Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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 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

  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

  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

  One of the big challenges with these promoters is that, although HMRC often finds different routes to go after them, their non-compliance and the fact they are based overseas make effective enforcement difficult. I am aware of that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members were aware of it when they were in government. It is frustrating and difficult to go after promoters. This measure seeks to find a new way to restrict their ability to engage with products and services based in the UK, because it is only through those that they will be able to reach people in the UK in the promotion of the schemes. The shadow City Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked about HMRC workload. This is a good point, and one that I will focus on with officials and happily discuss in advance of the Budget. One of the big decisions that this Government have made is to increase the number of enforcement and compliance officers in HMRC—by, I believe, 5,500. Broadly, we are making that possible by reducing the number of HMRC customer services staff, because we are asking customers more generally to go online. We are targeting 90% online or digital interaction, so that we can save money for the taxpayer by having better, more streamlined interactions online, and then use some of that resource to more effectively resource our compliance unit. The matter of workload is important for me to consider closely, as the Minister with responsibility for HMRC, and the hon. Member is right to raise it. We will keep working with international partners to explore how best to co-operate with other authorities to ensure that these proposals, existing powers and any further powers that the Government may consider in the future can effectively tackle promoters based overseas. Opposition Members also raised the issue of appeals. It is important to note that promoter action notices are issued only towards the end of the line. Promoters can be issued them only when HMRC has certified that they have breached a stop notice, which is a serious thing, or the prohibition of the promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements. Breaching either of those amounts to a criminal offence, so it is a serious step to have reached. Promoters will have the right to provide representations to HMRC as part of that process. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest spoke about initial notices under clause 165. That is part of the process of making sure that we are engaging and collaborating with businesses so that we can agree the actions they may be required to take under a promotion action notice. He also raised the issue of what happens if businesses go further than HMRC’s request and end up severing all ties with promoters. HMRC will specify the actions that need to be taken, but businesses may want to go further, at their own discretion and within the law. It will be up to them to do so. HMRC will not prescribe what more actions businesses may wish to take; what they must do will be tightly defined in the notices themselves. Question put and agreed to. Clause 163 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 164 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 174 Connected persons 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.

• 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

  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

  Clause 110 will make changes to the rates charged to businesses under the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy from April 2026. The changes will increase the revenue raised each year by the levy by £110 million from 2027-28 onwards. The levy was introduced to provide a long-term, sustainable source of funding for initiatives aimed at tackling money laundering. In 2024-25, the levy funded 455 new roles fighting economic crime in organisations, including in the National Crime Agency and City of London police, and delivered a new digital service for suspicious activity reporting, which onboarded precisely 15,211 organisations. In a constrained funding landscape, we believe that the levy is right place to find the money for these initiatives. The Government have decided to change the rates charged to businesses under the levy to provide sufficient funding to deliver key projects in the economic crime space over the next three years. The changes made by clause 110 will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue between £10.2 million and £36 million from £10,000 to £10,200 per annum. It will also introduce a new band for businesses with an annual revenue between £500 million and £1 billion. Lastly, it will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue exceeding £1 billion to £1 million from April 2026. As the levy is collected a year in arrears, the increased rates will first be collected in the financial year beginning April 2027. The changes have been designed with proportionality and fairness at their core, and no business will pay more than 0.1% of its UK annual revenue in levy charges. Government amendment 12 seeks to update the language in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which refers to the current band names “large” and “very large”. These will be changed to refer to the new band names A, B, C and D. The amendment contains no policy changes; it will just bring existing legislation in line with the new economic crime levy band names. I commend the clause and the amendment to the Committee.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We are keen to hear from businesses, large and small, about what more the Government can do to support high streets. We want to engage on lots of issues affecting high streets, including planning, licensing and crime, and the direct investment that we can make in our communities. There is a lot to do, because we had 14 years under the Conservatives where our high streets were in decay and shops were shutting. We had 7,000 pubs closing and businesses struggling across the country. We know that there is work to do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on it.

• 6 Jan 2026 · The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025, No. 1253). It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Ms Lewell. The regulations before the Committee today amend part 8C of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. These changes are clarificatory and ensure that the legislation works as originally intended. In the context of part 8C, restitution interest is compensation for not having had access to money awarded by the courts on repayments of tax in long-running litigation, between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and companies, about whether UK tax law was compatible with EU law when the UK was a member state. Many such cases remain in litigation, so more restitution interest may be awarded in the future. Part 8C was enacted to apply a higher 45% tax rate in the unusual event that the court were to award such restitution interest to companies on a compound basis—that is, including interest on the interest. It was not intended to apply to a more normal award of simple interest—that is, interest only on the principal sum. The first of the amendments to part 8C clarifies that intent by expressly removing the ambiguous meaning that it could apply in cases of simple interest, which I think we would all agree is very important. The second amendment removes an unintended lacuna in the timing of assessment, which might otherwise mean that events overrun the ability of HMRC to raise a charge in certain cases where the courts’ decisions crystallising a charge under part 8C are outside the normal time limit. Again, we would not want that to happen. The clarification that part 8C does not apply to simple interest is generally favourable to the companies involved, and the change to assessment time limits corrects a defect in the legislation and protects the Government’s interests in long-running disputes. In summary, the regulations ensure that the legislation applies as originally intended, and I commend them to the Committee.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things that has changed is that Conservative Members seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward with plans that are not deliverable, just like they did when they were in government. They have done the job of a losing Opposition—we have been there in the past—whereby numbers used in opposition are not serious or credible. We all know where that ends up. The Conservatives said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts. For context, that is the equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Of course, I am not saying that they will do that or that they have joined the “defund the police” brigade, but what would they do? We do not really know, because all we have is a menu without a price list.