Lucy Rigby MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government of course recognise the importance of in-person banking services and access to cash, as the hon. Member and I have discussed. As she knows, in-person services are provided through traditional bank branches, banking hubs, post offices and other means, and I will continue to monitor the situation. As she knows, I have listened very carefully to her concerns, and I am happy to do so again.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  On the Government’s policies vis-à-vis businesses as a whole, we support the sort of businesses the hon. Member refers to in a whole range of ways. On businesses in his area, 80% of the recent deployment of the growth guarantee scheme was outside London.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may well know that, at the spending review, we increased the financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion. There are a number of ways in which the British Business Bank will support companies like the one she referred to.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  The Government provide a wide range of loan support for SMEs through the British Business Bank. This includes the start up loans programme and the growth guarantee scheme, the latter of which recently supported over 4,000 businesses and over 65,000 jobs right across the country.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that we have increased the amount of funding going into the National Wealth Fund. On my hon. Friend’s specific question, my understanding is that we have not set a date, but I am more than happy to write to her with further information—to the extent that it exists.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Government-backed Loans: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of businesses in Bassetlaw, and I wish her a happy birthday for yesterday. In the recent spending review, the Government extended the growth guarantee scheme, enabling £5 billion-worth of loans over the next four years. This will support businesses like the one she mentioned, and I would be more than happy to meet her to talk about how her constituent might access that support.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Research and Development Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. Indeed, he and I have discussed this issue previously. We are due to meet to discuss it later this month, and I am very much looking forward to that discussion.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Research and Development Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point. This Government are investing an extra £29 billion in our national health service. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Research and Development Bonds · Hansard source

  More

  Innovation is a key driver of long-term economic growth, higher productivity and improved living standards. That is why this Government are investing more in R&D and why we are committed to maintaining the generosity of R&D tax reliefs. We remain open to new and innovative debt instruments and we review options regularly, but clearly new instruments need to meet a range of criteria, including value for money.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a series of important points. I come back to the fact that the Government have opened a call for evidence on tax in this area. The Committee will come to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, which the call for evidence also covers. Importantly, the call for evidence covers the changes we have made to the enterprise management incentives scheme. All of those changes, as well as the clauses we are about to discuss, are important to the Government’s objective of making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and I encourage any views to be fed into that call for evidence. The hon. Member referred to an important report from TheCityUK and PwC; I attended its launch yesterday. I am pleased to tell him that the Government’s objectives on the growth of financial services very much align with that report. Our objectives and the report have much in common, but most importantly, we share the sense of urgency and ambition that it outlines. The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to his desire to see more companies remain in the UK. That is imperative, and it is behind the Government’s reforms to a series of tax incentives in this area. We believe that the UK is already the best place in the world to start a company, and we have to make sure that it continues to be, but it must also be the best place to scale and to list a company. That is why the reforms are so important—so that companies stay. Amendment 37 agreed to. Amendment made: 38, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, for “(7)” substitute “(8)”.— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment is consequential on the addition of a new subsection by Amendment 37. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Enterprise investment scheme: increase in amounts and asset requirements Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford about the impact of these measures. In relation to clause 31, if only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, had the TIIN to hand; if he did, he might have been aware that we estimate that the payments for the surrender of expenditure credits will have an impact on roughly 12,000 claimants of R&D expenditure credit, audiovisual expenditure credit and video games expenditure credit. The shadow Minister asked about the impact on video games companies: I think it is fair to say that if a company has a game that switches from the video games tax relief to the video games expenditure credit, it simply needs to make sure that it uses the modified version of step 2 when calculating how much credit it is entitled to. This will affect only games that are already in development and need to switch reliefs. There are no figures available to show the impact on companies; it is normally in the tax line, so it is not treated as taxable by most companies. I think that answers all of his questions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 R&D undertaken abroad: Chapter 2 relief only Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 24, page 28, line 25, at end insert— “61Z2 Disclosures to liable persons (1) Subsection (2) applies where an officer of Revenue and Customs considers that a person is, or may be, jointly and severally liable to pay an amount as a result of this Chapter. (2) The officer may at any time disclose to the person such information as the officer considers appropriate (whether or not such a disclosure would otherwise be permitted under section 18(2)(a) of CRCA 2005 or any other enactment) for the purposes of informing the person about that liability (‘the joint liability’) including— (a) the identity of any person who is an umbrella company, a purported umbrella company or the worker in relation to the arrangements to which the joint liability relates, and (b) information about the nature and extent of the liability of an umbrella company or a purported umbrella company that (by virtue of this Chapter) results, or may result, in the joint liability. (3) Information disclosed in reliance on subsection (2) may not be further disclosed without the consent of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (which may be general or specific). (4) Where a person contravenes subsection (3) by disclosing information relating to a person whose identity— (a) is specified in the disclosure, or (b) can be deduced from it, section 19 of CRCA 2005 (offence of wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to the disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act. (5) In this section ‘CRCA 2005’ means the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.” This amendment permits disclosures (whether or not permitted as a result of provision elsewhere) to persons who may be jointly and severally liable as a result of new Chapter 11 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the shadow Minister’s final question, I am afraid that I do not know what discussions have taken place with the organisation he referred to, but I can write to him and let him know. Ultimately, whether to use an umbrella company when supplying a worker to a client is a commercial decision for agencies. That commercial decision has been incentivised not just by the ability to outsource administration to umbrella companies, but by the shielding from exposure to tax risk that that model provides. It is good to hear the shadow Minister welcome the impetus behind the changes in that regard. The current legal framework provides few incentives for agencies to ensure that the umbrella companies they use are compliant. We think it—and it sounds like the shadow Minister agrees—that that has contributed to the proliferation of non-compliance in the umbrella company market. It is important that agencies take steps to ensure that their labour supply chains are compliant, and some agencies already do. HMRC has published guidance on how to undertake checks. The shadow Minister asked about which agencies may be treated as umbrella companies, given the breadth, or otherwise, of the definition. We are, of course, aware that some agencies engage workers as employees, and where that is the case, and they meet the other conditions of the legislation, they will be treated in the same way as umbrella companies and this measure will apply. Employment is a fundamental characteristic of how most umbrella company workers are engaged and is the key aspect in determining when this legislation will apply. I think that will be the key legal test. Amendment 5 agreed to. Amendments made: 6, in clause 24, page 29, line 31, leave out “a ‘relevant party’ for the purposes” and insert “jointly and severally liable to pay an amount as a result”. This amendment makes sure that HMRC can use their power to make determinations about PAYE income in relation to persons who are jointly and severally liable to amounts of PAYE income under new section 61Z1 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. Amendment 7, in clause 24, page 29, line 32, leave out from “ITEPA” to end of line 33 and insert “(umbrella companies)—”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6. Amendment 8, in clause 24, page 29, line 34, leave out from first “to” to “as” in line 35 and insert “that amount”.— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Loan charge settlement scheme

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 25 to 27 provide for the Government to create a settlement opportunity in line with their response to the independent review of the loan charge, and to encourage those who have not yet settled with HMRC to come forward and do so. Clause 25 sets out some of the main features of the scheme, including how the new settlement amount will be calculated. Clause 26 will ensure that inheritance tax is not charged as part of any settlement where it relates to disguised remuneration arrangements in scope of the loan charge. Clause 27 makes supplementary provision for the settlement scheme to ensure that it can operate as intended. In some places, the Government have gone further than the review recommended. In addition to removing late payment interest and inheritance tax, and allowing for generous tax deductions to represent amounts assumed to have been paid to promoters, the Government will also write off the first £5,000 of each individual’s liability. Because of these changes, around 30% of people within scope of the review could see their liabilities removed entirely, while most other individuals will see their liabilities reduced by at least half. Turning to Government amendments 9 to 11, HMRC is aware of a number of promoters who have made use of their own disguised remuneration schemes and would be within scope of the settlement opportunity. I am very clear that it would be wrong for those individuals to be able to access the generous settlement terms on offer rather than paying every penny that they owe. Clause 25 makes provision for the exclusion of tax avoidance promoters from the settlement opportunity. Amendments 9 and 10 tighten those provisions to ensure that HMRC is able to prevent the controlling minds behind promoter companies from inappropriately accessing the settlement opportunity, in line with the Government’s announcements at the Budget. Amendments 9 to 11 also clarify that where an employer still exists, it can enter into a settlement on behalf of its employees who used disguised remuneration schemes. New clauses 25 and 26, which would require HMRC to publish a report on the operation and scope of the loan charge settlement opportunity and a report on the treatment of disguised remuneration arrangements falling outside the scope of the loan charge, are unnecessary. The Government published a comprehensive response to the review, setting out our position, at the Budget. That outlined the decisions the Government made to help draw this matter to a close for those impacted, and explained why the scope of the review had been set as it had. It explained that the settlement opportunity will apply to disguised remuneration use between December 2010 and April 2019, because that is the period to which the loan charge applies. While people who used tax avoidance schemes outside that period will not be able to access the scheme, HMRC will work sensitively and pragmatically to help people to resolve their cases, including by taking account of people’s means and offering generous payment terms where appropriate. I am sure that everyone will be aware that the loan charge is already subject to significant parliamentary scrutiny. HMRC officials and Treasury Ministers routinely provide updates on their work to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and the Treasury Committee asked the HMRC permanent secretary about this topic just last month. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Maidenhead not to move his new clauses, and commend clauses 25 to 27, and Government amendments 9 to 11, to the Committee.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to be opening the first debate in this Finance Bill Committee. Clause 11 sets the charge for corporation tax for the financial year commencing in April 2027 and sets the main rate at 25%. Clause 12 sets the small profits rate at 19% for the same period. The Government are committed to a stable and predictable tax system for businesses, and we are supporting businesses by creating the economic stability and fiscal sustainability needed for future growth. That is why we are delivering on our commitment, set out in the 2024 corporate tax road map, to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament. The changes made by clauses 11 and 12 will establish the right of the Government to charge corporation tax for the financial year beginning in April 2027.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 24 will make changes to ensure that recruitment agencies are responsible for accounting for pay-as-you-earn on payments made to workers that are supplied via umbrella companies. Many umbrella companies operate diligently and support their employees, but a significant number are used to facilitate non-compliance, including tax avoidance and fraud. Clause 24 is intended to encourage increased due diligence among businesses that choose to use umbrella companies to engage workers. It will do so by introducing joint and several liability for the PAYE taxes that umbrella companies are required to remit to HMRC. Government amendments 5 to 8 will ensure that the legislation works as intended by making a small technical change. This will ensure that HMRC is able to recover underpayments of tax from businesses that are within scope of the new rules because they purport to be umbrella companies, in the same manner that underpayments will be recovered from the other businesses that are within scope of the new rules. Amendment 5 will ensure that HMRC is able to keep taxpayers informed about its investigations concerning sums to which they are jointly and severally liable. That will help taxpayers to take action to mitigate their exposure to unpaid liabilities. I commend clause 24, together with Government amendments 5 to 8, to the Committee.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 13, page 7, line 37, at end insert— “( ) In section 169I(7D)(b) of TCGA 1992 (material disposal of business assets)— (a) for ‘tenth ’ substitute ‘specified’; (b) at the end insert ‘(with “specified anniversary” having the meaning given in section 529(2A) of that Act)’.” This amendment to TCGA 1992 would reflect the changes made to section 529 of ITEPA 2003 by clause 13 of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow Minister’s welcoming of the majority of the changes that we are making. To address his criticism of what we are doing in relation to the venture capital trust income tax relief, I come back to the impetus behind this package of reforms as a whole on EMI, EIS and VCT, which is to make sure that the UK is the best to start, scale, list a company and to ensure that companies stay. The specific change to VCT to reduce the income tax relief from 30% to 20% is to help rebalance the up-front tax reliefs offered across the schemes, where the VCT scheme offers tax relief on dividend income, which the EIS scheme investors do not get. VCTs tend to invest in larger, less risky, scaling companies compared with EIS scheme investors. The reduction in income tax relief therefore reflects the overall reduction in investment risk that comes with investing in later-stage companies. It is important to bear in mind that the VCT scheme remains very generous with, as I said, 100% tax relief on dividend payments and 100% capital gains tax relief on the sale of shares, alongside that 20% income tax relief. I know that the shadow Minister does not like TIINs in general—he has made that point in the Chamber—but they do contain the full details of the assumptions and impacts, and indeed the policy rationale. I therefore commend clauses 14 and 15 and Government amendments 3 and 4 to the Committee, and ask that amendment 29 and new clause 1 be rejected. Question put and agreed to. Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Venture capital trusts: rate of relief and amounts and asset requirements Amendment proposed : 29, in clause 15, page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (2).— (James Wild.) This amendment would maintain the rate of income tax relief for investments into venture capital trusts at 30 per cent. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 13 significantly expands the enterprise management incentives scheme eligibility to allow greater access for scaling companies. Specifically, the changes made by the clause will expand the EMI company eligibility limits to maintain the world-leading nature of the scheme. Government amendments 37 and 38 are consequential to the business asset disposal relief legislation, updating it to align with the EMI maximum holding period expansion provided by the clause. The change will significantly expand the EMI limits and expand access for scale-up companies. New clause 24 would require reports to the House of Commons on the impact of the clause on recruitment and retention in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative businesses and on the Exchequer finances. The Government have published a tax information and impact note setting out the impact of the EMI expansion. That showed that the measure will cost £585 million in 2029-30. The expansion is expected to support an extra 1,800 of the highest growth scale-up companies over the next five years, allowing them to reward an estimated 70,000 more employees. The Government keep all taxes under review, and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis. We have also launched a call for evidence to gather views from founders, entrepreneurs, scaling companies and investors on tax policy support for investment in high-growth UK companies.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to vaccinations and asked about the extent to which covid vaccinations might be part of the scheme. We are limiting relief to flu vaccinations because employers have consistently highlighted them as a common relief in relation to which reimbursement would be helpful. Flu vaccinations are low in cost, seasonal and widely offered by employers as part of routine health support to employees. By contrast, other vaccinations vary significantly in cost and frequency. Importantly, however, many of them can be accessed free through the NHS. As you might expect, Sir Roger, I completely reject the shadow Minister’s assertion that any of these measures is an attack on private sector workers. Not at all—far from it. It is important to be clear that clause 21 will not impact employers’ existing ability to reimburse employees for costs relating to home working, where eligible, without deducting income tax and national insurance contributions. The question of national insurance was raised in relation to clause 22 on payments for cancelled shifts. These payments will be subject to national insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was entirely right to refer to the Employment Rights Act and its significance. I think I am right in saying that a question was also raised about the taxable nature of payments for cancelled shifts. I can confirm that payments received for short-notice shift cancellations or changes are regarded as earnings. They are paid in lieu of the payment that workers would have received had they completed the shift, and as such they are taxable in all relevant scenarios, irrespective of the arrangement or the employment structure. Question put and agreed to. Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Umbrella companies

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government delivered the regulatory framework for PISCES in May 2025, and the shadow Minister has, fairly, asked for an update. I am pleased to tell him that the Financial Conduct Authority has since approved, as he may know, two PISCES market operators: JP Jenkins and the London Stock Exchange. We are hopeful that the first trading events on PISCES will take place soon. I understand the impetus behind the shadow Minister’s other points. PISCES can, of course, be written into new contracts when they are agreed, meaning that those contracts should not need to be amended to include PISCES, because it can be there ab initio. However, it is fair to say that companies might not yet be aware of PISCES, as it was only recently introduced. That is exactly why we have the April 2028 extension, to allow PISCES to become more embedded and therefore more standard in EMI and company share option plan contracts. As I said, I understand the impetus behind the suggested change; I just do not think it is necessary. Question put and agreed to . Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 17 Employee car and van ownership schemes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I managed to give way just before the end of my speech. The shadow Minister raises a good question and a fair point. Through the new measures and existing rules, HMRC will have powers that can result in criminal prosecution of promoters of tax avoidance, including the new universal stop regulation proposal, which will ban the promotion of the most fanciful schemes outright and allow the HMRC commissioners to ban by regulation the promotion of other arrangements that HMRC thinks will not work. We will consult on further measures to target promoters in early 2026—indeed, it is 2026 already, so the shadow Minister may assume that that will happen soon. Amendment 9 agreed to. Amendment made: 10, in clause 25, page 32, line 12, at end insert— “‘shadow director’ has the meaning given by section 251 of the Companies Act 2006.”— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment inserts a definition for the purpose of Amendment 9. Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Loan charge settlement scheme: supplementary Amendment made: 11, in clause 27, page 33, line 15, at end insert— “(da) adapting provision made under section 25(6), in cases where a settlement offer is made to a person who is not an individual, about the calculation of settlement amounts (including provision for the calculation to be different to what is required by section 25(6));”.— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment clarifies that the loan charge settlement scheme can provide for the calculation of the settlement amount to be adapted where a settlement offer is made to a person who is not an individual. Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The shadow Minister asked about working with businesses to get the word out. We have been working closely with industry on the expansion to leasing and we are consulting businesses on guidance to ensure that understanding of the new rules is as full as possible. The TIINs beloved of the shadow Minister, we now hear, make it clear that the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” sets out that the measure is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts, and for future investment the present value and cost of capital for businesses that claim the new first-year allowance remains broadly the same following these changes. For all those reasons, I maintain the view that new clause 2 should be rejected. Question put and agreed to. Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 25, page 30, line 21, at end insert “, or (ii) a director or shadow director of such a person.” This amendment expands the persons to whom the Commissioners are not required to make a loan charge settlement offer so as to include directors and shadow directors of a promoter or introducer.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 34 makes a minor legislative amendment to the R&D tax relief rules to put beyond doubt that the overseas restrictions apply to R&D expenditure credit claimants with a registered office in Northern Ireland. The Government are making this amendment to provide clarity to businesses and ensure that the legislation aligns with the original policy intent of the Finance Act 2025. I commend clause 34 to the Committee.