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 8 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.
“In response to the points raised by the shadow Minister, it is worth emphasising that the decision to introduce new tax rates to the system means that, for the first time, a typical high street business now has a lower multiplier—a lower tax rate—than the online giants and the larger properties. The tax rate on larger properties is 33% higher than the rate paid by a smaller property on the high street. That significant difference is the first step in the reforms that we have implemented to business rates. I will not make the point that the previous Government would have removed the reliefs overnight, but I will say that if they were planning on keeping them, I do not understand why that information was not in the documents that the OBR published in advance of the general election.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 27 aims to require HMRC to report on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The £35,000 threshold, above which an individual is liable to repay the full value, has no impact on those whose income exceeds the threshold, as prior to its introduction they did not benefit from a winter fuel payment. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. This measure will be monitored through HMRC’s compliance and reporting systems, including pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment data. I commend clause 55 and schedule 10 to the Committee; I urge the Committee to reject amendment 41 and new clauses 10 and 27.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 41 aims to uprate annually, in line with the consumer prices index, the threshold above which an individual is liable to repay the full value of their winter fuel payment. New clause 10 aims to require the reporting of the impact on households and on the Exchequer of uprating the income threshold for the charge annually in line with CPI. The Government believe that those changes are unnecessary at this time. The £35,000 threshold has been set at a level such that more than three quarters of pensioners will still benefit from the payment at the end of this Parliament. The cost of benefits is already published regularly by the Department for Work and Pensions through the benefit expenditure and caseload tables.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 55 and schedule 10 will provide a mechanism to recover the winter fuel payment from those who are not eligible, to balance support for vulnerable pensioners with responsible use of taxpayer money. Historically, the winter fuel payment has been near universal for pensioners over state pension age. In June 2025, however, the Government announced that only those with incomes up to £35,000 or receiving certain means-tested benefits will benefit from a winter fuel payment in winter 2025. Parliament has already legislated to make the payments to all pensioners who have not opted out. To ensure that the support is targeted, HM Revenue and Customs will recover payments made to pensioners with a total income above £35,000 via the tax system. I turn to the non-Government amendments.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are different ways of measuring income. In this instance, the Government’s decision is that total income is an appropriate way of measuring it. We keep all taxes and all thresholds under review. We are legislating for the threshold to remain at £35,000 but, as hon. Members with experience in government in the run-up to Budgets will know, all things are always considered in the round. Other thresholds in the tax system were frozen by the previous Government and, as was debated in Committee of the whole House a few weeks back, income tax thresholds were frozen as well. On the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about tapering, the Government’s view is that that would add complexity to the system. We think that a simple threshold is a preferable approach.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Schedule 10 Winter fuel payment charge Amendment proposed : 41, in schedule 10, page 395, line 28, at end insert— “(1A) The Treasury must, each tax year, amend the amount specified under section 681I(1)(b) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”— (James Wild.) This amendment would provide for the £35,000 income threshold for implementation of the winter fuel payment charge to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s view was that it was right to put a threshold in the system. Labour Members do not think that it is right for the super-rich to continue to receive the winter fuel payment. On the hon. Member’s broader point, the Government’s policy is to continue with the payment as it stands, as a stand-alone payment for those who have a total income below £35,000 a year. Question put and agreed to. Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As set out already, we are delivering a revised tax regime for carried interest that ensures fund managers pay their fair share of tax, while maintaining the UK’s position as a world-leading asset management hub. We have engaged closely with the sector to understand the impact of the reforms at every step. We published a call for evidence in July ’24, a consultation at the autumn Budget ’24 and a technical consultation on draft legislation in July 2025. We therefore do not consider new clause 11 to be a necessary addition to the Bill. I commend clause 56 and schedule 11 to the Committee and ask that new clause 11 be rejected.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The changes made by clause 56 and schedule 11 will establish the revised tax regime, under which an individual who receives carried interest will be treated as carrying on a trade. The carried interest will be treated as the profits of that trade and will therefore be subject to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions. That reflects the Government’s view that carried interest is, in substance, a reward for the provision of investment management services. New clause 11 would require the Government to publish a report within two years of the legislation passing, covering various issues in connection with the impact of the reforms introduced by clause 56 and schedule 11. The Government recognise the vital importance of the asset management sector in supporting growth.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 56 and schedule 11 reform the tax treatment of carried interest—a form of performance-related reward that is received by individuals who work as fund managers. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced that the Government would reform the way that carried interest is taxed, so that its tax treatment is in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. Following an initial increase in the capital gains tax rates applying to carried interest to 32% from 6 April 2025, the clause introduces a revised tax regime for carried interest that sits wholly in the income tax framework. The revised regime takes effect from 6 April 2026. The package of reforms announced at the 2024 Budget will raise almost £300 million by 2030-31.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will continue to monitor the impact of the measure and other reforms, although the Government do not believe that it is necessary to legislate for such monitoring. It is our position that it is best not to over-legislate.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The measure contained in clause 56 was in our manifesto, and I think it is good that the Government are making progress to implement our manifesto reforms. We have been working closely with the sector through the rounds of consultation and engagement that I mentioned in my opening remarks. The sector has acknowledged that the Government have had to balance the need to raise revenue for essential public services with the requirement to keep our economy competitive, and has welcomed the changes that have been made as a result of the engagement that has taken place since 2024. I may add that I am glad that someone does read the TIINs—they are always a joy to sign off ahead of any fiscal event.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving me a chance to reiterate that the Government have set out—it is relatively unusual for a Government to do so—a corporate tax road map where we have made very specific commitments, which we have kept to, around maintaining the headline rate of corporation tax at the lowest rate in the G7. As with all other policies, however, we keep all taxes under review. It would not be right, particularly many months from the next Budget, for me—I was called a “low-ranking” Treasury Minister by the Daily Mail the other day—to comment or speculate on future tax measures. Question put and agreed to. Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 11 agreed to. Clause 57 Collective money purchase schemes and Master Trust schemes”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The rules regarding who can set up such a scheme are changing so that from 31 July 2026, it will be possible to set up a CMP scheme for unconnected, multiple employers.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 57 has three connected objectives. First, the change will enable certain collective money purchase schemes to apply to become a registered pension scheme. Secondly, it will allow HMRC to refuse to register, or to deregister, an unauthorised CMP scheme. Finally, it will allow regulations to be made to efficiently support the development of those CMP schemes. CMP schemes are a new type of pension scheme that provide members with a target pension income for life. The rules for operating such schemes are set out in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and include a requirement that they must be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. Currently, a CMP scheme can be set up only by an employer to provide benefits to its employees and those of a connected employer.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government invited a small group of representatives from the pensions industry to comment on the measures ahead of the publication of the Bill to assess their efficacy for our intended purposes. We will continue to work closely with the sector, colleagues from the Pensions Regulator and the DWP on this matter. Question put and agreed to. Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Corporate interest restriction: reporting companies Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Opposition spokesman for his remarks. He is right that the change will involve some co-ordination between the Pensions Regulator and HMRC. That is partly why we want to legislate here for changes that will allow HMRC to be confident that it can align the pension scheme tax registration process with the Pension Regulator’s authorisation and supervision regime. We think it is important for those things to be aligned and, as the Minister with responsibility for HMRC, I will continue to engage with officials, alongside, I am sure, the Minister for Pensions, to ensure that they continue to work closely with one another. The Opposition spokesman asked what engagement has taken place.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Most of the changes take effect for periods ending on or after 31 March 2026, but the ability for groups to make retrospective appointments will apply for periods that ended on or after 31 March 2024. To conclude my brief remarks, clause 58 delivers changes that will reduce the administrative burden and risk for both groups and HMRC from administering the regime, while clause 59 ensures that the corporate interest restriction regime works as intended. I commend both clauses to the Committee.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The restriction is applied to the group’s UK companies as a whole, and the regime provides for groups to appoint a reporting company to act on their behalf to simplify the administration of the regime, and to allocate any overall disallowance among the individual UK companies. Difficulties can arise where groups do not appoint a reporting company on time. The lack of a reporting company can give rise to increased tax liabilities, which stakeholders have described as a disproportionate outcome, and to difficulties and additional work for HMRC. The main change made by clause 58 is the removal of the time limit to appoint a reporting company, as well as the requirement for the appointment to be made by notice to HMRC.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 58 makes changes to corporate interest restriction legislation to simplify administration in relation to reporting companies under the regime. Clause 59 makes a minor technical amendment to corporate interest restriction. The UK’s corporate interest restriction rules restrict groups from using excessive financing costs to reduce their UK tax liability. They apply where net financing costs of a group exceed £2 million per annum. Above that threshold, the rules typically restrict interest deductions to a proportion of tax-EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation—which is a measure of UK taxable earnings.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 60 Avoidance schemes involving certain non-derecognition liabilities Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not aware of further sectors to which the changes outlined in clause 59 would apply, but I will work with officials to continue to receive representations and perspectives from those who may or may not want to see further changes. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk asked about a review—of course, taxes will be kept under review. On his specific question on clause 58 and whether HMRC will be able to have discretion in applying the £1,000 penalty—yes, it will. I hope and strongly expect that HMRC will always use its powers and penalties in a judicious fashion, making sure to treat companies and individuals reasonably. I am confident that it will continue to do so in this case. Question put and agreed to. Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In certain circumstances, a liability may also be recognised for accounting purposes in connection with the underlying assets or otherwise in connection with the transfer. This liability is a non-derecognition liability. This new rule addresses scenarios where, as a result of tax-driven arrangements, a company seeks a tax deduction for expenses in connection with such a non-derecognition liability. HMRC considers that existing legislation already negates any UK tax advantage from these arrangements. However, introducing the new rule aims to deter such tax avoidance arrangements and secure receipts for the Exchequer that might otherwise be deferred through tax disputes. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are taking action to tackle those who attempt to bend or break the rules to avoid paying the tax that they owe. The clause introduces a new provision to address avoidance arrangements in certain very specific situations involving the creation of liabilities and related expenses for accounting purposes. The rule addresses certain arrangements that are designed to secure a tax advantage. The accounting and tax analysis in relation to when financial assets are derecognised or may continue to be recognised can be complex. In some cases, assets that are transferred to a securitisation vehicle may continue to be recognised for accounting purposes in the transferor’s accounts. This can potentially happen for commercial reasons.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That suggests that the experts and analysts in HMRC, as well as the independent officials at the OBR, believe that there is a volume of bending or breaking of the rules here that we should be able to go after more effectively under this measure. Question put and agreed to . Clause 60 according ly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 61 Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: decommissioning relief agreements Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition spokesperson is right to ask about the extent to which HMRC will be able to distinguish between valid purposes and uses and those that seek to bend or break the rules. HMRC is aware of a small number of companies and businesses that we think are engaging in such practices. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose the precise number, but there are some of which HMRC is aware. We certainly do not want traditional and reasonable uses of the non-derecognition method to be affected. The Opposition spokesperson asks about the potential impact of this measure. I am glad that he has also read the costings. According to those costings, which have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, this measure is expected to raise quite a significant sum: £465 million in total over the scorecard period.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This measure simply confirms the Government’s long-standing position that payments cannot be made under a DRD in relation to the energy profits levy. I therefore commend clause 61 to the Committee, and urge that new clause 12 be rejected.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022 by the previous Government, to tax the profits of oil and gas companies following record high oil and gas prices. The calculation of profits subject to the EPL does not allow a deduction for decommissioning expenditure. The Government have always been clear that that cannot be circumvented by making a claim under a DRD. New clause 12 asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of clause 61 on North sea decommissioning and on employment and capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry. The Government oppose the new clause on the basis that clause 61 does not impact on the statutory obligation for oil and gas companies to decommission wells and infrastructure at the end of a field’s life, or on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand or the Scottish economy.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 61 introduces legislation to expressly state that no payments can arise under decommissioning relief agreements in relation to the energy profits levy, confirming the Government’s long-standing view. Decommissioning relief agreements, which take the form of decommissioning relief deeds, are contracts entered into between the Treasury and oil and gas companies. They have been in place since 2013. They define and in effect guarantee a minimum level of tax relief that an oil and gas company will receive in relation to its decommissioning expenditure. Companies can claim a payment under a DRD if the amount of tax relief that they receive is less than the defined minimum level. DRDs enable decommissioning security agreements to be made on a net-of-tax basis, freeing up cash for investment.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said in my opening remarks, this clause just clarifies the treatment as was originally intended and has always been the case. It would not be appropriate or necessary to monitor and look at the impact of it, because as I believe was said—a second mention for the 2017 general election—“nothing has changed” in relation to the treatment of DRDs and the interaction with the EPL. Question put and agreed to . Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 Relevant property: disapplication of exemptions from exit charges Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 72 confirms that years of diplomatic service do not count towards the long-term UK residence test. Clause 73 makes minor corrections to the wording of sections in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 that deal with spouse elections to be long-term UK residents and non-residents’ bank accounts. Clause 71 introduces a new £5 million cap on inheritance tax charges every 10 years on trusts of former non-doms. The usual tax levied on those trusts is 6% per decade. The cap applies only to trusts settled before 30 October 2024, recognising long-term decisions made under the previous framework. The changes bolster the new residence-based approach and make it more effective.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 70 to 73 make changes to improve the residence-based regime for inheritance tax. The clauses bolster the new residence-based approach to inheritance tax, which came in last April. The Government are making targeted adjustments to the reforms to ensure that they work as intended, acknowledge the economic contribution of former non-doms to our country and strengthen the UK’s position as an attractive destination for global talent. The changes made by clauses 70, 72 and 73 introduce some of the technical amendments needed to make sure that the reform works as intended. Clause 70 is an anti-avoidance provision, ensuring the settlor and its trust cannot manipulate excluded property rules to avoid an exit charge on ceasing to be a long-term UK resident.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Government Ministers are in regular conversation with external stakeholders and individuals to discuss tax matters and their impact. In part, the changes that are being introduced in clauses 70 to 73 are in response to engagement. We are introducing the changes in order to refine the system, which was changed significantly under this Government, to make it fairer and fit for the long term. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 74 Power to make provision about infected blood compensation payments”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also recognise the importance of consulting with relevant stakeholders; officials have worked very closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and the Government will continue to engage with stakeholders ahead of laying regulations. The clause introduces a power to make a sensible and compassionate change, ensuring that those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal can choose how to pass on the value of any compensation received without incurring inheritance tax. Although I welcome the engagement from the Liberal Democrats on this matter, I hope the Committee agrees to clause 74 standing part of the Bill and rejects amendments 46 to 48.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have already issued a written ministerial statement, on 18 December, setting out in detail how the changes to the existing relief from inheritance tax for compensation payments made from the infected blood compensation scheme and the infected blood interim compensation payment scheme will be made. Amendment 46 would introduce proposed new subsections (7) to (10), which set out various new introductory, consultation and reporting requirements. I understand the desire for prompt clarity on the inheritance tax treatment of compensation payments, and the Government are committed to delivering the regulations as quickly as possible.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is consistent with the existing regulation-making powers for compensation payments under schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2020. The clause already provides for using the affirmative procedure, should the future regulations amend primary legislation. The Government’s objective here is to ensure that we can introduce regulations, which will come later this year, as soon as possible to help further to clarify the inheritance tax position for all those impacted. I am sure we all agree that we want to ensure as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible, for those who are affected and might be impacted by this change, which has been welcomed. Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause, as has been discussed, introduces a power to extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments. I worked closely on this measure with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget. It is an important measure for the victims of this scandal and their families. I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, supports the clause—I am sure that all Members will do so—and I of course welcome the challenge and the scrutiny. Amendment 47 would require all regulations made under the new powers to be subject to an affirmative procedure, but the clause already provides that, if the future regulations do not amend primary legislation, they can be made under the negative procedure.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I want to reassure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in particular that these are not empty promises. The Government take this matter incredibly seriously. When it was raised, we worked hard to engage constructively and productively, and we brought forward this legislation in the Budget. I was glad that we were able to do so for those impacted by the scandal. I put on the record that these are deep and full promises, and the Government will make the progress that needs to be made for the victims. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 13 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 75 on charitable donations. The Government have already published, as the shadow Minister will have read, a tax information and impact note to set out the impact of the changes. It showed that charities and community amateur sports clubs should be unaffected, as exempt gifts can be made to them in the usual way. New clause 13 should therefore be rejected, and I commend clauses 75 and 76 to the Committee.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 75 and 76 close an avoidance loophole to ensure that the inheritance tax exemption for gifts to charities works as intended. Changes were made in 2023 to the definition of “charity” for multiple taxes, including that the charity must be based in the UK. Some gifts to charitable trusts can still, however, get exemption from inheritance tax, even if they are not themselves charities. They may have no connection to the UK, bypassing the UK jurisdiction condition and other regulation requirements for charities. The tax-paying public may therefore be subsidising relief on money that we cannot be sure is used solely for charitable purposes. The Government are therefore closing this loophole and protecting the exemption for legitimate charities.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can give the assurance that this will not be an unreasonable burden, or even a small burden, on charities that are continuing to behave in a way that is reasonable and right. I note that thirdsector.co.uk reports that, according to experts, charities are unlikely to be affected by new inheritance tax avoidance measures. I agree with those experts. Question put and agreed to. Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 77 Zero-rating of leases of vehicles to recipients of disability benefits Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The tax changes will preserve the delivery of the core objective of the scheme, and Motability Operations Group has confirmed that, after the tax changes take effect, it will continue to offer a broad range of vehicles available without a top-up payment, meaning that customers will be able to lease a vehicle that meets their needs for the value of their eligible benefit. The changes made by clauses 77 and 78 will generate savings of more than £1 billion across the scorecard. I commend them to the Committee.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Motability scheme supports the independence of disabled people, but it benefits from generous tax breaks that are supporting provision beyond the scheme’s core objectives, such as the lease of luxury cars. To limit tax support for the most premium vehicles on the scheme, the Government have removed VAT reliefs on the one-off voluntary—I stress that they are voluntary—payments made to lease higher-cost vehicles. VAT reliefs on weekly lease costs covered by eligible disability benefits, and the VAT relief on vehicle resale, will remain in place. Additionally, ending the IPT exemption for most vehicles will bring the IPT treatment for qualifying vehicles’ leasing schemes in line with other commercial leasing firms.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 77 will make changes to ensure that the Motability scheme and other qualifying schemes provide value for money for the taxpayer while continuing to support disabled people. It will remove the VAT relief for top-up payments made to lease more expensive vehicles. Clause 78 ensures that insurance premium tax will apply at the standard rate of 12% to insurance contracts on the scheme. The Motability scheme is an important vehicle leasing scheme available to people receiving the enhanced Motability component of disability benefits such as the personal independence payment. The weekly Motability award covers the lease cost and a generous service package. If a chosen vehicle is more expensive, the customer pays a one-off top-up payment in advance of the three-year lease.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will somewhat disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead: the words that Ministers say in Committee are sometimes powerful and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to be more expansive on the definition. I ask him and others to rely on the words in the existing legislation, which I think are relatively clear and strong. Question put and agreed to. Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members have mentioned some reports, but at this stage they are only reports—HM Revenue and Customs will always make an operationally independent assessment of whether a private hire vehicle operator is operating as an agent or, as it is sometimes called, a principal, and it will charge tax accordingly. If there are any implications—we do not know yet whether there will be—any costing update will flow into the forecast as usual.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am very glad to see you in the Chair. Rather than running through these changes in detail, let me respond to some of the points that have been raised, because they are important and, in some cases, valid. As a tax Minister, I am not going to comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers, by which I mean individual businesses, but I will say that the exclusion from TOMS applied to several large private hire vehicle operators. Crucially, it ensured that they were subject to the same tax rules as everyone else. That is what this change is trying to do. Regarding any subsequent potential changes to the operation of business models that may or may not have taken place—hon.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are confident that the exclusion drafted in the Bill is carefully targeted and will not have unintended implications by limiting the activities of legitimate tour operators. It is right to make this change, which will raise £700 million of tax revenue that the Government believe should already be being paid. It will be a vital contribution to the public finances.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are, of course, aware of the pressures on local council finances as a result of the growing number of children with additional needs who require transportation or other support. It is important to note that the clause does not seek to apply additional VAT to those who are not already seeking to make use of the TOMS. The vast majority of taxi services across the country are not using the TOMS and will be unaffected by this change, but we think it right to ensure that this particular use of the TOMS cannot continue, in order that we can raise revenue.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗