Dan Tomlinson
MP for Chipping Barnet · Labour · United Kingdom
“I do not think it is the right priority to give a £3.74 million tax cut to someone living in a £10 million mansion, but it is clear that their priority is to give massive tax cuts to people in £10 million homes. We will not take that decision on the Labour side of the House.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That shows, as I think the whole House can agree, that the Opposition simply have not learned from the Liz Truss debacle, which pushed up interest rates and the cost of mortgages for constituents of mine in Chipping Barnet and for people across the country. We will not make the mistake that the Opposition made.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To fix our economy for the long term, we must ignore the fantasy economics and the unfunded commitments of the Conservatives, which will lead to economic ruin.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Today, the Conservatives have come to the House demanding more unfunded tax cuts, worth up to £11 billion a year, without any clear plan whatsoever for how they would pay for them other than a vague commitment in the motion to cutting public spending.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for the farmers in his constituency and across the country. Labour Members engaged constructively with me, the then DEFRA Minister and the then Prime Minister on the issue of the threshold in the inheritance tax changes for farms and businesses, and we made a change late last year to refle…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,146 held · 610 searchable for Dan Tomlinson. 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.
“It is important to note that they will be better off than without a CBAM in terms of competition and fairness in imports. At the moment, there is no CBAM, so the imports that come to the UK in these five sectors are, in a sense, undercutting domestic production if we have higher costs. With the introduction of CBAM, that undercutting will be significantly reduced. The prices faced by importers will be brought into line with those faced by those companies in the UK. There is a valid point to make about the detail and specificity with which the carbon prices that are used within CBAM are set, and that is something that I certainly want to keep under review, but it is good and it is right that we make progress with CBAM as set out in the legislation.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why these five sectors were chosen, after significant engagement across Government and with stakeholders. The sectoral scope will be kept under review, and there are some sectors that the Government will continue to have conversations with in the coming weeks to understand their concerns and the benefits that there may be to widening the scope in future. We will keep it under review because, at the moment, the focus is on making sure that we can implement this significant change. It is a long piece of legislation and there are lots of good questions, but we want to get this in as drafted first. The shadow Minister made several points regarding the sectors that are already in and the extent to which, in his words, they might be made “worse off”.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and engagement. This is one of the largest parts of the Bill, and sets out a significant change to taxation and the treatment of imports in order, as he says, to support domestic businesses that may face higher prices than companies seeking to export to the UK that have cheaper prices and higher emissions. To go through some of the questions that were asked, the criteria that were looked at internally—over many years and starting under the previous Government; it has taken five years of work to determine which sectors will be in scope—were whether sectors were already in scope of the UK emissions trading scheme, because it is important that those are aligned; whether there was real risk of carbon leakage; and whether it was feasible to implement in 2027.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point around groupings and EORI numbers, that is not a phrase that I have come across before, but I am glad that I have heard it. I will make sure to remind myself of the torturous Brexit process and will, I am sure, understand the context there in more detail. We engaged with businesses in advance of making the proposal and feedback indicated that group treatment would confer relatively minimal benefits, so we chose not to implement it at this time. We will, of course, keep that under review though. CBAM is a significant change that has been welcomed by many of the industries in the UK and should go a long way to levelling the playing field for those firms that are producing in these five sectors.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will engage, and have engaged, with the industries that are directly affected by this change, including the fertiliser industry, and those for whom there will be knock-on effects from higher import prices. With fertiliser in particular, it is worth noting that UK-based fertiliser manufacturers have received more free allowances in recent years than they needed to surrender to be able to cover their emissions. As such, they are not, in practice, paying a carbon price at the moment. The CBAM rate will therefore be set at a low level to reflect that. It is something that I have been looking at as Minster because of these issues, and we expect the initial impact of CBAM on the fertiliser sector to be very modest. None the less I take the point that the hon. Member raises, and the Government will continue to look at it.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The work that they do is fantastic, really valued and vital to the culture, life and vibrancy of our high streets and communities. Sometimes these small businesses are the only business in a village or a rural community, whether it be a pub, post office or café. We know how important they are to rural and coastal communities.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am happy to go through them in detail, but I will not do so for the sake of time and because it is slightly off topic. Those changes allowed us to provide support for businesses, for example in the business rates system. The main ask of the public was keeping income tax thresholds frozen at the end of the decade for a further three years in addition to the seven years for which the Conservatives decided they would be frozen. This Government do back and value small and medium-sized enterprises. They are at the heart of so many communities; I am sure they are at the heart of your constituency, Mr Dowd, and those of all Members in this room. We value such businesses, their contribution and the hard work and graft that the people who set them up do to grow them, to expand to multiple premises, and to hire more people.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, the extended producer responsibility for packaging was, I believe, a Michael Gove initiative. The Labour party in opposition learned the lessons of rubbishing the record of a previous Labour Government, and once we stopped doing that we found ourselves re-elected because people put their trust in us. I gently suggest that the Conservatives be careful what they wish for when they criticise policies that the Conservative Government introduced. The debate follows two Budgets in which the Government did have to ask businesses and individuals to contribute more to support our public services. But we did all we could, particularly in the last Budget, which I was closely involved with in the Treasury, to keep the contribution we were asking for as low as possible by pursuing fair reforms to our tax system that were long overdue.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is bringing down borrowing costs for businesses and improving the cost of living for families up and down the country. That means hundreds if not thousands of extra pounds in their bank account rather than going on their mortgage. Economic growth has increased—we outperformed the OBR forecast by 50% last year—and wages have increased across the economy faster in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years under the Conservatives. Higher wages and better living standards for people in our communities, in his constituency and in mine, mean that there is more money to spend in the shops to support our high streets. The hon. Member raised a range of policies. I would gently say that some of them were implemented by his Government.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing the debate. I believe it is the second debate of his that I have had the pleasure of responding to in Westminster Hall and I look forward to many more in my time as Exchequer Secretary. I am grateful for his contribution, and I am sure the businesses in his constituency will be grateful to him for representing them in this place; it sounds like he has a fantastic set of small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency. On the broader point of the impact of this Government on the economy, I believe the hon. Member was being too downbeat and gloomy. We have seen six interest rate cuts since this Government took office because of the stability that we have brought back.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The challenge and trade-offs that we must grapple with in government are not grappled with by those who want to see such significant cuts to VAT, because we have to make sure we maintain revenue to fund the NHS in the hon Member’s constituency, and fund local councils to fill in the potholes and provide the social care that constituents need.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We do have one of the highest VAT thresholds among large economies in Europe and of course the Government keep all tax policy thresholds, rates and so on under review. I would be interested in the analysis that the hon. Member has carried out, though my understanding is that significantly increasing the threshold would not be revenue generating but would cost revenue for the Exchequer. This goes to a point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon raised. He suggested that we should almost halve the rate of VAT for some businesses.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am always happy to receive representations from Members on both sides of the House. I will look out for correspondence from the hon. Member in my very large weekend correspondence box, which I always enjoy on a Sunday evening.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Conservatives say now that they would not have stuck with those plans, but had they done so—and they are the plans that they presented to the country before the election—the relief would have ended overnight in 2025.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am aware, and we have had lots of discussions about it in this place, that that reform—the significant underlying reform to the business rates system—has happened at the same time as the revaluations since the pandemic have come into place, and at the same time as the Government have chosen to unwind, slowly and with significant transitional reliefs, the temporary pandemic support. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. When the Conservatives stood for re-election, the OBR forecasts did not earmark any funding whatsoever for continued support within the business rates system for our high streets.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are fast running out of time, so let me turn to the topic of business rates, which Members have raised. It is worth noting that we are implementing significant reforms to the system. On the point around large online retailers, as far as I am aware, throughout the whole history of the business rates system—including the 14 years under the previous Government—the multiplier, otherwise known as the tax rate, for large online giants was exactly the same as that paid by a typical business on the high street. As part of fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, we have introduced a really significant wedge into it: the multiplier for large online giants and their warehouses is now 33% higher than for a high street business.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the representation that she provides in this place for the small businesses in her constituency—it is a wonderful part of the world. If my team have not been in touch already today, I am hoping that we can find time to meet next week for a conversation. I know that this issue is one that is really important to her. York is a fantastic, vibrant and growing part of our economy. I expect that some of what is happening here is that the businesses in her constituency have seen their values increase by more than others in parts of the country that have not been doing as well. That is why the Government have provided a range of support for businesses. I look forward to talking about that with her in the coming days.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am aware that pubs, and indeed all hospitality businesses, experienced challenges, particularly in 2022 when inflation surged to 11% as energy costs went up. To be clear, that was in large part a result of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the impact it had on the global economy, but inflation did rise significantly, which impacted individuals and their bank balances. The Government understand that times are tough for businesses on the high street, in part because of that legacy. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon mentioned some statistics about pubs that are now out of date because of the change that was introduced last year; the 76% increase is not going to happen any more. In fact, three quarters of pubs, live music venues and other businesses affected by the changes that were announced last week—”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, and we extended the relief by a year, at a lower rate, and now, rather than ending it overnight, we have introduced significant transitional relief, so many of the businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency will see their increases, if they experience increases, being capped at 15%. Overall, across the system as a whole more than half of businesses are either seeing their bills flat-falling or staying at zero, and this tax change—this 33% wedge that has been introduced to the system—is, in effect, a transfer of almost £1 billion in business rate liabilities away from the high street and towards the largest businesses, which have properties worth £500,000 or more. This transfer will benefit 750,000 smaller properties on our high streets. Pubs have also been mentioned. We saw 7,000 pubs close over the 14 years between 2010 and 2024.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the coming months, in my role as Exchequer Secretary I will of course continue to engage with businesses—small and large—on the important points that have been raised today, to see what more the Government can do to support them as they seek to grow, to support employment in their communities, and to support the life and vibrancy of our high streets and town centres.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note, of course, that there is an increase for that business, as he set out. We are also publishing a high streets strategy. We will work on that in the coming months and it will be a cross-Government effort. Yes, the Treasury will be involved, but so will Departments such as the Home Office, so that we can support businesses that are struggling with shoplifting. We will also work with the Department for Business and Trade, and with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I hope that I have responded to a range of points that were made in the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to it.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It can also mean that increases in their business rates can appear to be the result of higher takings but really just reflect underlying increases in higher costs, so they can feel like they are running to stand still. We will therefore look closely at the methodology used to value pubs, and hotels, and I hope that we can find a long-term—indeed, permanent—solution in time for the next revaluation, which will come in 2029, as planned. I will respond briefly to the point that was made about the increase from £800 to £1,600. I urge the hon. Member to check with the particular pub that he mentioned, but I assume it will be the case—each business is different, and I should not comment on individual businesses precisely—that the 15% relief will probably apply there too now, so there should not be a further £800 increase.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Three quarters will see their business rates fall or stay the same this year. Then, those rates will be frozen for two years. The crucial point, which relates to whether it is delayed or not, is that we are launching a review of the methodology that is used to assess pubs. I am sure that this issue will have come up in the roundtable on business rates organised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) with businesses in her constituency, and in the engagement that other Members have with businesses in their constituencies. Pubs are valued in a relatively distinct way: their takings are used to assess their value, rather than their floor space. That can be quite opaque for pubs.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 172 outlines what are not reasonable excuses for failing to comply, including insufficiency of funds, reliance on other persons and where legal advice is not full and accurate. Clause 173 contains relevant definitions of “arrangements”, “promotion” and “certified promoter”. The powers will enable HMRC to sever promoters’ access to UK services. In doing so, they will protect taxpayers and the tax system from the harm of tax avoidance. I commend the clauses to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 167 allows recipients to appeal a promoter action notice on the grounds that they are not providing goods or services to the promoter and that those goods and services are not being used to promote tax avoidance. Any recipient who does not comply with a promoter action notice may be subject to civil penalties under clause 168. The penalty is £1,000 per day. Where a penalty applies, under clause 169, HMRC may also publish information about the recipient that is viewable for 12 months. Under clause 170, information may be disclosed by HMRC to a regulator, a representative body or a trade body of the recipient where they have failed to comply. Clause 171 allows for the extension of time periods for complying with a promoter action notice.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These clauses introduce a power for HMRC to issue promoter action notices. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary outlined, these are another part of our toolkit in pursuing the promoters. The notices require businesses to stop providing goods or services where those services are used in the promotion of avoidance. Clause 163 allows HMRC to certify promoters of tax arrangements where they have breached a stop notice or a prohibition on promoting certain tax arrangements. Clause 164 outlines the conditions for issuing a promoter action notice. Clause 165 provides powers for preliminary notices to be issued by HMRC. Clause 166 allows HMRC to disclose information relating to the promoter identified in a promoter action notice.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause is a key one for going after promoters based offshore, to go to the points made in the debate so far. The Committee is right that it is tricky to go after those based overseas. That is why HMRC is taking this new approach with the promoter action notices, which sever the ability of promoters based overseas to have interactions and dealings with companies based in the UK. The Tax Policy Associates stated: “This is important; promoters have, for some time, been using offshore entities to make it harder for HMRC to take action against them. However any business targeting UK clients is inevitably going to rely on banks, social media etc in the UK—so it makes sense to enable HMRC to target.” That is part of what the clause is trying to do.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Wyre Forest spoke about initial notices under clause 165. That is part of the process of making sure that we are engaging and collaborating with businesses so that we can agree the actions they may be required to take under a promotion action notice. He also raised the issue of what happens if businesses go further than HMRC’s request and end up severing all ties with promoters. HMRC will specify the actions that need to be taken, but businesses may want to go further, at their own discretion and within the law. It will be up to them to do so. HMRC will not prescribe what more actions businesses may wish to take; what they must do will be tightly defined in the notices themselves. Question put and agreed to. Clause 163 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 164 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will keep working with international partners to explore how best to co-operate with other authorities to ensure that these proposals, existing powers and any further powers that the Government may consider in the future can effectively tackle promoters based overseas. Opposition Members also raised the issue of appeals. It is important to note that promoter action notices are issued only towards the end of the line. Promoters can be issued them only when HMRC has certified that they have breached a stop notice, which is a serious thing, or the prohibition of the promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements. Breaching either of those amounts to a criminal offence, so it is a serious step to have reached. Promoters will have the right to provide representations to HMRC as part of that process. The hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the big decisions that this Government have made is to increase the number of enforcement and compliance officers in HMRC—by, I believe, 5,500. Broadly, we are making that possible by reducing the number of HMRC customer services staff, because we are asking customers more generally to go online. We are targeting 90% online or digital interaction, so that we can save money for the taxpayer by having better, more streamlined interactions online, and then use some of that resource to more effectively resource our compliance unit. The matter of workload is important for me to consider closely, as the Minister with responsibility for HMRC, and the hon. Member is right to raise it.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the big challenges with these promoters is that, although HMRC often finds different routes to go after them, their non-compliance and the fact they are based overseas make effective enforcement difficult. I am aware of that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members were aware of it when they were in government. It is frustrating and difficult to go after promoters. This measure seeks to find a new way to restrict their ability to engage with products and services based in the UK, because it is only through those that they will be able to reach people in the UK in the promotion of the schemes. The shadow City Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked about HMRC workload. This is a good point, and one that I will focus on with officials and happily discuss in advance of the Budget.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These clauses introduce new powers for HMRC to issue anti-avoidance information notices. The measures are designed to strengthen HMRC’s ability to tackle the persistent problem of tax avoidance by promoters who exploit loopholes and hide behind complex structures. Clauses 174 and 175 define key terms such as “connected person” and list the anti-avoidance enactments that the powers set out in these clauses support. Clauses 176 to 180 empower HMRC to issue information notices to connected persons suspected of involvement, third parties holding relevant information and financial institutions to access banking data, subject to tribunal approval.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 175 to 185 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 186 Offence of failing to comply with a notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 182(2) sets out: “A requirement under subsection (1)(d) may not prohibit disclosure for, or in connection with, the purpose of— (a) complying with the notice, or (b) seeking legal advice.” It is the Government’s view that that provides sufficient scope for the recipient to be able to disclose information for legal advice, in line with the points that the shadow City Minister makes. I am of course happy to consider his recommendations. However, I do not want to disappoint him. I do not expect that the Government will introduce an amendment to the clause, because we think that the clause is already sufficient. Nevertheless, I will take away the points that he has made and consider them in my heart. Question put and agreed to. Clause 174 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Daily penalties for ongoing non-compliance will also apply, plus penalties based on moneys received in connection with avoidance schemes. Clauses 197 to 199 set out safeguards, which include reasonable excuse provisions, and double jeopardy protection, which means that no penalty will be incurred if a person is already convicted. Clauses 200 to 202 set out that appeals are allowed against notices and penalties, except where tribunal approval was given. Clauses 203 to 205 provide clarification on various interpretations of terminologies, application of the provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and repeals of existing legislation. I commend clauses 186 to 205 to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These clauses cover the same topic—anti-avoidance information notices—as the previous ones. Clauses 186 to 190 set out that failing to comply or concealing information is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine. Responsible persons—for example, directors—can be prosecuted if offences occur with their consent or neglect. Clauses 191 to 196 set out the civil penalties that apply for non-compliance. The penalty for failure to comply is up to £5,000 or £300 for financial institutions. For concealing information, the penalty is up to £20,000. For inaccurate information, it is up to £20,000 per inaccuracy, and for breaching disclosure restrictions it is up to £10,000.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Question put and agreed to. Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 187 to 205 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 206 Declaration in relation to privileged material Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As is the case with other items in this part of the Bill, we consulted extensively on these notices, with a 12-week consultation earlier in the year and a further eight-week consultation on the draft legislation when it was published. We received lots of responses and we made sure to listen to and reflect on the feedback. On prosecution, as well as the standards and safeguards set out in the Bill, for a prosecution to be brought against anyone it also has to meet the evidential tests and the public interest tests, which are set out more broadly in line with the code for Crown prosecutors. I hope that provides reassurance that although this does not stand part of the usual ways in which we ensure proper safeguards in our legal system, any prosecutions would of course be subject to the evidential and public interest tests.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although existing legislation allows HMRC to publish the details of some legal professionals, HMRC cannot do so when the legal professional’s role is limited to activity subject to legal professional privilege. That prohibits HMRC from publishing the details of legal professionals who design schemes but do no more than that. These clauses amend the publishing legislation to allow HMRC to publish the details of legal professionals in those circumstances.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 206 to 212 make changes to ensure that HMRC can publish the details of legal professionals involved in designing tax avoidance schemes. A very small number of legal professionals have become involved in the promotion of tax avoidance schemes. They are sometimes involved in designing schemes, including by providing questionable legal advice to promoters of the scheme on the scheme’s efficacy. That legal advice can sometimes be used to help market the scheme to taxpayers, as it is held up as showing that the scheme works and is above board. In reality, however, these schemes rarely work and the scheme users end up footing an unexpected tax bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, that is out of step with HMRC’s other publishing powers, which permit information to be published for as long as appropriate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 213 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 214 to 216 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 217 Construction industry scheme: amendments”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 213 to 216 make changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—and the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes for VAT and other indirect taxes regimes. The clauses grant HMRC the authority to assess penalties directly, rather than requiring an application to the tax tribunal for determination. At present, HMRC must apply to the tribunal to determine penalties where failures in either regime have occurred. That is slowing down the process of assessing and issuing penalties, which are therefore not providing as much of a deterrent to promoters as they could. The mechanism for determining penalties is out of date in comparison with other HMRC powers under other regimes. Additionally, DOTAS regimes currently allow HMRC to publish only certain information for 12 months.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The changes will also tackle an emerging fraud model that uses construction industry scheme credits to reduce pay-as-you-earn liabilities and create repayments. These clauses protect the Exchequer from serious non-compliance, prevent large sums of money from going to organised criminal gangs and create a level playing field for those operating in the construction industry. I therefore commend them to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, subcontractors that apply for and obtain gross payment status can receive payments from their contractor’s gross; that is, with no deduction on account of tax by the contractor. Gross payment status is seen as the gold standard in the construction industry, with many large clients and contractors engaging only with subcontractors that hold it. HMRC’s impact on supply chain fraud has been limited by businesses within supply chains that hold gross payment status knowingly acting as buffers between compliant businesses and fraudulent businesses that steal workers’ deductions. The changes introduced today aim to have a lasting and positive impact on supply chain fraud. They allow HMRC to disrupt this model and will deter businesses from engaging with fraudulent businesses or turning a blind eye when there are clear signs of fraud.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 217 to 219 make changes to tackle fraud in the construction industry scheme and support the Government’s objective of closing the tax gap, tackling non-compliance and making the tax system fairer. The construction industry scheme is a revenue protection scheme introduced in 1971 to tackle non-compliance in the construction sector, which has a large proportion of mobile workers. The scheme collects approximately £9 billion of deductions each year. Recent reforms are helping HMRC to tackle fraud and non-compliance within the scheme. However, serious non-compliance, including sophisticated fraud by criminals, continues to develop and remains a significant risk. A core feature of the scheme is that contractors must make deductions on payments to subcontractors and pay the amount withheld to HMRC, in a similar way to an employer.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These changes are focused on tackling supply chain fraud, which relies on businesses entering into transactions they know are connected to fraudulent behaviour or where there is no reasonable explanation for the transaction, other than it being connected to fraud. Question put and agreed to. Clause 217 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 218 and 219 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 220 Prohibition against unregistered tax advisers interacting with HMRC Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow City Minister is right to raise that important point on this and other issues in this space. It is important that businesses that are acting legitimately and seeking to build the future of this country by engaging with construction contractors and subcontractors are not unduly burdened by changes we make to improve the effectiveness of this scheme and minimise fraud, which sadly persists in the construction sector. The Government’s view is that compliant businesses should not be affected by these changes, as they will already be undertaking the due diligence necessary to prevent them from engaging with fraudulent businesses.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For organisations, it includes the name of each tax adviser’s relevant individuals, who will be required to undergo registration checks. Clause 223 defines how registration checks will also be applied to individuals and organisations. It focuses on those who play significant roles in decision making in an organisation’s tax advice operations. Clauses 224 to 226 establish registration conditions. At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm that they understand and will meet HMRC’s standards for agents.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm that they will meet HMRC’s standards for agents. The measures do not give HMRC new powers to investigate whether applicants breach the standard for agents, and registration would not be suspended if a minor breach is discovered. As part of the registration process, HMRC will also verify that tax advisers and relevant individuals do not have any outstanding tax liabilities before permitting registration. That ensures that those who assist taxpayers with their tax affairs are themselves compliant and up to date. Clause 222 sets out the information required in an application to become registered with HMRC, including the name and address of the tax adviser.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Anyone paid to interact with HMRC on behalf of clients—for example, by submitting tax returns or other information to HMRC—will fall within scope of the requirement to register. Businesses and individuals who will be required to register come from a variety of professions, including chartered accountants, bookkeepers, payroll specialists and conveyancers who interact on behalf of taxpayers for stamp duty land tax. The requirement also applies to tax advisers based overseas who interact with HMRC on behalf of UK taxpayers. That is not the same as regulating tax advice. HMRC will not review the quality of the advice provided, qualifications or professional conduct. Instead, the measures are specifically about stopping harmful tax advisers who do not meet the basic minimum standards.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗