Joshua Reynolds MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  On the simplification of our tax system, I do not see in the Government amendments any changes to the loan charge system, as we proposed in Committee, meaning that people who have already settled their loan charge will be excluded from the changes being introduced. Does the Minister agree that one consequence of this might be that when something like this comes up in the future, people will not want to settle with the Government because they will think that a better deal will be coming up? Would it not be a simpler tax system to say that we could retrospectively apply some of these changes?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. British pensioners living in the European Economic Area, the United States and up to 20 other countries get their pensions uprated, but those living in Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not. Campaigners know that the Government will not uprate frozen pensions retrospectively, but will they commit to a review of uprating frozen pensions for British pensioners going forward?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  Britain is in the middle of a cost-of-doing-business crisis. I see it on my high street and I hear about it from local employers, and colleagues from across the House will hear exactly the same in their constituencies. From the Government’s national insurance hikes to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 will mean in practice, British businesses are being pulled in one direction and then another. The Government say that they want to grow the economy, but significantly adding to the tax burden of the very organisations that are trying to do that does not help. The increase in employers NICs is an unfair jobs tax, and its impact is being felt across the country. UKHospitality estimates that the combined impact of the autumn Budget has landed £3.4 billion in additional costs on the hospitality sector. Jobs are being lost, hours are being reduced and venues are closing. A Government who think that relaxed licensing laws will help hospitality when businesses are already reducing hours do not understand the sector. The Liberal Democrats voted against the NI jobs tax changes at every opportunity because we could see this coming. The Government now need to face the consequences of their own choices and scrap this jobs tax before the damage becomes irreversible. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but they never delivered it. Now this Government have promised to revamp the system, yet we are still waiting for proper rebalancing. UKHospitality estimates that the average tax increase for hospitality would be 76% over the next three years, compared with warehouses at 16%, offices at 7% and large supermarkets at 4%. The businesses at the heart of our high streets are being asked to carry an unfair share of this burden, and the adjustments do not come close to fixing that. I can point to a business in Maidenhead, in my constituency. Laura set up Piccolo Land less than a year ago. It is a children’s role-playing village, and the kind of place that gives young families in Maidenhead a reason to come to town to spend time and to spend their money. When she started the business, her business rates valuation for a 2,500 square foot unit was £71,000—significantly more than her annual rent. She challenged that figure with the Valuation Office Agency and it was reduced to £42,000, but from April 2026 that bill will rise to £55,000. Laura has done everything right, but she cannot make this work. How do the Government expect businesses like this, which is barely a year old, serving young families and employing young people, to absorb that kind of increase? Maybe the Minister will be able to write to Laura to let her know which part of the Government’s growth plan she is meant to be benefiting from, because we cannot find it. Pubs, live-music venues, hotels, restaurants, cafés, and visitor and tourist attractions are all facing the same rising bills, collapsing margins and impossible choices between cutting staff, putting up prices or closing their doors. To add insult to injury, the Government’s business rates U-turn is not going to fix the issue they have created, just make the pain less bad. The Government need to reduce VAT on hospitality, accommodation and attractions. This is not untested—the previous Government did that during the pandemic and it worked. When asked about VAT cuts in December last year, the Government did not even attempt to justify their position. They simply pointed to business rates reform and moved on. Our high streets and town centres cannot wait for a Government who will not engage with that topic. Every time we visit shops in our constituencies we will hear the same thing about shoplifting having effectively been decriminalised. Thieves do not fear consequences because there are none, and shoplifting has risen by 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Shop owners tell me time and again that when they contact the police, they are told it is not an effective use of resources to follow up on minor thefts. However, these are not minor thefts to the people running those businesses, and they are not minor to the staff, often young people, who are being put in harm’s way simply for doing their jobs. With over 800 offences going unpunished every day, businesses are haemorrhaging money, driving up costs for consumers and pushing businesses to close their doors for good. So here is a concrete proposal that the Government should adopt: a small shop needs about £6,500 for adequate modern CCTV, so the Government can make available grants for half that cost to every independent convenience store, and they can work with high street lenders to provide affordable loans to cover the rest. This is not just our idea: it is supported by the Federation of Independent Retailers. I could go on about youth unemployment, shoplifting, business energy costs, Brexit or general trade barriers, but we do not have the time. What the Government have delivered is a jobs tax, broken business rates, unaffordable energy bills and a shoplifting epidemic that they refuse to take seriously. Businesses right across the country are resilient, but resilience has limits, and this Government have tested those limits to breaking point. The Government have the tools to act, but they needs to use them to bring down the cost of doing business, because we are in a complete crisis.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats support this Bill, and we support the amendments that are before the Committee today. The Bill does something that is straightforward and necessary: it raises the Industrial Development Act cap from £12 billion to £20 billion, reflecting inflation since the alignment was last set in 2009, and it nearly doubles UK Export Finance’s commitment limit from £84 billion to around £160 billion. Both the industrial assistance and export finance frameworks would hit their ceilings if we did not make these changes, so it is really important to make them. We support the Bill because British businesses need the Government’s backing to compete globally, and these limits need to keep pace with our ambition. The amendments before us would strengthen the Bill in a few distinct ways. Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that Government-backed export finance cannot be used to support businesses whose supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking. That is a straightforward ethical line. British taxpayers should not be underwriting exploitation, and we Liberal Democrats are glad to support the amendments. I ask the Minister to confirm what existing safeguards are in place, and whether implementation guidance will be issued so that businesses know where they stand. Amendments 3 and 4 would address the risk that UK Export Finance could facilitate sanctions evasion through re-exporting. As we raise the statutory limit to £160 billion, Parliament must be satisfied that none of this expanded headroom can be used in a way that undermines our sanctions regime, so we support the amendments. New clause 1 would require annual reports on the impact of the limit changes on each of the four UK nations. Although export finance is a reserved matter, outcomes are not necessarily evenly distributed. A report would allow Parliament to scrutinise whether the expanded capacity is reaching every single part of the United Kingdom, so we support the new clause. New clause 2 would require annual reports on the steel industry. Steel is of profound strategic importance to the UK and deserves the dedicated parliamentary scrutiny that the new clause suggests, so we support it. New clause 3, which appears in my name, would require the Secretary of State to report on the annual impact of the Bill on GDP, on the export capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises, and on the volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. UKEF’s 2024 to 2025 activity contributed £5.4 billion to the UK economy, and Parliament should be able to verify such a claim on an annual basis. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK, yet UKEF’s annual report shows that it supported just 667 businesses. Annual reporting would hold the Government to their own target of supporting an additional 1,000 SMEs to export. It would make visible whether the current eligibility criteria, which require at least 20% of a business’s annual turnover to be from exports in any one of the previous three years, continue to lock out businesses trying to break into export markets for the first time. On the UK-EU trade part of new clause 3, the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade has documented a 30% fall in EU export value among the smallest firms since the trade and co-operation agreement came into force. A recent Institute of Directors policy voice survey found that 54% of businesses that stopped exporting to the EU cited the trading relationship with the EU as one of the reasons why. These are not businesses that failed to break into new markets, but established exporters that have walked away from our largest and nearest trading partner because the barriers in their way are too great to bear. Every customs declaration and every check that did not exist before 2021 is another reason why businesses are not exporting to the EU, because it simply is not worth it for them. Those are the realities behind the statistics that simply increasing UKEF capacity alone cannot fix. Parliament should be able to see whether expanded UKEF capacity is making a measurable difference to those figures, so we hope the Minister will support new clause 3. The most effective long-term support for British exporters would be a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Analysis by Frontier Economics, commissioned by Best for Britain, in February 2025 suggested that a customs union could boost British GDP by 2.2%. The House of Commons Library estimates that this could generate £25 billion in additional annual tax revenue for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which I know the Chancellor would be grateful for. New clause 3 is the link or accountability mechanism that would allow Parliament to see whether what has been proposed is working. We will support the Bill and the amendments to it, because capacity without accessibility is meaningless, and capacity without accountability is unacceptable. The Government need to accept the new clauses that match the expanded headroom with the practical reforms to ensure that they reach the 5.7 million SMEs, which are the backbone of British business, currently not being supported by UK Export Finance.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Britain is a trading nation. When our businesses win contracts abroad, they create jobs, raise wages and generate the tax revenues that are needed to fund our public services. Expanding UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, and raising the limit for industry development to £20 billion, sends a clear signal that we are open for growth and want our exporters to compete globally. That matters for advanced manufacturing, life sciences, clean technology, and the thousands of smaller firms across every constituency that have the ambition to sell to the world. We support the Bill because that ambition deserves to be backed. I am disappointed that the Government could not support our amendments. Today we were asked to approve a near doubling of UKEF’s statutory commitment limit without the mechanisms that we feel are required to verify whether that is working properly. UK Export Finance supported 667 businesses last year, and we are concerned that its eligibility criteria lock out firms that are trying to break into exporting for the first time. That remains unchanged. We are also concerned, of course, that the structural barriers that drive former exporters away from our largest export market, the European Union, remain unaddressed. We support the Bill because it is important that we move forward in supporting businesses that are exporting, but we are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to help support British SMEs that want to start exporting, or that used to export to the European Union but cannot now. We will monitor the Bill closely to ensure that it works in practice for all those local SMEs. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Harris. The Minister says that HMRC will not use its powers for minor breaches; but Opposition Members are concerned, because we cannot see that backed up in the Bill. The ICAEW has called these clauses “existential” for adviser firms, and I ask the Minister to comment as to why the ICAEW uses those words when it comes to these clauses. We have heard about sanctions, and I think the words “reasonably” and “proportionately” are the words that should be used when we are talking about these clauses. Suspension of a reputable firm could force that firm to cease trading, only for the decision to be overturned a few days later because it was a genuine mistake. That would be putting good businesses and good advisers out of business—perhaps even, as we have heard, for £1. Clause 224(2) establishes that to first register, the adviser and all their relevant individuals must not have a “relevant amount overdue” to HMRC. The relevant amount is then defined very broadly to include any UK tax, national insurance contribution, devolved taxes or civil penalties—not even £1 of interest. That means that if a tax adviser makes an individual mistake with £1 of liability due, under this Bill they are due to be suspended. I think the Minister would struggle to say that £1 of liability meaning suspension and the closing of your firm was reasonable or proportionate. I have not tabled an amendment because I believe that we should be able to adopt this and hope that this ends in an agreement. However, I would like to see the Minister consider a statutory proportionality test to HMRC for the suspension powers, because these business-ending sanctions need proportionality. The idea that a £1 mistake could cost someone their livelihood and their family their home is not proportionate in any way.

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

  More

  In the last 10 years, 80 million British residents have phoned HMRC never to have their call answered. In 2024-25, 33.47 million calls to HMRC calls were registered, and only 80% of those were answered. At a recent hearing of the Business and Trade Committee, HMRC confirmed that it was only funded by the Treasury to pick up 85% of incoming calls. That means it is Treasury policy that 15% of calls to HMRC will go unanswered. I would like to see HMRC establishing customer service standards. People will need to ring HMRC because, as the Bill explains, not everyone will be able to use the digital reporting requirements in Making Tax Digital. There will always be individuals who need to phone HMRC because they cannot do things on a computer. Ensuring that those individuals have their phone calls answered is incredibly important. It is even more important given the changes in the state pension, which will bring individuals incredibly close to the personal allowance, where they would have to start paying income tax. Even though the Chancellor seems to be of the opinion that they will not have to do that, we still do not know how that will happen. That will see a flood of pensioners and retirees phoning HMRC, wanting to get some advice on the right steps to take, only for 20% of those phone calls to go unanswered. The Liberal Democrats would like to see a new retiree red phone set up in HMRC, so that retired pensioners know that if they phone HMRC, they will get their call picked up as a priority and somebody will be on the end of the line to answer it. That is how important it is. Everyone should have confidence that if they phone HMRC, their call will be picked up and they will get their query answered. In 2024-25, 20% of people who phoned never had their call picked up. That is a lot of wasted time for businesses and individuals. HMRC should change that and not have it as Treasury policy that 15% of calls go unanswered.

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

  More

  My concerns about the clauses in this group are very similar to my concerns about clause 229. Moving from “dishonest conduct” to “sanctionable conduct” lowers the threshold, introduces more ambiguity and could catch technical differences and genuine errors rather than deliberate wrongdoing. I hope that the Minister does not believe that we are trying to be obtuse in making this point; I believe that it needs to be raised repeatedly about this group of clauses, because these are real concerns shared by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others. Their minds were not set at ease having read the Bill, so we must push these points today. I urge the Minister to consider the statutory proportionality test again, to ensure that tax advisers have the ability to do that proportionality test, and that HMRC has a statutory duty to do so.

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

  More

  The tabling of amendment 50 is very good timing, as HMRC has revealed today its estimate that 1 million people missed the deadline, which was up to midnight on Saturday, to file their self-assessment. We very much support Opposition amendment 50, and, if the shadow Minister chooses to press it to a Division, we will support him. It is fair and proportionate that the penalty should focus on those avoiding tax obligations, and not penalising administrative delays when no tax is owed. That is particularly important for self-employed people or pensioners, who may file late despite owing zero tax. HMRC resources should be focused on collecting tax that is actually owed, rather than punishing delays on paperwork for paperwork’s sake, when there is no revenue at stake.

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

  More

  This group of clauses establishes new criminal prohibitions on promoting tax avoidance arrangements. Clause 161 creates personal criminal liability for company directors, limited liability partnership members and shadow members. We of course support the Government in preventing tax avoidance measures, but we are concerned that some boundaries may not have been drawn correctly. We support the idea that aggressive tax avoidance measures need to be prosecuted, but there is a question about the breadth of criminal liability and the absence of safeguards. Clause 161 extends personal criminal liability to directors, members and shadow members—individuals exercising informal influence, but without formal responsibilities—where an offence is committed with their consent or due to their negligence, but it creates some problems. The shadow member concept creates uncertainty, including about who exactly will fall in scope. If the neglect standard is brought, it could catch directors for oversight failures, rather than for active wrongdoing. There is also limited guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on how it will apply these sanctions in practice. Will it draw a distinction with deliberate promotion of aggressive schemes, or will it have a counteract for technical advice where boundaries were genuinely unclear? Will individuals be pursued proportionately, or will criminal sanctions be viewed optimistically? I would be interested to see whether the Government are willing to provide annual parliamentary reports on prosecutions—numbers commenced, convictions secured, categories of responsible persons prosecuted, and examples of conduct that does or does not meet the threshold. The Liberal Democrats back strong action against tax avoidance promoters. These schemes undermine fairness in the tax base. However, criminal liability based on neglect is broad, and prosecutions could happen for oversight failures, rather than deliberate wrongdoing. The definition of shadow members also lacks clarity. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on those points.

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

  More

  As we have heard, many of the promoters operate offshore. How will the Government take action against those offshore promoters? Could a UK-based promoter move offshore to continue to do business as a way to get around the Bill? If it could not, will the Minister point me to which part of the Bill stops the promoter from being able to do so? If we are talking about a small number of promotors with this group of clauses, does the Minister know how many of the promotors operate offshore and with complex ownership structures? How much of the money that we want to be able to claim back under the clauses would not be achievable because of the offshore companies?

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

  More

  Clause 229(1) says: “An authorised officer of Revenue and Customs may, by notice, suspend the registration of a registered tax adviser if the officer is not satisfied that the adviser meets the registration conditions.” In clause 224, the registration criteria are clear that any moneys owed to HMRC would not meet the criteria. By definition, from clauses 229 and 224, any moneys owed to HMRC could result in a suspension. I cannot see anything in the rest of clause 229 that would counteract that. Can the Minister point out where that might be?

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

  More

  The £50,000 threshold imposed as part of schedule 16 is incredibly low. It catches small construction firms importing tonnes of cement or steel, materials that could be consumed in one single medium-sized building project. The businesses importing such volumes will lack the resource of dedicated compliance teams and environmental consultants for quarterly emission verification. Meanwhile, large industrial importers, responsible for the vast majority of imported carbon emissions, face identical per unit compliance obligations, giving them a competitive advantage through their economies of scale. CBAM introduces entirely new foreign concepts to normal commercial activities, such as calculating the emissions across international supply chains, determining whether carbon prices were paid in origin countries and applying complex fee allocation formulas. A family-run metalworking shop that has successfully filed VAT for 20 years must suddenly become an expert in lifetime emission methodologies and international carbon-pricing verifications. I do not believe that the Government have published any analysis comparing the £50,000 threshold to alternatives such £100,000 or £250,000 thresholds. I am interested to hear from the Minister what verification and changes have been made, and what assessment has been made of the compliance costs for various businesses. Schedule 16 also introduces a £500 fixed penalty plus a £40 daily charge for failure to notify a change of circumstances, and a £500 penalty for record-keeping failures. While paragraph 40 of schedule 16 includes a reasonable excuse defence, HMRC interprets that quite narrowly as applying to circumstances such as illness, postal strikes or computer failures. The idea that the system or methodology was confusing or, “My supplier could not provide the data,” typically do not fall within the reasonable excuse defence. The problem here is timings: the comprehensive penalties for CBAM take effect on 1 January 2027, so businesses navigating entirely unprecedented requirements are going to have a challenge. I note that the EU’s CBAM began with a transitional reporting period before enforcement ramped up, whereas the UK’s has no such mechanism. These are not familiar tax concepts for lots of businesses. They involve new software, new tracking and international verification. These things have not been done in British business before, and I believe that small importers will face penalties while genuinely trying to comply with the regulations. The Liberal Democrats are not against the concept of a CBAM, but we take issue with the way that it has been put together. Has the Minister considered a 12-month transitional period during which full penalties for deliberate avoidance are maintained but an allowance is given for honest compliance?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury back from her visit to China, which I am sure was slightly more exciting than the Thursday we had in Committee in her absence—although obviously we will never be short on excitement. Duty stamps are proven anti-illicit trading measures. Digital tracking can enable supply chain monitoring, support enforcement and ensure that black market products are easier to identify, which makes it easier for trading standards officers and consumers to catch illegal products. However, as we have seen with duty stamps on spirits, there is significant counterfeiting within the market, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister and the Government have learned from duty stamps on spirits that they have been able to apply to duty stamps on vaping products. It is interesting to see, in clause 118, the potential cost that will be associated with these duty stamps. We have already debated the additional duty that would be applied to vapes and the closing of the gap between the price of vape liquid and the price of cigarettes in our discussion on previous clauses. How much further does the Minister think that gap will close? Additionally, on duty stamps and being able to track sales from a specific product or potentially even from specific stores, many people in this House and among the wider public believe that quite a lot of vaping shops have links with money laundering scams. Does the Treasury have an understanding of how tracking could be used to compare the money going through on the duty stamps with the store data to see if any money laundering is going on? That may be able to help trading standards in future.

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

  More

  I have few points to make about clause 122, which refers to a “person who sells…unstamped vaping products”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that person is the shop owner, the shop manager or the shop worker who is physically behind the till on that day. Could an 18-year-old shop assistant be charged the £10,000 fine? The phrase “a person” needs a definition. If that person leaves the business in which they serve, will the fine stay with the individual, or will it be on the business? Could somebody get around this clause by closing down their limited company and opening a new one tomorrow, so the offence would then be their first?

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

  More

  The EU, for its CBAM, has not set a specific number in that way; it has set a number of tonnes of product. I would be interested to hear from the Government what work has been done to analyse the different impacts of £50,000, £100,000 and £250,000. The Treasury must have done some work on this, but I could not see any. We need the answer to that in order to find out where we stand. Let me finish by saying that a transitional period may be quite beneficial. It would make sure that we are not setting our small and medium-sized enterprises up to fail and penalising them when they try to do the right thing but unfortunately, because of the complications in the system, they are unable to.

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

  More

  The haulage sector has seen significant challenges in recent years: increases in fuel prices, increases in wages and significant changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025, business rates and vehicle excise duty, as we see here. I would not be the investment and trade spokesman for the Liberal Democrats if I did not mention another challenge for the road haulage sector in recent years, which is the significant amount of red tape involved in Brexit, and the cost of that. The Government’s EU reset has not touched the sides, as haulage associations have been telling us recently. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about some goods moving from the UK to France that required 29 different stamps on their paperwork. If one stamp goes in the wrong place, the vehicle gets stuck in France or sent back. That is an additional cost for the road haulage sector, on top of all these extra costs and the vehicle excise duty increases. For example, we were told on the Business and Trade Committee about a vehicle that was sat in France for almost one month because of paperwork that was not quite correct and small technical challenges. That vehicle being sat in France for one month meant consistent driver changes and meant the freezer compartment having to be kept on to ensure that the goods did not spoil. There was a £6,000 cost to the business because of two stamps being in the incorrect place. If we add that to the £2,000 cost per truck of the changes to vehicle excise duty, we see very clearly that the significant changes that the Government are making in quick succession are not helping the sector, which needs all the support it can get.

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

  More

  Amendments 44 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and I, strengthen the democratic accountability in our trade remedies system. Trade remedies exist to protect British businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition from goods dumped below cost or artificially subsidised. Since Brexit, the Trade Remedies Authority has operated as our independent investigation body. That independence matters, because trade remedy decisions affect jobs, consumer prices, business costs and our international relations.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 107, page 129, line 32, at end insert— “(10) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact statement setting out— (a) the evidence on which the Secretary of State has concluded that the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) have been met, (b) an assessment of the potential impact on consumer prices and UK supply chains, (c) the reasons why a direction is considered necessary in the circumstances, and (d) whether coordination with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, has been considered. (11) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect if, within the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement under sub-paragraph (10) is laid, either House of Parliament resolves that the direction should be annulled.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an impact statement before directing the TRA to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation, and would give Parliament the power to annul such directions within 21 sitting days.

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

  More

  We welcome the uprating of the expensive car supplement for EVs to the value of £50,000, supporting EVs and EV take-up. However, we are surprised that during the Committee’s first sitting on Tuesday, when I asked about extending zero VAT for charging infrastructure beyond 2027, the Economic Secretary declined to do so. I am aware that the Minister who is present today was not there, but that is slightly confusing. Here, we see the Government supporting electric vehicles and increasing the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000, but not applying the same policy by supporting electric vehicles post 2027 in other clauses of the Bill. The Economic Secretary, who was in the Minister’s place on Tuesday, is now in China; I do not know whether I should commiserate with the Minister for not being invited on that trip. We are concerned about floods of electric vehicles that are coming in from China, undercutting European and British competitors. We are worried that they will be impacted by that £50,000 change, but several British vehicles will not be. I am sure that we do not want a world in which the Government are unintentionally encouraging British residents to buy electric vehicles made in China rather than electric vehicles from Britain. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for us.

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

  More

  It is important to remember that one can support both free trade and protection against unfair dumping—they are not mutually exclusive—and I think the amendments strike a balance between them transparently. Amendment 44 gives Parliament meaningful oversight of ministerial decisions to initiate investigations, and amendment 45 ensures that decisions account for impacts on consumers and businesses relying on imported inputs. Together, they strengthen democratic accountability while maintaining our ability to act against unfair trading practices. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thoughts on amendment 44 when we push it to a vote.

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

  More

  In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber “has swerved paying millions of pounds” by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts “as an agent, rather than as the supplier” outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares. Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change? Why are we now in a position where we have an absurd two-tier system in which identical journeys are taxed differently depending on whether they take place inside or outside London? I note that no Government amendment to the clause has been tabled. Has the Treasury accepted that because of Uber’s decision, this policy has failed before it has even begun?

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

  More

  Clause 99 introduces a very small increase in the rate of aggregates levy, but a small increase when dealing with massive numbers is still quite a large increase. High Speed 2, for example, is predicted to use 20 million tonnes of aggregate during phase 1. That means that the measure will add about £3.2 million to the bill for HS2, which we know is already significantly over budget. Has the Minister worked out the cost associated with money being passed from the Government to HS2 and then from HS2 back to the Government through things like the proposed aggregates levy increase?

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

  More

  Balancing VAT refund rights to ensure fairness for CCAs is, of course, welcome, and we support it. We support the idea that VAT refund rights should be balanced across groups and institutions that are similar and have a similar purpose. That is why I hope you will allow me to share some surprise, Mrs Harris, that the Government have not gone further in balancing refund rights. For example, a school with a sixth form attached can claim its VAT back, but a sixth form college cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has been campaigning on that for a significant time. In answer to a written question, the Minister confirmed that the Government are not planning to extend the VAT refund right to sixth form colleges, but they have done so for combined county authorities. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that? We all support the idea of balancing VAT refund rights, so we should surely be extending that to other situations.