to meet next week for a conversation. I know that this issue is one that is really important to her. York is a fantastic, vibrant and growing part of our economy. I expect that some of what is happening here is that the businesses in her constituency have seen their values increase by more than others in parts of the country that have not been doing as well. That is why the Government have provided a range of support for businesses. I look forward to talking about that with her in the coming days. We are fast running out of time, so let me turn to the topic of business rates, which Members have raised. It is worth noting that we are implementing significant reforms to the system. On the point around large online retailers, as far as I am aware, throughout the whole history of the business rates system—including the 14 years under the previous Government—the multiplier, otherwise known as the tax rate, for large online giants was exactly the same as that paid by a typical business on the high street. As part of fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, we have introduced a really significant wedge into it: the multiplier for large online giants and their warehouses is now 33% higher than for a high street business. I am aware, and we have had lots of discussions about it in this place, that that reform—the significant underlying reform to the business rates system—has happened at the same time as the revaluations since the pandemic have come into place, and at the same time as the Government have chosen to unwind, slowly and with significant transitional reliefs, the temporary pandemic support. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. When the Conservatives stood for re-election, the OBR forecasts did not earmark any funding whatsoever for continued support within the business rates system for our high streets. The Conservatives say now that they would not have stuck with those plans, but had they done so—and they are the plans that they presented to the country before the election—the relief would have ended overnight in 2025.

• 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

  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

  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

  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 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

  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.

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

  More

  As is the case with other items in this part of the Bill, we consulted extensively on these notices, with a 12-week consultation earlier in the year and a further eight-week consultation on the draft legislation when it was published. We received lots of responses and we made sure to listen to and reflect on the feedback. On prosecution, as well as the standards and safeguards set out in the Bill, for a prosecution to be brought against anyone it also has to meet the evidential tests and the public interest tests, which are set out more broadly in line with the code for Crown prosecutors. I hope that provides reassurance that although this does not stand part of the usual ways in which we ensure proper safeguards in our legal system, any prosecutions would of course be subject to the evidential and public interest tests. Question put and agreed to. Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 187 to 205 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 206 Declaration in relation to privileged material Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026 Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which the new retail, hospitality and leisure and high value business rates multipliers will apply. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—[Hon. Members: “No!”] No? Oh, that is totally wrong; who have we got in the Chair? [Hon. Members: “Mr Mundell.”] Mr Mundell—that’s right. Forgive me for my sins; I know not what I do. Members will be glad to know that I do not plan on speaking for 15 minutes today, as I did in the Chamber the other day. The regulations give effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure and high-value properties. This is the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget we announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, fairer system with permanently lower multipliers for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. The scope of these new multipliers is broadly the same as that of the current RHL relief. These new multipliers will be 5p below their national equivalents, but when combined with the outcomes of the revaluation, the tax rate that RHL properties on the small business multiplier pay next year will fall by nearly 12p and the rate for RHL properties on the standards multiplier by 12.5p. It is important that we make support for the high street sustainable, so we are funding these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will be only 2.8% above the national standard multiplier, meaning that properties in its scope will pay a reasonable tax rate too. These new rates will be worth almost £1 billion a year and will benefit more than 750,000 RHL properties. They will mean that from April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate 33% higher than that for small high street properties. The new business rates multipliers being brought into force by these statutory instruments are the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I commend them to the Committee—and forgive me, Mr Mundell.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026 Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the points raised by the shadow Minister, it is worth emphasising that the decision to introduce new tax rates to the system means that, for the first time, a typical high street business now has a lower multiplier—a lower tax rate—than the online giants and the larger properties. The tax rate on larger properties is 33% higher than the rate paid by a smaller property on the high street. That significant difference is the first step in the reforms that we have implemented to business rates. I will not make the point that the previous Government would have removed the reliefs overnight, but I will say that if they were planning on keeping them, I do not understand why that information was not in the documents that the OBR published in advance of the general election. If the shadow Minister will not concede that his Government would have got rid of the reliefs overnight, he seems to be suggesting that there was a multibillion-pound unfunded tax cut that they did not tell us about before the election. I am not sure which he would prefer. In advance of the Budget, we considered the inclusion of large retail stores within the high-value multiplier. It is really encouraging that Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Iceland and other large retailers have welcomed our getting the balance right in the business rates system and setting the multiplier at a rate that has allowed some shops to reduce prices, or at least hold down price increases for consumers, because of the changes that we made and the proportionate way in which we went about making them. We are committed to going further to reform the business rates system. At the Budget, we published a call for evidence on how to remove further barriers to investment. Transforming business rates is a multi-year process. The Government remain firmly committed to collaborating with stakeholders and with businesses small and large to achieve further meaningful change in the business rates system. Question put and agreed to. Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.— (Dan Tomlinson.)

• 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.