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 7 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.
“The precise rate will vary depending on the average holding of the underlying investment; longer holds will receive slightly fairer treatment. Does anyone think that sounds like a measure that is likely to attract talent and investment into the country? As we have discussed in previous sittings, those are things that everyone is signed up to, but many measures in the Bill do not deliver on them. Carried interest is not some mysterious perk; it is a share of profits that fund managers receive only when their investments do well. It is long term, risk based and uncertain. According to UK Private Capital, in most cases it takes seven years or more before a fund pays a penny of carried interest, and quite frequently it never does.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to clause 56, the schedule and new clause 11, which is tabled in my name. The Minister talks of reform; indeed, clause 56 fundamentally changes how carried interest is taxed. New clause 11 proposes a thorough assessment, given the significance of those reforms. Until now, carried interest has been taxed as a capital gain up to 28%. Under clause 56, however, a full 72.5% of qualifying carried interest will be treated as trading income and taxed at income rates that could reach up to 45% plus class 4 national insurance contributions. The effective rate, therefore, would be around 34%. The Minister spoke about competitiveness, but that rate is far above other jurisdictions in Europe—for example, 26% in Italy and 25% in Spain.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the debate on the first clause that we considered in Committee, there was a commitment to keep corporation tax at 25% across this Parliament. Can the Minister at least commit to not further increase the rate of tax on carried interest in this Parliament?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What safeguards will be in place to prevent a scheme being authorised by one regulator but not recognised by the other? What steps are in place to ensure that savers—our constituents—are not caught in the middle?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That potentially risks creating unfair outcomes for savers in otherwise identical positions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to address that concern raised by the experts. We also know that, under the new guided retirement model expected from 2027, trustees will be making complex decisions on behalf of their members yet, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes, trustees will hesitate to act without sufficient flexibility such as limited opt-out periods or conversion options. Those safeguards are notably absent from the clause. Has the Minister, or potentially his colleague the Minister for Pensions, been engaging with the sector on those points? A further practical point, which I hope the Minister will be able to tidy up, concerns the co-ordination between HMRC and the Pensions Regulator.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The aim is straightforward: to ensure the alignment of the tax and regulatory frameworks so that only properly supervised schemes benefit from the generous pension tax reliefs. That is a principle that we would all support. Well-regulated CDC—collective defined contribution—schemes could play an important role in the future of workplace pensions, particularly as the next generation of whole-of-life, multi-employer and retired CDC models develop. If done right, that could help savers manage their transition from work to retirement more smoothly, but it will work only if the rules are clear, consistent and fair with the existing annuity structures. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, the current framework does not allow for reductions in pension payments that vary between different groups of members.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 57 updates HMRC’s pension rules to align them with the Pension Regulator’s authorisation regime for collective money purchase schemes. Such schemes pool members’ contributions into a single fund, with the benefits linked to the performance of that shared pot rather than a guaranteed payout, as Members will be aware. Master trusts operate on a similar principle, but manage pension savings on behalf of multiple, unconnected employers, each with its own ringfenced section. The clause goes a little further than just a technical update; it gives HMRC new and wide-ranging powers to refuse or remove the tax registration of those schemes, and to change the underlying tax rules through secondary legislation.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the calculation of tax-EBITDA has accidentally penalised spending on projects such as flood defence, waste treatment or crematoriums, are there are other sectors that the Treasury has looked at that might face similar unintended consequences? Are there sectors where the Government think there might be similar distortions, or were others considered and dismissed? How will HMRC manage amended tax returns and claims retrospectively back to 2021? Does it have the resources and processes in place to do that officially? Finally, will the Minister commit to a wider review of the corporate interest restriction rules to ensure that the system generally supports the long-term environmental and infrastructure investment that our economy and our constituencies need?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The measure applies retrospectively to periods ending on or after 31 December 2021. On the face of it, this is a sensible change that ensures that the rules operate as intended, and we support the principle behind it. The Government describe this as a largely technical fix, which is broadly correct. It does correct the distortion in the corporate interest restriction rules that discourage capital investment in environmental and infrastructure projects. The Budget documents suggest the fiscal impact is limited, allowing qualifying businesses to claim interest deductions they were previously denied. But it does raise some other questions.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does HMRC have discretion not to apply the penalty automatically, so that it can take into account any mitigating factors? Clause 59 makes a targeted but important change to the way in which companies calculate tax-EBITDA under the corporate interest restriction rules. The clause adjusts the calculation so that certain types of capital expenditure related to cemeteries and crematoriums and environmental and infrastructure spending—such as waste disposal, flood prevention and coastal erosion management—are excluded from the limits on how much interest a group can deduct for tax purposes. In practice, that means that when a company makes large one-off investments in public interest infrastructure, such as new flood defences, those up-front costs will no longer unfairly reduce the amount of interest they are permitted to deduct.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 58 makes changes to the corporate interest restriction rules, which limit how much interest large companies can deduct from taxable profits each year. It aims to fix an administrative problem that has frustrated many businesses. Under the CIRR, each group must appoint a reporting company—that is, a UK group member responsible for submitting a group’s interest restriction to HMRC—and the clause simplifies that process, which is obviously welcome. At the same time, the clause introduces a new £1,000 penalty where a group submits a return without any company having been validly appointed to act as the reporting company. That is a small fixed penalty designed to encourage groups to get the appointment right. Can the Minister assure us that this will be applied with some common sense?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can he give the Committee a flavour of how prevalent he thinks that bending or breaking of the rules is? The provisions of this clause seek to correct any rule-breaking by denying tax deductions where their main purpose is to seek to gain a tax advantage by exploiting non-derecognition accounting. The Opposition strongly support efforts to tackle avoidance and close loopholes that undermine trust in the tax system, and efforts to bring the tax gap down—as the last Government successfully did, and this Government are, I am sure, continuing to seek to do—but, as always, the details matter.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister said, the clause introduces a new anti-avoidance provision aimed at arrangements involving non-derecognition liabilities. These are complex structures whereby a company transfers assets to another entity, but under accounting rules continues to recognise those assets and related liabilities on its own balance sheets. Such structures are of course common in securitisations, which are an important part of the UK’s financial landscape. In these arrangements an originating company passes on the economic risks and rewards with an asset, yet maintains the asset on its books. Used properly, these arrangements serve a legitimate commercial purpose. However, as the Minister said, there are examples of people bending or breaking the rules.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government themselves have acknowledged that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, with about 75% of the UK’s energy still coming from oil and gas and 10 billion to 15 billion barrels required by 2050. Offshore Energies UK has shown that we can produce more than that at home, through tax reform in tandem with a pragmatic approach to decommissioning and licensing, instead of importing more energy and exporting the jobs. That is why new clause 12 would require a proper assessment of the impact on the areas that I have set out. The Chancellor likes to describe the energy profits levy as temporary, but there is nothing temporary about the damage that is being done to jobs, investment and energy security in the North sea.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is important because of the context. The reality in the North sea is stark. Investment has sunk to record lows and, according to research from Robert Gordon University, jobs are being lost at a rate of 1,000 a month. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the Government’s decision in the Budget to reject replacing the energy profits levy in 2026 will cost tens of thousands of jobs, cripple investment and undermine Scotland and its energy security. The decommissioning reliefs to which this clause refers were designed to give long-term certainty on tax treatment in the basin, precisely so that companies could plan for responsible decommissioning.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to clause 61 and new clause 12, tabled in my name. They concern reliefs and the energy profits levy, which the Chancellor increased to 78%—a very high level. When it was introduced, prices were much higher than they are now. Clause 61 clarifies that payments under decommissioning relief agreements—long-term agreements under which the Government guarantee a minimum level of tax relief for decommissioning costs—cannot be claimed by reference to the EPL; and it makes it clear that companies cannot seek refunds or payments when decommissioning costs arose on or after 26 November 2025. New clause 12 is about ensuring that the impact of these changes on decommissioning, employment and capital expenditure in the oil and gas sector, production and demand and the Scottish economy is considered by the Treasury and the Chancellor.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The measures that the Government are taking will undermine what we all want to see, which is more money being brought back into the UK and invested in our country. What conversations has the Minister had with groups such as Foreign Investors for Britain about these changes? How would he respond to their concerns?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following the 2024 Budget, the Government decided to implement a long-term residency test for inheritance tax. That is a 10-year residency in a 20-year time period. Clause 70 imposes an inheritance tax charge where there has been a change in the settlor’s long-term residence status. While this is not the 20% exit tax—one of the kites that was flown by someone near the Treasury ahead of the Budget—there is a risk about the message that it sends about encouraging people to this country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that individuals faced with the prospect of UK inheritance tax on their overseas trusts may already have decided to leave the UK and/or wind up the trust, an issue that was debated on Tuesday afternoon in relation to the clauses that pertain to non-doms.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 46 would establish a mechanism to support families to navigate the system. I think that is very important and, if the hon. Member for Maidenhead chooses to press the amendment, I assure him that Conservative Members will support it.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause will help to provide the remedy that victims and their families have been seeking. I have said that a similar treatment applies in the Horizon case, but I should mention to the Minister that the Hughes report on the valproate and pelvic mesh scandal is still outstanding. It was published two years ago and recommended that interim compensation payments should be made. I have raised the matter with the Health Secretary on a number of occasions; I ask the Minister to take that issue back and to consider, as the compensation scheme is designed, whether that sort of provision can be built in from the start. We support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which seek to ensure that Government regulations around the issue reach the right objectives, as well as supporting victims and their families.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead for bringing forward these amendments to what is a very important clause, one that honours a commitment; I remember sitting in the main Chamber when a number of colleagues from across the House were pressing Ministers to introduce such a change, and it is very welcome that the Government have brought it forward in the Bill. I believe a similar treatment applies to the Horizon IT scandal. It is a common-sense clause. Fundamentally, the victims of this appalling scandal deserve compensation and their families deserve to then benefit in due course. I put on record my tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, as well as to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) when he was in the Cabinet Office, working particularly with victims’ groups.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 13 would require the Treasury to publish a report on the impact of clause 75, including on the volume and value of charitable donations, the financial health of affected charities and clubs, donor behaviour and impact on Exchequer revenues. We agree with the principle, which the Minister set out, of ensuring that charitable reliefs are used as intended, but it is also important that the Government understand the practical consequence of any tightening of the rules. On Tuesday afternoon, we discussed some of the concerns that charities have about earlier provisions in the Bill, and the potential complexity and bureaucracy that was being added to them. We all know that the charitable sector is under significant pressure, and we do not want to add undue burdens on to trustees of charities in particular.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to clauses 75 and 76, as well as new clause 13 in my name. The clauses fit within the inheritance tax part of the Bill. In Committee of the whole House, we had debates on the family farm tax and the family business tax, and the damage and distress they are causing in rural communities, so I will not prolong that debate. I will focus briefly on clause 75, however, which tightens the rule on inheritance tax exemptions for gifts to charities and registered clubs, including sports and social clubs. Clause 76 provides limited protection for existing arrangements, seeking to prevent new restrictions from applying retrospectively or unfairly.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That expansion raises questions about the eligibility standards and on whether taxpayers’ money is being used as intended. Motability should not be a back-door subsidy for people who do not meet the scheme’s original intent, which was to help those with serious disabilities. As the Minister said, over the scorecard this measure makes a significant saving that is a meaningful contribution to public finances, which we welcome and support. Taxpayer resources should be targeted more effectively to ensure fairness. However, the measures in the Budget overall raise people’s taxes to pay for more welfare spending. We consider that to be the wrong choice. We welcome the fact that the clause mitigates some of that additional welfare spending, but overall, this is a welfare spending Budget.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We welcome that the clause limits the relief to applying only to contracts for vehicles that are specifically adapted for wheelchair or stretcher users; for example, vehicles with ramps, lifts or structural changes supporting wheelchair access. If a vehicle has no such adaptation, premiums will rightly be subject to the 12% charge. Conservative Members have long argued for tighter focus and accountability in the Motability scheme, and I welcome the Government’s decision to act— we have been pushing them to do so. Sadly, we read in The Times this morning that the Prime Minister has apparently ruled out any wider reforms to welfare in the King’s Speech. Some of the growth we have seen in the Motability scheme, which the clauses will hopefully address, reflects genuine need, but much of it does not.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, when someone chooses a more expensive model, such as a larger or higher-spec vehicle, they must make an up-front top-up payment. Until now, the entire lease, including that top-up, has been VAT-free, but clause 77 changes that. Under the new rules, only the proportion of the lease funded by the qualifying Motability payment will remain zero-rated, and any additional amount paid voluntarily will be subject to the standard rate of 20%. That is a fair and balanced reform that we wholeheartedly support. Clause 78 narrows the insurance premium tax relief for vehicle insurance linked to disability schemes. IPT is a 12% tax on most general insurance premiums. Many cars that are leased to disabled people currently benefit from that relief, even when the vehicles are standard, unadapted models.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At present, when a disabled person uses their mobility benefits, such as the mobility component of the personal independence payment or disability living allowance, to lease a vehicle under the Motability scheme, that lease is zero-rated for VAT. Let us remember why Motability was created: it was established to help those with serious, long-term physical disabilities to access independence and mobility, not to provide subsidised cars for people with minor or temporary conditions. However, the numbers show that the scheme has expanded far beyond its original purpose. Last year, 815,000 people were using Motability vehicles, an increase of 170,000 in a single year. For many participants, their benefit covers the full cost of a three-year lease, so they pay nothing beyond their benefit entitlement.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 79, page 95, line 37, at end insert— “(3B) Section (3A) does not apply to journeys by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.” This amendment would exempt journeys by taxi and private hire vehicle in rural areas from the provisions of subsection (3A) of section 79.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to the Government’s own Budget policy costings document, the change will raise about £190 million in 2025-26, rising to some £675 million a year by 2031. That strikes me as a significant new burden—a significant new tax—on private hire and taxis, hence the “taxi tax” sobriquet. It is passengers who will ultimately end up paying the bill. Industry bodies have warned that fares could increase by double-digit percentages in some areas. Every penny of extra VAT will be passed on to passengers who rely on these services because they have no viable public transport alternatives. That is particularly the case in rural areas and among disabled and elderly passengers, women wanting to get home safely at night and workers on early shifts. They are the people who will be affected by this taxi tax.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause is being brought forward following a defeat for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on precisely this point. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s claim that ride-hailing services do not qualify for TOMS, although I understand that there is still an appeal, which is due to be heard in March. Perhaps the Minister can explain how much money is being spent preparing for that, if this legislation is going to make the question moot. In practical terms, the clause means that drivers and businesses now have to charge VAT at 20% on the fare paid by the customer—taking, for example, a £20 fare to £24. The measure took effect from 2 January this year. The Labour party promised in its manifesto not to increase VAT. It is true that it has not increased the rate, but it has certainly expanded the scope of its application through this measure.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair presiding over our proceedings this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I will speak to amendment 42, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, along with clause 79 and new clause 14. Clause 79, which many are already calling the taxi tax —that is certainly what people in the industry are calling it—changes the way VAT is applied to taxi and private hire vehicle journeys. Currently, under the tour operators’ margin scheme, VAT is charged only on the operator’s margin—that is, the difference between what the operator charges the customer and what it pays the underlying provider. The clause will remove taxi and private hire vehicle transport from the scope of the tour operators’ margin scheme.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real living standards will increase by 0.25% in each year of this Parliament, which is a staggeringly low figure when the average has been 1% in each of the past 10 years. That is not a great record—no wonder the Government are cancelling elections left, right and centre. If the Government are intent on pressing ahead, the very least the Minister can do is agree to review the measure, looking at fare levels, passenger numbers and any reduction in service availability. Otherwise, I look forward to pressing to a vote my amendment, which would protect rural areas.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People in my constituency do not have the luxury of the regular services that I am sure the Minister has in his Chipping Barnet constituency, with maybe three an hour. In parts of my constituency, three a day would be frequent. I hope that the Minister recognises the points that are being made on behalf of rural areas; I am sure that other hon. Members who represent rural areas will not sit silently when the issue is being discussed, but will speak up for their constituents. As I say, this is a tax that will increase fares, hurt rural areas and vulnerable passengers and create uncertainty. It will also add to the cost of living.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will require changes to systems and changes to invoicing. If the intent, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, is simply to go after taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a glaring example of where the drafting is wrong and goes too far. The ICAEW contends that the existing ancillary tests are robust enough to avoid any obvious attempt to dodge paying the tax that is due. This is a tax rise that will increase fares, hurt rural and vulnerable passengers and create fresh uncertainty in a vital sector. In my constituency, the funding that has been provided for buses is reducing in comparison with the funding provided by the last Government. I expect that that position is being replicated across the country.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The institute contends that the list excludes other key designated travel services, most notably trips, excursions and the services of tour guides. That creates a genuine issue for tour operators who supply day-trip packages, whether to the coast of North West Norfolk or to other parts of the country. A lot of small, often family firms provide these services. For example, if the package consists of a private car transfer, picking up someone from King’s Lynn station and taking them up to sunny Hunstanton, and that is combined with a professional tour guide or excursion ticket, under the clause the private hire element will fall out of TOMS while the guide or excursion will remain in it. What will that do? It will add considerable complexity, forcing the unbundling of a single commercial package.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a practical problem with clause 79, as with so many clauses that we have debated. Some major operators, including Uber, have reclassified themselves or are exploring ways to reclassify themselves as technology platforms rather than transport providers. That seems to be happening in cities outside London already. If they succeed, the VAT liability would shift from the company to the individual drivers, many of whom are not VAT-registered owing to their earnings level. What is the Minister’s response to that shift, which is already taking effect in parts of the country? Concerns have also been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that the list of qualifying services in proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is too narrow.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Businesses cannot plan, invest or grow while uncertainty remains.” The places most exposed are those with limited public transport networks and a consequently high reliance on the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. That is why we have tabled amendment 42, which proposes to exempt rural communities. It is a simple and fair way to protect those most affected. It would amend clause 79 so that the charge does not apply to journey by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas. If the Minister refuses that limited relief, will he at least commit to supporting new clause 14? It would require a proper impact assessment of the effect of the measure on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How can the Treasury justify raising the transport costs at a time when families are already struggling and the Government claim that the cost of living is their priority? The charge in this clause will not only hit passengers. Operators will face new administrative burdens as they try to account for VAT under far more complex rules. That creates uncertainty—this Committee has discussed the need for certainty on many occasions—and increases the costs for local businesses that operate on relatively small margins. As one operator of a private hire vehicle firm said, rather starkly, “a 20% VAT hike would hit the elderly, disabled and rural passengers hardest.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend, like me, has a very rural constituency that spends tens of millions of pounds on this. I think Norfolk spends around £30 million or £40 million a year on taxis to transport pupils with special education needs to school. That is a huge proportion of the money that is spent on special educational needs, and potentially adds to the burden and costs of councils who are struggling, particularly in rural areas. They have been—I will be polite—disadvantaged by the latest local government settlement and the way that the Government have skewed the formula against rural areas, having already removed the rural services grant, which we had come to rely on. What is the Government’s estimate of the average fare increase for passengers as a result of this measure?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I return to the point about the ancillary services? Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act requires only “the provision of accommodation, or…the transport of passengers by bus, coach, train, ship or aircraft.” Excursions or trips are not covered, which is why the ICAEW has suggested simply amending the wording to include the services of tour guides, trips and excursions to ensure that genuine day-trip packages, wholly within TOMS, continue to be protected. Under the clause as drafted, they will not be; a proportion of them will face an extra 20% charge. That is the case, is it not?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps the Minister will write to the Committee to set out the position on that, so we all have clarity and can go back to our local authorities to assure them that the £700 million that the Government are looking to raise in additional taxes will not be coming from our council tax payers. I am not satisfied that the Minister has dealt with the rural issue or the impact on such areas. I appreciate that he does not come from a rural constituency, so he does not have that at his fingertips, but certainly in my area, people rely on private hire vehicles and taxis to get around. That is a big issue, so I will therefore be pressing the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I need to hammer the nail about day-trippers while we have the taxman on the Government Benches. Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act does not provide for day-trip excursions not to be in scope; it refers simply to accommodation and passenger transport not being captured. I hope that the Minister might look at that again, because certainly in tourist areas such as my own constituency, those day trips are part of the local economy and hospitality sector. He knows well from his portfolio that pressures are being placed on hospitality businesses more broadly, not just on pubs. I am not sure whether we got the full guarantee on SEND.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 80, page 96, line 28, at end insert— “(2A) The Treasury must, each year, amend by order the applicable limit set under section 5A(2)(a) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.” This amendment would provide for the £200 applicable limit to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we can make the tax system work just a little better for those who give and those who do so much vital work on the ground in our constituencies and communities, that is something that all members of the Committee would want to support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to what is a very modest and helpful amendment.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Minister would have to agree that this is a modest and practical suggestion that would ensure the relief continues to operate as intended, so I hope he might agree to accept the amendment. To conclude, I will ask the Minister three things. What estimate has the Treasury made of the additional volume and value of goods expected to be donated following the change? Secondly, will HMRC commit to publishing clear and accessible guidance for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can use the relief with confidence? Finally, if the Government will not support our amendment, will they at least agree to review the £200 limit within a year or so, listening to evidence from charities and donors about how the policy is working in practice? In the end, the change is about making generosity easier, not harder.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without that clarity, many could decide that donating just is not worth the administrative hassle. Will the Minister commit to providing such guidance and working with the sector to produce it? According to the Budget documents, the measure will cost around £10 million to the Exchequer, which is a small price to pay for allowing more goods to reach charities and the communities they serve. However, amendment 43 would ensure that the measure retains its value over time. The current £200 limit risks eroding year by year as inflation drives up the cost of goods. Our amendment would simply link that cap to CPI, so that it keeps pace with prices, rather than becoming less generous each year.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is right to remove a barrier that discourages generosity and adds unnecessary complexity to charitable giving, but the Association of Taxation Technicians has already cited concerns. In its view, the changes do not fully match the existing relief for goods donated for resale. Businesses will still face different VAT treatments, depending on how a charity uses the donated items. Clause 80 adds yet another outcome, meaning that the system remains complex for what is, in simple terms, the same act of giving goods to charities—the charities across our constituencies. Practical guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will therefore be vital, because businesses need to understand exactly when the new relief applies, how the value limits work and what evidence they must keep to stick on the right side of the rules.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In practical terms, that means that no output VAT charge will be liable simply because a business chooses to donate stock to a charity, provided that it meets the conditions and value limits set out in the legislation. I acknowledge that the change has been warmly welcomed across the charity sector, unlike some of the other provisions about which concerns have been raised. It represents a small but meaningful step towards encouraging more corporate donations. The Opposition, however, have tabled amendment 43, which would ensure that the £200 cap set out in the legislation would increase by the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year—as with amendment 41, that would mean that the measure would retain its value over time. The Opposition support the principle behind the measure.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Having debated so many clauses that tighten the rules and put up taxes on individuals and businesses, we finally reach something unusual for the Chancellor: a tax break. I will speak to the amendment—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—and to the clause. The clause addresses a long-standing phenomenon in the VAT rules governing the donations of goods to charity. In the present situation, when a VAT-registered business donates stock, those goods can sometimes be treated as if they were sold, triggering a VAT bill on a notional supply that never took place. Sensibly, the clause corrects that anomaly. It provides that qualifying charitable donations of goods will no longer count as taxable supplies for VAT purposes.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member for Maidenhead makes a reasonable point about the £200 limit. The Minister said that there had been a lot of discussion to arrive at that threshold, but I do not think he exposed the entire rationale underpinning it—he talked about washing machines and their prices, which was an interesting diversion. The point remains that if we have a £200 limit and we think that is the right limit now, why do we not just automatically uprate it? Then the Minister will not have to come back with regulations or put other clauses in future Finance Bills. It would save us all a lot of hassle and palaver, and would mean that people and charities know where they stand. Our amendment is a modest measure, which I am surprised that the Minister has not simply accepted, so I will test the will of the Committee.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗