James Wild

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

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 6 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.

1. “In simple terms, a company planning a project on that scale can get specified advice on how the tax rules will apply and can get a written determination that both sides need to follow, subject to the caveats to which the Minister referred, including the change of law. Will the Government be keeping the £1 billion pound threshold under review? Will they commit to publishing clear statistics on the number of applications and approvals? Clause 264 sets out the binding nature of the clearances. Where HMRC issues a ruling and the facts remain consistent, it must apply that treatment so that the taxpayer can rely on it. That is what we need to see and what investors want to see: certainty.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “Clauses 263 to 271, which introduce the new system of advance tax clearance, will give legislative effect to the commitment in the Government’s corporate tax road map to offer greater certainty for major investment. A public consultation was run last year; the summary of responses, which came out at the Budget, shows consistent support for this measure. We welcome it and look forward to it beginning in July 2026. Under clause 263, HMRC will be able to issue binding advance tax clearances for investments worth more than £1 billion over their lifetime. Although corporation tax is the most important area in which respondents argued for certainty, it could also cover VAT, stamp duty, land tax, income tax and other measures.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “I will not detain the Committee long on these clauses. We support clause 274 and the sensible modernisation work, which—the Minister must have overlooked this, but I am sure he will acknowledge it in his reasonable way—began under the previous Government—”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “Not that one—the stamp duty one. Extending the oversight in clause 275 is clearly sensible, and I do not have anything to add on the cleaning-up operation in clause 277, the enabling of abbreviations in clause 278 or the title of the Bill.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “The CBI said that the Government’s, “scattergun approach to tax risks leaving the economy stuck in neutral”. When we hear these siren voices, it is important that Ministers stop, listen and take account of the wider effects and headwinds that people are facing. That is why new clauses 35 and 33 are so important—they would require the Chancellor to come and account for the impact of her measures.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, with more than 5 million of them making up 99% of total business population. Together with small and medium-sized enterprises, they employ around 17 million people—shopkeepers, market traders, tradespeople and so on, as well as the entrepreneurs who are driving growth, creating jobs and trying to keep our high streets alive. Sadly, under this Government, they are facing increasingly high costs and burdens, and the Bill adds yet more. It is little wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses has warned of the perils of a continuing economic doom loop. Its small business index shows that confidence is at minus 71—the lowest level since the pandemic. It is minus 100 for hospitality firms, which the Exchequer Secretary will not be surprised about.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “The Confederation of British Industry growth indicator—it comes from businesses, so I would not dismiss it out of hand—shows that firms expect output and headcount to fall. Businesses are closing as a direct consequence of the political choices that the Chancellor has made, many of which are set out in the Bill. The new clause would require that to be looked at, which is why it is so important; it would ensure that the Chancellor reviews and comes back to the House with proposals to use the tax system to support investment in growth. New clause 35 would require the Chancellor to publish, within 12 months of the Bill being passed, a full assessment of the Bill’s impact, particularly on small businesses, setting out the cumulative impact of measures in the context of wider pressures.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “That seems to have disappeared, and little wonder: this Budget contained £26 billion of additional tax rises on top of the £40 billion in the first Budget, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Instead, the Government continue to drive the tax burden ever higher—to record levels. The new clause would require the Chancellor to look at the impact on businesses, including on increasing their profits and revenue. Let us look at the record of the Government: growth has flatlined; GDP grew by 0.1% in the three months up to November, having shown no growth at all in the period before; and inflation has been above the Bank of England’s target for the entirety of the last year. As a result, business confidence has collapsed.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “We have heard a common theme in Committee that the Bill places yet more strain and burden on businesses already facing a difficult economic climate. It is stuffed full of tax increases: the family farm tax, the family business tax, the cutting of venture capital relief by a third, taxes on carried interest, taxes on taxis, and higher duties and environmental levies. I could go on at length, but I suspect I would not be hugely popular. The Minister—indeed, Ministers—may think that the measures are going to encourage growth. We have not heard much about growth in this sitting, except from Conservative Members. The Exchequer Secretary spoke a lot about the need to have balance in public spending, yin and yang, but he did not talk about growth, which used to be the central driving mission of this Government.”

   House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “I will speak to new clauses 33 and 35 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. New clause 33 would require a review of the effects of the Bill on businesses: within 12 months of the Bill being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to conduct a full assessment of how its measures affect businesses across the United Kingdom. The Chancellor would then be required to report back to the House with recommendations specifically on how business taxes could be used to encourage greater investment of profits and revenues, and on how to give firms more certainty about the tax system. The Committee might well ask why the new clause is necessary. I will happily explain.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by the measures in this Act.”— (James Wild.) This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in this Act on the finances of households at a range of different income levels. Brought up, and read the First time.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “Sadly, the Minister’s response is predictable; I think we have won the argument on why these measures would be useful have in the legislation, but we may not win a vote. The Minister refers to the TIINs once again, but as we have debated ad nauseum, they are forward looking, and not an after-the-event review of what has actually happened. That is the difference, which is why we keep returning to this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 34 Review of impact of tax changes in this Act on households “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the aggregate impact of the measures in this Act on household finances.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “Whether through higher alcohol duty, air passenger duty or vehicle excise duty, or by making the cost of taxis more expensive, the measures in the Bill will directly hit households, and the costs that go on to business will obviously feed through into their prices as well. Behind all that, soaring borrowing means that billions of pounds are now being spent just to service the Chancellor’s debt. Hard-working families are paying the price for the failure to get a grip and to get growth into the economy. That is why we believe that the impact of these measures on households should be monitored carefully, and why the Chancellor should publish a full assessment, as new clause 34 would require.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “The OBR has been up front about the reasons for that growth, if we can call it that: it says that slower real wage growth and rising taxes explain much of the decline. For a Budget that was supposed to focus on the cost of living, that is a pretty damning verdict. Even the Government’s own watchdog says that the Government’s measures will make things worse, not better. With inflation continuing to stay well above target and well above the level that this Government inherited, families are continuing to feel the price of this economic mismanagement, and they will do for some time.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of how the measures in the Bill affect the finances of households across different income levels. It would shine a light on the real impact on ordinary families of the Government’s choices. As we all know, households are under immense financial pressure, and the measures in the Bill will, in many respects, not make that easier. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that growth in real household disposable income per person is set to fall dramatically, from 3% in 2025 to just 0.25% a year over the forecast period. That is not just below the OBR’s March forecast, but well below the average growth of the last decade, as the Minister knows full well.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “I am not sure about the analogy—I do not know whether the Minister was pulling that off the cuff. I do not think I heard him deny the figure that I quoted, which was that the OBR predicts that real household disposable income will increase by only 0.25% over the forecast period. I do not think that he is disagreeing with that figure, or that the average over the previous decade was growth of 1%.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make a statement to the House of Commons on the findings of the report within three months of its publication.”— (James Wild.) This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the effects of the Act on the administrative burden on businesses, including the impact on SMEs and any mitigation measures. Brought up, and read the First time .”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “New Clause 36 Review of the effects of this Act on the administrative burden on businesses “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act on administrative burdens faced by businesses. (2) The report must in particular consider any— (a) change in the time or resources required by businesses to comply with obligations arising under this Act, (b) effects on small and medium-sized enterprises, and (c) measures taken by HMRC to mitigate any increase in administrative burdens.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “Well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest says from a sedentary position, pandemics, wars and energy price shocks did have something to do with the impact, but the figure is a 0.25% rise over the forecast period. The Minister can boast about that growth and say he is going to beat the forecast, but that is the OBR forecast, in black and white, following the decisions in the Budget. The Minister’s comments almost tempt me to push my new clause to a vote, but on balance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “Can he confirm whether the Bill moves us closer to the Government’s 25% reduction target, or further away from that goal?”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “More than 530 pages of the Bill are taken up with technical tax changes and a lot of detailed schedules. Those changes carry a real financial cost, as well as a time cost, as staff will have to focus on them rather than on growing their businesses. That will result in a loss of productivity, particularly in small and medium-sized firms that lack the resources necessary to keep up with the changes. That is precisely why we need a clear assessment of the Bill’s impact on the administrative burden facing businesses. What, if anything, do the Government intend to do to mitigate that? After all the pre-Budget speculation—the column inches, leaks, briefings and counter-briefings—will the Minister, if he does not want me to press the new clause to a vote, provide a combined estimate of how much all the measures in the Bill will cost UK industry?”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “A growing list of quangos are being created: Great British Energy, the Independent Football Regulator, Great British Railways. For every body that they scrap, they seem to create at least one more, and possibly two. Last week, an important National Audit Office report warned that the Government’s regulatory reforms risk doing the opposite of what is intended. It concluded that the cost of new legislation may well outweigh any reduction in administrative burden—that 25% reduction that the Government have committed to, despite not allocating the required savings amounts to Departments. Businesses will be no better off. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is a member, will look carefully at that report in holding regulators, Ministers and civil servants to account.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “The Ministers speak with zeal for deregulation—the Business Secretary is a particular repeat offender—and about the Government’s ambition to cut the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We know that red tape and regulatory compliance costs out at about 3% to 4% of GDP, which is about £70 billion. We all want to see that cut; it is an issue I have focused on since coming into this House, as I did in my previous roles in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The case for action could not be clearer. However, as is so often the case with this Government, there is a big gap between what they promise and what they deliver. They talk about cutting bureaucracy, but the reality tells a different story.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 36 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the effects of the Bill on the administrative burden on businesses, including the impact on small and medium-sized businesses, and any mitigation measures that have been taken. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been reminded not only of its financial impacts on businesses and working people, but of the red tape and regulatory cost it piles on to them. Whether it is the new reporting requirements faced by charities, the complex international rules or the new levies, such as the vaping tax and carbon tax, businesses will once again face an increased burden.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “I thank Billy Falcon in my office, who has done sterling work in pulling together all the evidence from industry and in scrutinising the Bill, helping me to put together my remarks. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, the shadow Minister, will want to thank William in his office, who has performed a similar job, at rather short notice as well. He has helped to ensure that we have scrutinised the Bill thoroughly. I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary and to the City Minister for their responses to our points and our new clauses. I am not sure which one of them I will see in February in King’s Lynn on the dodgems—”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “I am surprised the Minister was able to say that last bit with a straight face when he was corpsing about carbon taxes earlier in Committee. As this will be the final time I speak in Committee, I thank you, Mrs Harris, along with Mr Efford and Sir Roger, for your time in the Chair. I thank the Clerks and officials, all the Members, who contributed so well to the Committee’s deliberations, and our Doorkeepers. I thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Association of Taxation Technicians, the ICAEW and the many other organisations that provided valuable submissions on the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I thank the authors of the TIINs, which I have studied diligently. They do a very good job, but they do not do a review job.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Perhaps both—there we go. Any other Members would be welcome to join us as well. I look forward to that. Sadly, the Exchequer Secretary was unable to give me that global figure, so I intend to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”

    House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “Of course, these higher rates come on top of higher employment costs, increased alcohol duties and the new tourist tax on hotels and bed and breakfasts, which UKHospitality warns could cost consumers £518 million, if the mayors take up the powers given to them by the Government. We would take a very different approach. We would deliver permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses of up to £110,000, helping around 250,000 small businesses, and we would pay for it by controlling the welfare budget. We believe in backing those taking a risk, employing people and investing.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “The standard multiplier will be 48p, and the high value multiplier will be 50.8p—an extra 2.8p in the pound. Big online warehouses, with a rateable value of at least £500,000, are supposedly the target, but twice as many retail sites, often acting as anchors for our high streets, will now face this higher rate. That is not what Labour promised before the election. It said it would replace the business rates system, raising the same revenue in a fairer way and levelling the playing field between high streets and online giants. Will the Minister explain why the Government are targeting anchor retail stores that are so important to our wider high streets?”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “It covers just 38,000 out of 750,000 hospitality and leisure businesses—barely one in 20—and it excludes restaurants, cafes, shops, hotels, theatres and all the venues that will have been in touch with members of the Committee. One in four pubs will still pay more overall, even after that relief, and guess what? That relief is only temporary—indeed, a sticking plaster. The Minister previously said there would be no further support for the wider sector. We all hope that he has to come back to the House with that package soon enough, or perhaps the Chancellor will actually do it herself when she delivers her spring update. The draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 set the rate for the new high value multiplier.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s estimate—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one to the Treasury— of the number of businesses that will not get the relief under the discretionary powers that were there in the first place? The rates of the small and standard multipliers are set in separate regulations, so I will not dwell on those, but two months on from the Budget, we have already seen a partial reversal of the plans the Chancellor set out, despite the promises of lower multipliers and lower bills. Ministers may point to their pubs and live music relief as if it solves the problem, but it does not: it is a sticking plaster when there is a major wound that the Chancellor has caused.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “As the Conservative Party manifesto said, we would: “Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses”, and our record is one of supporting the sector and the people creating jobs across the country. Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality face much higher bills, and fewer will benefit compared with the 40% relief, because under that scheme, as is set out in the explanatory notes, local authorities had more discretion over which premises benefited from the relief.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “What will the result of that be? The Office for Budget Responsibility expects business rate receipts to increase by £3.5 billion next year, a 10% increase in a single year. For small and medium-sized businesses, that is incredibly challenging. The bill of the average independent pub will rocket from £4,000 in 2024-25 to nearly £10,000 by 2028-29, a rise of 144%. The position of shops, hotels and restaurants is even worse than that. At this point, it is usual for Ministers—indeed, for this Minister—to claim that the last Conservative Government would simply have abolished the relief overnight. Of course, that is utter nonsense, and I welcome the opportunity to get that on the record. It is simply a desperate attempt to deflect from what we can see are the bad political choices that the Chancellor and her Ministers have made.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “That is why I, along with the shadow Housing Secretary and shadow Business Secretary, have written to the Office for Statistics Regulation, as it is statistically misleading to make the claim of record low taxes on the basis of the multipliers, as those are not the tax rates. I was pleased to have confirmation on Friday that the Office for Statistics Regulation is looking into this matter as we speak. I will now turn to the regulations. In their first Budget, the Labour Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief introduced by the last Conservative Government from 75% to 40%. That was a tax raise of £1.1 billion a year. Through these measures, they have axed that relief in its entirety, which means higher bills. The Government have also locked in automatic inflation-linked rises every single year.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. The two sets of regulations together set out the new tiered business rates system for the 2026 financial year. In plain English, the first set of regulations defines who gets which business rates multiplier under the new system, and the second sets out how much large premises will pay. Of course, ahead of the election the now Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. Indeed, the Chancellor said at the Budget, referring to these measures, that these business rates were at their lowest level since 1991. The reality is proving somewhat different. Businesses are facing major increases, and claims to the contrary are false. Their bills are going up.”

    House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “We all know that any fixed monetary threshold in legislation loses its real value over time, but if Ministers believe that £35,000 is the right level today, surely they accept that uprating in line with inflation is only fair. If the Minister will not support that principle outright, perhaps he will commit to supporting new clause 10, which simply asks for a review of the impact of doing so. Schedule 10 allows for the alteration of the limit, but there is no obligation on Ministers, as there is for other benefits, to review the level or uprate the limit.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “From 2027-28, HMRC will move to in-year coding, meaning that pensioners could start paying back a benefit that they have not even received yet, based on HMRC’s best guess at their income. As we all know, the winter fuel payment is a one-off payment that is usually paid in November, but PAYE collection is spread throughout the year, so pensioners could be having money clawed back that they have not yet received. If that estimate turns out to be wrong, they will have money taken off and refunded later. That is a recipe for potential confusion and hardship, and it could lead to more calls to HMRC that may go unanswered. In the year of transition, some pensioners could face being charged twice in a single tax year. That is not a minor administrative issue. It needs to be addressed.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “The Bill sets out that the Government’s approach relies heavily on data sharing between the DWP, devolved social security bodies and HMRC. There are some exemptions, for example for those who have been on means-tested benefits during the qualifying week or who have opted out of receiving the payment, but if that information is not shared swiftly and accurately, instances may occur of administrative issues causing distress and financial loss. Pensioners could also see an unexpected tax code on their pay slip, clawing back money that they should never have been charged. That might lead them to have to fight through an appeals process just to claim what is rightfully theirs. The plan to collect the charge through PAYE, as is set out in the clause, brings its own issues.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “I turn to the points that the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised about the clause and the schedule. If a pensioner’s income is £1 over the threshold, they will lose the entire winter fuel payment; there is no taper. Unlike other income-related charge-backs, such as the high-income child benefit charge or the tapering of the personal allowance, the winter fuel payment is based on total income, not adjusted net income. It will affect pensioners who are seeking relief on their charitable contributions. Will the Minister explain why the Government have opted for a system that measures income in inconsistent ways, with different rules from similar income-dependent clawback schemes?”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “The measure flows from one of the Chancellor’s first political choices, which was to remove the winter fuel payment from all pensioners except those in receipt of pensioner credit. That meant that pensioners living on incomes of around £13,000 a year lost their winter fuel support. Vital support was pulled from millions of pensioners across the country. In my constituency, 22,000 pensioners lost their entitlement overnight; the figure may have been similar in your constituency, Mr Efford. It was a deeply damaging move, which is why organisations such as Age UK and my party campaigned against it, and the Chancellor was forced to come back to the Dispatch Box to perform one of her U-turns. In response to the pressure, the Government announced that everyone would get the payment but that it would be clawed back.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised concerns about the potential complexity of the clause; about how it could cause anxiety for people who have not had to navigate tax rules before; and about how the £35,000 per year cap will only diminish over time as inflation eats away at it. I have therefore tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to review the case for uprating the £35,000 threshold by CPI each year, ensuring that it retains its value. I have also tabled amendment 41, which would go further and put that commitment squarely on the face of the Bill so that there can be no ambiguity about whether the level will increase. The Minister skated over a bit of the background to the clause.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “It is a pleasure to see the Exchequer Secretary in his place. Some Committee members may have felt that his ministerial colleague the Economic Secretary dealt with some clauses rather briefly in our earlier sittings, so we look forward to the loquaciousness that the Exchequer Secretary displayed on the Floor of the House the other day. I shall speak to clause 55 and to amendment 41 and new clause 10 in my name. The clause is about clawing back the winter fuel payment from anyone whose total taxable income is above £35,000. According to the Budget costings, this measure will cost about £1.8 billion in 2025-26, settling at £1.3 billion the year after, but overall the changes that the Government have made with the removal of winter fuel payments will save £450 million.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “She was wrong to remove the benefit from millions of pensioners. This clause helps her to correct her poor political choice.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We want more certainty within the system, as far as possible. On earlier clauses, we debated the uncertainty that can come from having administrative rules that HMRC can interpret. Our amendment would give people confidence that their income and the benefit they receive would continue in real terms. Nobody disputes the need to focus support on those who need it most. Where the Chancellor got it wrong was in taking it away from people who are just over the £13,000 income threshold. If the Government insist on recovering payments, they need to get the fundamentals right, with clear definitions, robust data sharing and a simple route for challenging any mistakes that may have been made. Let us be clear. We welcome the Chancellor’s latest U-turn, reversing the very first decision she took in office.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “I may not have read that manifesto as closely as the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] For the record, I did not say that. I think the record will also prove that that measure was not put into effect. We continued the winter fuel payment. The issue is that the Chancellor came along. She was given advice by Treasury officials—no offence to the Treasury officials in the room—suggesting this was a simple way to save some money and fill a fictional black hole. Foolishly and regrettably, she went along with that advice; happily, she is now correcting her mistake in part. I am looking to press amendment 41 to a vote, because it is important that we give pensioners certainty that the threshold will be protected.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “It will leave us with one of the highest rates of tax on carried interest among competitive and competitor jurisdictions. We can see why some Labour MPs may be happy about having some of the highest levels of tax on fund managers, but these measures will fundamentally dampen the animal spirits in our economy at a time when we need to be unleashing them. That is why I contend that new clause 11 is essential to ensure that Ministers measure the real-world consequences of their choices before lasting damage is done to our economy.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “I think that is an understatement; it could be a recipe for disputes and confusion. A further danger is double taxation. The sector has warned that under the rules, some managers could be taxed twice on the same carried interest in different jurisdictions. Can the Minister assure fund managers and the sector that the Treasury has appropriate double taxation agreements and treaties in place to ensure that their concern is ill-founded? If the Government get this wrong, we risk losing capital to countries that do offer such clarity. In debates on earlier clauses, we have spoken about wanting to encourage enterprise and investment, to compete internationally, and to support growth in high-value businesses, but clause 56 sends the opposite signal.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “For the Minister’s benefit—because he was not in the Committee’s earlier sittings—we have tabled new clauses that would require reviews because a TIIN is a prediction of what might happen, not a review. We are assured that the Treasury keeps all measures under review, so if those reviews are happening, what is the problem with publishing them and giving that information to Parliament? As well as on the principle, we need answers on the implementation. HMRC will now be expected to verify the average holding period of thousands of complex investment portfolios. What additional resources and guidance will be provided to HMRC to do that? How will it cope if receipts are lumpy and unpredictable? UK Private Capital has warned that the measure will be challenging to manage.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “What would that mean for wider tax receipts, for the thousands of jobs that funds support and those who rely on them, and for the UK’s standing as a global financial hub? TheCityUK and PwC published a significant report at the beginning of this week about measures that need to be taken to ensure that London remains a pre-eminent finance hub. The measures in the clause run counter to that. That is why I have tabled new clause 11, which would require a review of the clause’s impact on UK competitiveness in attracting and retaining fund managers, the level and composition of investment into the UK, and the revenues collected compared with forecast revenues.”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “This measure is a substantial tax rise designed to reclassify carried interest as remuneration, rather than a general return on capital. That may sound tidy in theory, but it misunderstands what carried interest is. As UK Private Capital puts it, carried interest is “fundamentally different” from a salary or a bonus because it is paid only when investments succeed, often many years later and quite often not at all—that is the nature of risk. The famous tax information and impact note expects the measure to raise £145 million in 2027-28 and £80 million in the following year, but there is a risk of driving talent and investment abroad. Can the Minister share his assessment on what happens if fund managers start relocating to other tax regimes such as Dublin, Luxembourg or New York?”

    House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →