James Wild
MP for North West Norfolk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it. Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations. The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge. As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us when she expects a final decision to be taken?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,624 held · 618 searchable for James Wild. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“If so, what is the purpose of that, considering that we might be dealing with multinational companies operating in multiple jurisdictions that would have to follow separate rules when the OECD has brought together a coherent package?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 49 and schedule 7 make changes to the rules that decide, where a company has a permanent establishment in the UK, how its profits are then taxed and when they apply. The Minister talked about modernising and simplifying the rules to bring them into line with international best practice. To clarify, in November 2025 the OECD published new guidance on the definition of a “permanent establishment”. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK’s current approach reflects that updated guidance, as I have been advised that it does not? Some expert bodies have pointed out that the OECD changes are generally helpful and would bring more consistency across countries, so does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the UK to broadly adopt them? Is that the Government’s approach, or have they deliberately decided to have a set of UK rules?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To conclude, international co-operation on tax is essential, but we need to ensure not only that the UK is honouring its commitments, but that other countries are meeting theirs, so that UK companies are not losing out as a result.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without scrutiny, the risk is that UK-headquartered multinationals will find themselves complying with complex and burdensome rules, while their competitors operating elsewhere face a lighter regime. I simply note that the Chartered Institute of Taxation pointed out that it thinks the burdens of pillar two “continue to appear disproportionate to the amount of tax that will be raised”. If the Government truly believe that the regime provides a balanced and proportionate approach to a level playing field and that we can be assured that the competitive advantage does not go to other countries, let us have that report, see it set out to Parliament and have the matter resolved.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The US Treasury Secretary has described the side-by-side deal as “a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach.” Will the Minister comment on what pillar two means in that context and on the UK’s position? The impacts that might flow from that are precisely why new clause 5 is needed. The Government say that the UK is aligned with international developments, but the international landscape is shifting. Other major economies have delayed implementation or have adopted narrower regimes; meanwhile, the US has its own agreement and has not legislated for this framework at all.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those are sensible to maintain international consistency, but throughout last year there was growing international uncertainty about pillar two, the subject of the clause, as political divergence emerged over how it should operate, particularly regarding the treatment of US-parented companies. The Minister referred to the side-by-side agreement made between G7 Governments last summer—and formalised, I think, this month—allowing certain UK and US multinationals to be exempt from parts of the rules while retaining access to the newly defined safe harbours. The agreement might bring some short-term stability, but it raises questions, and clearly we will be scrutinising it when, as the Minister said, it comes forward in future legislation.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If it is conducting this work anyway, why not share it with Parliament, and accept that it is a proportionate step to ensure ongoing parliamentary scrutiny in a very important area—a level playing field for British firms? The Minister referred to the length of the schedule. The sheer volume of amendments, coming less than two years after pillar two was first introduced, highlights the extreme technical complexity of the global minimum tax and the challenges for businesses that have to comply with it to keep up to date. The Government’s aim is to ensure that UK rules remain consistent with the OECD model legislation, and schedule 8 is therefore aligned with the guidance and technical fixes.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review the changes on a six-monthly basis and lay before Parliament a report assessing three key issues: whether other major economies are implementing pillar two on comparable timelines and with comparable scope, whether any competitive disadvantage is arising for UK-based multinationals, and the impact of differentiated treatment for the United States. Crucially, if that review identified a material competitive disadvantage to the UK and UK businesses, the Treasury would be obliged to provide remedial measures within three months. In rejecting new clause 5—another new clause that asks for a review—the Minister says that the Treasury is always conducting regular reviews of measures.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to clause 50 and to new clause 5, which is in my name. Clause 50 will amend parts of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 and implement the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. As I set out in the last Finance Bill Committee, in October 2021 more than 135 countries signed up to the G20/OECD agreement on reforming international transactions and taxation, which the clause refers to—a major achievement that aims to ensure that multinational groups pay a fair share of tax where they generate profits. Pillar two delivers a minimum global effective tax rate of 15% for large multinational groups in every country they operate in, and the UK has been one of the first jurisdictions to legislate for the changes.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister said, this is a fairly straightforward measure allowing HMRC to pay interest to companies that have had to hand over money under a now overturned EU state aid ruling relating to the controlled foreign company rules. The 2019 ruling was subsequently annulled. My only question for the Minister is: does the clause mark the final chapter in the UK’s compliance with the EU state aid rules relating to the controlled foreign companies regime, or could other outstanding matters give rise to further issues or payments?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am really asking for the Minister’s assurance that HMRC will take a sensible and proportionate approach, particularly with smaller charities that are seeking to do the right thing in applying these rules. We all want to avoid the potential risk that this measure could deter charitable giving, when that is clearly not the intention. It is important that the concerns raised by the sector are aired in the Committee, and it is our role to do so.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Charity Finance Group warns that the changes could mean more record keeping, compliance checks and bureaucracy, taking money away from frontline charitable activities and towards administration. I do not think that anyone would wish to see that. I do not know whether the Minister has anything more to add on that complexity. Adding complexity could also make life harder for executors and delay the administration of estates, which could affect the timing of cash flows to charities at a time when finances in the sector are under considerable pressure, and income is critical for them to do their job. There is also a risk that wealthier donors might think twice about leaving legacies to smaller charities, if they think that the charity might struggle to comply with HMRC rules.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“HMRC has said that it will not set a deadline for how soon money must be used, although that ambiguity creates issues in itself. If the rules are unclear, HMRC could later decide that a gift has not been applied appropriately and withdraw the tax relief, undermining confidence that legacy gifts to charities will remain tax-free. Perhaps the Minister could give the Committee some clarity on that point, and on how HMRC will determine what counts as timely or appropriate application of funds. There is also a concern about the administrative burden it may place, particularly on smaller charities, which will have to prove that each legacy received has been properly applied to charitable purposes, even when the money is placed in long-term endowments or reserves.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The change will apply to gifts made on or after 6 April this year. New clause 6, in my name—it bears repetition—would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Act becoming law, to publish a report on the impact of the measure on charitable giving through estates and on the wider impact on the charity sector. Concerns have been raised that expanding rules to cover legacies could have unwelcome implications if charities do not apply inherited funds quickly enough to their charitable purposes, leading to them being taxed. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warns that that uncertainty, particularly around the timing, may discourage potential donors from including charities in their wills. Clearly, none of us would wish to see that.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Charities are a very important topic. We need to ensure that we give it appropriate scrutiny, given the importance of charities in our society and communities. Clause 52 and new clause 6—which I will speak to—relate to extending the definition of attributable income to include legacies left to charities. In practice, that means that when a charity receives a gift left in a person’s will, it could face a tax charge if that money is not spent on its charitable activities. How charities use their funds is a topical subject in the context of the Church of England, which is planning to spend £100 million on its fund for healing, repair and justice—effectively a reparation fund for slavery, which many consider not to be an appropriate use of the funds, or what people gave funds to the Church for. I now turn to the clause.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Was that more flexible approach something that the Government have considered, and if so why did they chose to reject it?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak clause 53 and new clause 7, which was tabled in my name. My comments will reflect submissions from people involved in the charitable sector and my discussions with them. The clause extends the allowable purpose to all categories of recognisable charitable investment—at present, it applies to only one, but it will cover all 12. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has raised a suggestion that the test be reframed from “for the sole purpose of” to “wholly or mainly” to the benefit of the charity. The concern is that there could be increased obligations for compliance on trustees who have to demonstrate that their every investment in, for example, their portfolio was made for the benefit of the charity rather than an ancillary purpose therein.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister consider there is a risk that shifting to such an approach could have the effect that the charitable sector has set out? If so, will she commit to perhaps providing some practical guidance, with examples that charities and their compliance teams could look at so that they can see that charitable giving is not undermined? None of us on this Committee would want to do anything that would undermine the ability of charities to raise money and disincentivise anyone from giving money for fear that they might be caught inadvertently by rules when they have done nothing wrong.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That donor could then find themselves caught by the anti-avoidance rules without ever having done anything wrong. That could cause uncertainty and raise concerns about people leaving legacy gifts that the charity sector relies on. It is not just the charity and that one body. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has warned that donors may have limited influence over the outcome once the donation has been made. It, too, questions the fairness and practicality of shifting from a motive to an outcome test. Indeed, it proposes that the existing rules are not altered for that precise reason. We tabled the two new clauses to introduce proper scrutiny of the measures and ensure Parliament understands the effect on the charitable sector and whether donations continue to be given.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 9 would require a review of the implementation of the new outcome test after two years and would assess whether it proves to be clearer than the existing purpose test. The Minister and the Government said that this measure is about tightening anti-avoidance rules and the challenge of proving intent. But I have been approached by the Charity Finance Group, which represents over 1,400 organisations and manages one third of the sector’s £20 billion annual income, and it has raised concerns around the change. It warned that the outcome test could unfairly penalise both donors and charities for results outwith their control. For example, a donor could make a genuine good faith contribution only for a charity months later to make a routine investment or financial arrangement that inadvertently benefits a linked person.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to clause 54 and to new clauses 8 and 9 tabled in my name. The clause makes significant changes to how tainted donations are treated. At present the donation is considered tainted only if it was made with an improper purpose. This clause replaces the motive-based test with an outcome test. If someone connected to the donor under the new regime receives financial assistance from a charity, such as a grant, guarantee or loan, the donation will be deemed tainted regardless of the donor’s intent. I have tabled new clause 8 to require the Government to publish a report on how the change affects legitimate charitable giving, or genuinely tackles tax abuse.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How many companies just above the existing threshold are expected to utilise these expanded limits? The BVCA has said that the enterprise management incentives scheme is “long overdue for reform: high growth companies are often unable to grant EMI options due to the constraints of the £30m gross assets and 250 employee limits.” Does the Minister have figures showing how much these limits have actually restricted growth?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that will be a debate that we have many times as we consider the Bill: a TIIN is not a review of what has actually happened. The numbers that the Minister gave may be higher or lower, but we need to have a post-implementation review. According to the Budget 2025 policy costings, the objective is to increase eligibility to allow scale-ups, as well as start-ups, to access the scheme. That is, of course, something we support. Will the Minister commit to keeping the scheme under review to ensure it is delivering on its aims to support high-growth firms and to consider whether further action, such as on the individual threshold, is needed? Given the substantial investment, can the Minister clarify what behavioural assumptions underpin these projections?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In its report on competitiveness, published yesterday, TheCityUK states that, “the UK’s tax schemes such as…Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI) offer lower relief thresholds and tighter eligibility than international equivalents such as the Qualified Small Business Stock regime in the US, weakening incentives to scale and retain activity domestically.” I have tabled new clause 24, which would require the Government to assess and report to Parliament on the impact that the changes have on the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative companies and on the Exchequer. The Minister referred to the tax information and impact note, but clearly that is a forecast of what the Government hope will happen, not a review of what has actually happened.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause increases the company options limit from £3 million to £6 million, raises the gross asset limit from £30 million to £120 million, and doubles the employee limit from 250 to 500. It also extends the exercise period to 15 years. These are all welcome changes. However, one important element that is not due to change under these provisions is that the scheme allows qualifying companies to grant employee share options up to a maximum value of £250,000 per individual. Has the Minister considered going further and raising the cap beyond £250,000 to attract the brightest and best to grow businesses?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That scheme helps attract, keep and motivate staff by allowing employees to buy shares in the company with tax advantages. That includes no income tax or national insurance contributions at the time of grant and exercise, with gains eventually being taxed under the more favourable capital gains regime, rather than as income tax. The changes in the clause should make it easier for start-ups and growing companies to use the enterprise management incentives scheme, helping them reward staff and link employees’ success to the company’s growth. That is something that we support and the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association has also welcomed the change.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and on the Committee considering this 536-page doorstop of a Bill. We are grateful for the written contributions and evidence provided to the Committee, but I think the usual channels should consider having oral evidence sessions for future Finance Bills, so that people can make important representations on significant pieces of legislation. I will turn to clause 13 and new clause 24 tabled in my name. We need to have an enterprise economy that incentivises investment. The tax regime clearly has an important role to play in helping to achieve that, and in doing so, backing much needed growth in the economy. Clause 13 amends the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 to expand the enterprise management incentives scheme.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How would the Minister address the concerns of the investment sector that the combined changes will dampen investor appetite for venture capital trusts at the very moment we need to encourage them?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact of the cuts to VCT allowance on early-stage investment volume, investor participation and international competitiveness. Given the Government’s own admission that this will alter investment behaviour, such reporting is essential, and I reiterate that a TIIN does not review what actually happens in practice. Amendment 29 would simply remove the provision in clause 15(2) that reduces the rate relief from 30% to 20%, keeping the relief at its current level to support investment in high-growth firms. I believe both amendments would be supported by industry and, subject to what the Minister says, I intend to press amendment 29 to a vote. The Government are expanding VCT investment limits while simultaneously cutting the relief to 20%.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“VCTs are a key part of the UK’s capital mix, providing one of the few consistent sources of long-term equity for early-stage and scaling companies. Any reduction in their ability to raise funds would directly affect the pipeline of innovative businesses that the UK needs to grow. The reduction in VCT relief to 20% creates a fundamental risk to venture capital funding, precisely when scale-ups face capital constraints. For early-stage companies dependent on VCT funding, the reduced relief translates directly into a higher cost of capital and reduced funding availability. The Budget relies heavily on revenue raising from less visible and more complex parts of the tax system. This VCT change exemplifies that approach, shifting costs to venture investors rather than implementing transparent broad-based taxation.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The policy costings state that this rate reduction is intended to “better balance the amount of upfront tax relief…and ensure funds are targeting the highest growth companies”, but the costings’ own assumption that “investors alter or reduce the way they invest into VCT” is an acknowledgment that the relief cut will dampen investor appetite. I am concerned by how much that tax increase will reduce investment in these high-growth companies that we all support. The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association has been explicit about its concerns, warning that this reduction “could lead to a decline in fundraising that would impact the high growth and high-risk investments that the Government is looking to encourage”.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The total amount that can be raised over time will increase to £40 million for those knowledge-intensive firms. The gross assets yield for qualifying companies will go up to £30 million before a share issue and £35 million thereafter. TheCityUK has said that schemes such as EIS remain vital for crowding in early-stage finance and these changes are welcomed by the industry. Clause 15 heads somewhat in the opposite direction. This clause reduces the rate of income tax relief for investment in VCTs from 30% to 20%. This is where our doubts begin to grow. The 2025 Budget policy costings reveal a calculated trade-off. The increased limits in clause 14 will cost the Exchequer £60 million in 2027-28. Meanwhile, the reduction in VCT income tax relief will raise £125 million in the same year, delivering a net yield of approximately £65 million.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The main difference between the schemes is that with EIS an investor buys shares directly in an eligible company, whereas with VCTs the investor buys shares in a listed fund-like vehicle, which then spreads their money across a portfolio of qualifying companies. These clauses increase the annual and lifetime investment limits for the EIS and VCTs in Great Britain and raise the gross asset thresholds for qualifying companies. Clause 14 increases the annual and lifetime investment limits for the EIS and VCTs, and raises gross asset thresholds. These limits have not been uprated since 2018 for knowledge-intensive companies and 2015 for other companies. Now, all limits are being doubled, which is welcome. As we have heard, for both schemes, the limit will rise from £10 million to £20 million.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the venture capital industry has noted, these are essential tools in unlocking private capital for early-stage, high-growth UK businesses, which we all support, particularly in the knowledge-intensive sectors such as life sciences, clean energy and deep tech; however, companies now routinely require £20 million to £30 million in funding before they start to sell their products. The previous limits had prevented UK investors from following their initial investment with more capital, forcing businesses to turn to overseas capital too early. That is a problem I think we all want to fix.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 14 and 15 are a story of two halves. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation rather adeptly put it—we are grateful for its support in scrutinising the Bill—these changes give with one hand and take with the other. We support clause 14, but we have doubts about clause 15. Both clauses deal with our risk capital schemes—the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. EIS was introduced in the UK in 1994 to stimulate economic growth and, along with VCTs, these Government-backed schemes encourage individuals to invest in smaller high-risk trading companies by offering tax reliefs on their investment. As a former adviser in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I helped to develop these schemes, as well as the seed enterprise investment scheme. I recognise their importance.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister says, clause 16 addresses a specific but important matter by permitting employers to amend existing company share option plan and enterprise management incentives option agreements, to allow PISCES trading events to serve as exercisable events without sacrificing the valuable tax advantages. Employers frequently offer share options to employees in recognition of their service and commitment, and to grow their businesses, and when employees exercise such options, they naturally face income tax and national insurance consequences. To encourage this form of employee ownership, successive Governments have introduced tax-advantaged schemes, including CSOP and EMIs, that provide relief from those taxes when certain conditions are satisfied.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will look sympathetically on the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses if he chooses to press them to a vote. I have constituents who were heavily pressured by HMRC and ended up settling, which left them at a considerable financial loss, so I share his concern that those people, who were effectively bullied by HMRC, will now not get the same support as people who held out.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to promoters of disguised remuneration schemes not being eligible for this settlement scheme, which I welcome. Perhaps she could update the Committee on whether HMRC is proactively pursuing such individuals, who caused such distress to my constituents and, of course, to people across the country who were sold schemes, advised that they were legitimate and had been agreed with HMRC, and then discovered they were not and have lost their homes and their life savings as a result.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister referred to Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that suggest these combined measures will cost businesses more than £1 billion in 2026–27, rising to around £1.5 billion a year thereafter. That is a significant burden at a time when companies are grappling with weak investment and, to put it bluntly, the higher costs imposed in the first Budget. The £20 billion jobs tax has had a big impact, as we saw in the data earlier this week and as we see in the number of graduates who are struggling to find jobs. As I say, the inclusion of leasing is welcome, but we do think there is benefit in reviewing those measures after the event and coming back to Parliament to explain what has happened.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What steps are being taken to tell businesses about these new allowances and freedoms they have to invest in leased assets—for example, by working with business organisations to get the word out? Opposition Members will certainly do that with businesses in our constituencies. The new allowance will provide some up-front support for qualifying new investment, partly offsetting the impact of reducing the main writing-down rate to 14%. Once again, the Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other. The uplift will be of use for unincorporated and leasing businesses, but for most other businesses with historical or non-qualifying assets, there is no uplift at all. They simply face a slower rate of relief, going down to 14%, stretching allowances over a longer period and affecting their cash flow.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The allowance is not available for special rate expenditure, second-hand or used machinery, expenditure under disqualifying regimes or general exclusions. We support the expansion set out in this clause. While these measures may have good aims, introducing an additional rate adds some complexity to the system. There is also the length of the Finance Bill that we are considering—536 pages of dense text—and that we expect businesses and individuals across the country to comply with, else HMRC will come after them. I urge the Government to monitor closely the impact on business investment and to look at options for a more streamlined or neutral capital allowances structure in future.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has the Treasury assessed the impact on business investment intentions, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in manufacturing and logistics? If not, I am sure that the Minister looks forward to supporting new clause 2. Clause 29 is an attempt to balance the changes made in clause 28. It introduces a new 40% first-year allowance from 1 January 2026 for new, unused main rate plant and machinery. The new allowance expands relief to unincorporated businesses and firms that buy assets to lease out, which do not qualify for full expensing or the 50% special rate allowance once they go over the £1 million annual investment allowance. The explanatory notes highlight that this new allowance represents an expansion to include leasing, which we welcome—those activities that have traditionally been excluded from such reliefs.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Make UK has described this Budget as “a case of two steps forward one step back for manufacturers.” The 4% in reduction in the writing-down allowance is undeniably bad news for business. It is little wonder that polling by the Institute of Directors reveals that four in five business leaders view this Budget negatively, and I think that those findings were replicated across the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and many other business organisations. The delayed recovery of capital costs will constrain reinvestment in modernisation and automation, precisely when UK manufacturers are already facing strong headwinds, not least from the very high energy costs that they face in this country. The reduction from 18% to 14% will diminish the speed at which businesses can recover these costs.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The 2025 Budget policy costing document presents that as a part of capital allowance reform, but the reduction in the main writing-down rate will alter the cash flow position of capital-intensive businesses, slowing the rate at which they can recover investment costs through tax relief. Businesses with substantial brought-forward main pool balances will see their tax relief decelerate, with corresponding impacts on cash flow and the overall tax benefit. For companies planning significant investment, timing has now become more important. This is yet another structural tax increase on businesses with large asset bases, which will now recover their investments more slowly.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They spread tax relief over several years by permitting a set percentage of the remaining pool balance to be written off annually, with assets allocated to either a main rate or special rate pool, depending on their classification. Clause 28 reduces the main rate from 18% to 14% a year, while the special rate remains at 6%. The relevant date is 1 April 2026 for corporation tax purposes, and 6 April 2026 for income tax. For periods straddling that change, a hybrid rate will apply. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to produce a report that examines the impact of those reductions on business investment levels, capital investment sector employment, the manufacturing sector, small and medium-sized enterprises and public finances.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Beyond that, there are the first-year allowances with no annual cap. The most generous of those is full expensing, which the Minister referred to, which provides a 100% deduction for qualifying main rate assets and a 50% allowance for certain special rate assets. Those measures were introduced by the previous Conservative Government in order to stimulate faster investment and drive up what have been, I think it is fair to say, historically low levels of business investment throughout all parties’ periods in government. I think that we are all committed to try and address that. Where businesses cannot or choose not to utilise those more generous allowances, they rely on writing-down allowances.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to get on the record that I do not have a problem with TIINs, but they serve a different purpose from reviewing legislation after the event. I would not want any Treasury officials to feel that the Opposition do not value TIINs. I will speak to clauses 28 and 29 as well as new clause 2, which is tabled in my name. Capital allowances are one of the primary mechanisms through which our tax system supports business investment. They enable firms to deduct the cost of purchasing plant and machinery from taxable profits, thereby reducing their tax liability and helping them to invest and grow, which we all support. The annual investment allowance is perhaps the most straightforward example. It allows businesses to deduct the full cost of most plant and machinery up to £1 million annually, in the same the year that the expenditure occurs.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given their 2030 obsession, why have the Government again chosen a one-year extension that provides limited certainty for fleet operators or for the charging infrastructure sector? I see that the hon. Member for Banbury is getting ready to dive into the debate. Will the Minister support new clause 3 and commit to a proper assessment of the lasting framework that is needed to secure Britain’s place in the green technology economy of the future?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would require the Chancellor to assess, transparently and on the record, whether a long-term support system is justified to keep Britain competitive in the global race for green manufacturing. A formal assessment would give Parliament and businesses the information they need to plan ahead. In the debate on clause 11, the Minister referred to the long-term certainty provided by committing to a 25% corporation tax rate for this Parliament. Of course, that is not actually in the legislation, but we welcome that commitment and the greater certainty, and similar certainty could be given in this area. A formal assessment could also ensure that public money is being used wisely and that policy provides the certainty to unlock the investment we all want to see.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister recognise that it creates a stop-start approach that could discourage investment, undermine industry confidence and, ultimately, slow the UK’s transition to clean, green technology? That is odd when, in many ways, the Government are accelerating full throttle towards 2030 electrification across the grid. Members may have pylons and other pieces of grid infrastructure being dumped in their constituencies, with no public recourse, in the name of the Energy Secretary’s net zero goals. It is worth asking whether their policy is joined up if it includes these incremental extensions. In that spirit, I have tabled new clause 3 so that hon. Members can judge whether the Government have a coherent approach.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗