Lucy Rigby
MP for Northampton North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Border communities rely on strong transport links, and my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the interests of his constituency and those in the surrounding area. The Government are delivering for people in all parts of the UK, including investments that will benefit those on both sides of the English-Welsh border.”
“Nothing was snuck out. A third runway at Heathrow means more than 60,000 good local jobs, and more than £40 billion for the British economy. The hon. Lady’s question rather highlights the Lib Dems’ curious approach to growth.”
“My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will speak for himself, but I am confident that his view is that growth extends far beyond the area that the hon. Gentleman referred to.”
“Effective transport links are vital to the prosperity and wellbeing of people across the country, including in our border communities. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government to deliver a plan for Welsh rail, and we continue to work with devolved Governments to ensure that border communities stay connected.”
“We have been clear that Heathrow expansion needs to benefit everyone, not just London. The Department for Transport has shown that expansion would deliver UK-wide support for trade, with 40% of the estimated GDP benefits from expansion being outside London and the south-east.”
“The Pride in Place programme provides £5.8 billion of support to 284 neighbourhoods right across the country, including five places in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which she does so much to advocate for. We will set out more details of further funding in the Budget.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Lucy Rigby, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“The obligation is expected to take effect for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027, which is designed to allow time for businesses to adapt to what they need to do. The shadow Minister suggested that the proposal will lead to an administrative burden; actually, it is intended to mitigate additional administrative burdens by requiring the reporting of readily available objective information. We will continue to be guided by these principles as we move into the detailed design phase, working—as one would expect—with affected businesses. Question put and agreed to. Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 Permanent establishments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“The ICTS will help HMRC to focus compliance resources, as has been discussed, on the most meaningful transfer pricing risks. We think that it will also lead to greater efficiencies by encouraging up-front compliance and reducing the length of transfer pricing inquiries. Those outcomes will benefit the compliance of taxpayers and HMRC. Clause 48 gives the commissioners of HMRC the power to issue regulations that will determine the detailed design of the ICTS, including the information to be provided, the format of the schedule and the commencement date of the filing obligation. A consultation was held in 2025, and we will carry out a technical consultation on the draft regulations in spring 2026.”
“Clause 49 modernises and simplifies the UK’s law on permanent establishments, which governs how the UK taxes non-residents who are carrying out business here. Specifically, the changes made by clause 49 reduce uncertainty over how profit should be attributed to permanent establishments under UK law. The greater clarity provided by these changes, in the same way as the previous clause, will assist taxpayers and HMRC by offering greater clarity. I commend clause 49 and schedule 7 to the Committee.”
“I hope that gives the shadow Minister some assurance. Question put and agreed to. Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 7 agreed to. Clause 50 Pillar two Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“It important to recognise that, as I perhaps should have explained at the outset, the legislation in this area is 20 years old. The purpose of making the changes that we are making is to update it and to account for the fact that there have been considerable developments in the international tax landscape since it was first drafted, most notably in relation to the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. The shadow Minister mentioned the OECD. This legislation is interpreted in accordance with the OECD model tax convention and commentary, so it will always be interpreted using the most recently available model and commentary. The OECD council approved a 2025 update in November 2025, which can be found online. The full update will be published in 2026, if it has not been already.”
“New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review those technical amendments to the pillar two rules every six months and report on the international implementation of pillar two, among other things. We have already committed to the implementation of pillar two, which, as hon. Members will know, aims to ensure that large multinationals pay their fair share of tax. As a matter of course, the Government keep all areas of tax policy under review, so I reject the new clause. Taken together, these changes implement internationally agreed changes, respond to taxpayer consultation, and ensure that the pillar two rules continue to be effective and administrable in the UK. I therefore commend clause 50 and schedule 8, together with Government amendments 21 to 24, to the Committee.”
“I should remind Members that, in line with the written ministerial statement of 7 January 2026, the clause does not include any amendments connected with the publication of the side-by-side agreement by the OECD/G20 inclusive framework earlier this month. The Government will introduce legislation to do that in the next Finance Bill following a technical consultation. Government amendment 23 ensures that the legislation works as intended by making a small correction to legislative references used. Government amendments 21, 22 and 24 temporarily extend the deadline for making elections to give taxpayers more time to bed in the new IT systems needed to meet their filing obligations.”
“Paragraph 39 reduces compliance burdens for smaller or non-material entities within a multinational group. Finally, paragraphs 2, 3, 6 to 12 and 16 to 19 update the rules on flow-through entities, permanent establishments, intragroup amounts and cross-border allocations of deferred tax so that the regime operates more smoothly in practice. Taxpayers can elect for most amendments to apply retrospectively from the introduction of pillar two on 31 December 2023. However, taxpayers cannot select individual amendments to apply retrospectively; one election covers the whole package to prevent cherry-picking of favourable amendments.”
“Just to warn anyone who is not aware, clause 50 and schedule 8 are not the shortest. The changes they make are technical, but very important. Paragraphs 20 to 22 of schedule 8 prevent multinationals from trying to reduce their pillar two liability by entering into favourable tax arrangements to create pre-regime deferred tax assets or liabilities. Paragraphs 24, 25 and 34 ensure that the profits and losses relating to a UK real estate investment trust are excluded from the charge to domestic top-up tax to avoid double taxation. Paragraph 32 allows the UK to recognise the qualifying undertaxed profit rules of other jurisdictions before the OECD inclusive framework has completed a formal peer review. Paragraphs 36 and 37 provide for a payment for group relief to be treated as a covered tax amount for domestic top-up tax purposes.”
“Clause 51 Controlled foreign companies: interest on reversal of state aid recovery Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“(2) In paragraph (x)— (a) for ‘51’ substitute ‘33A’; (b) after ‘Finance’ insert ‘(No.2)’; (3) In paragraph (y), for ‘51’ substitute ‘33A’.” This amendment deals with a consequential amendment that was missed when paragraph 33A was inserted in Schedule 14 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2023 by the Finance Act 2024. Amendment 24, in schedule 8, page 379, line 38, at end insert— “(3A) The amendment made by paragraph 50A has effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023.”— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment provides for the amendment inserted by Amendment 22 to have effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023. Schedule 8 , as amended, agreed to .”
“(2) In sub-paragraph (1), a “pre-2026 election” means an election which specifies an accounting period ending before 31 December 2025 as— (a) in the case of an election to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 applies, the first accounting period for which the election is to have effect, or (b) in the case of an election to which paragraph 2 of Schedule 15 applies, the accounting period for which the election is to have effect.’” This amendment extends the deadline for making an election to which Schedule 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 applies in cases where the election specifies an accounting period ending before 31 December 2025. Amendment 23, in schedule 8, page 379, line 27, leave out paragraph 51 and insert— “51 (1) In FA 1989, in section 178 (setting of rates of interest), subsection (2) is amended as follows.”
“Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 8 Pillar Two Amendments made: 21, in schedule 8, page 358, line 9, leave out “50” and insert “50A”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22. Amendment 22, in schedule 8, page 379, line 26, at end insert— “50A In Schedule 16 (multinational top-up tax: transitional provision), after paragraph 2 insert— ‘Transitional extension to deadline for elections 2A (1) Schedule 15 (multinational top-up tax: elections) has effect in its application to a pre-2026 election as if in paragraphs 1(2)(b) and 2(2)(b) of that Schedule for “no later than” there were substituted “before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day after”.”
“We recognise that a degree of complexity is inherent in pillar two, but we must not forget that it applies only to large multinational businesses and that it is needed to stop businesses shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions and not paying their fair share of tax in the UK. I think the shadow Minister acknowledges that that is exactly why we need it. That being said, in relation to the complexity, the UK continues to be a strong proponent of work to develop simplification of the system, including the recently agreed permanent safe harbour. As stated in our “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, the Government will also consider “opportunities for simplification or rationalisation of the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities” following the introduction of pillar two. Question put and agreed to .”
“I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments. International co-operation on such matters, as he said, is extremely important. The side-by-side agreement, as I have made clear, will be the subject of future legislation, which will be the opportunity for scrutiny. However, as I also made clear, that agreement ensures that all large multinationals will pay their fair share of tax through the application of pillar two and pre-existing minimum tax rules, while offering welcome simplification and stability to UK businesses. We have to be clear that US multinationals, like every other multinational company, are still subject to the UK’s 25% corporation tax on the profits that they make in the UK. They are also still subject to the UK’s domestic minimum tax rate of 15%.”
“The clause makes changes to ensure sufficient repayment interest is paid to affected companies following a successful challenge of a European Commission decision. It provides that interest is also paid on the amounts of late-payment interest that were recovered and are now repayable. It will affect a small number of UK companies that had amounts collected and later repaid following the successful challenge of the Commission decision. The changes are expected to have a negligible impact on the Exchequer.”
“The shadow Minister will appreciate that it is a requirement of UK domestic legislation to put companies in the position that they would have been in had the recovery legislation not been introduced, and it is that principle on which the clause is based. Question put and agreed to. Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 52 Legacies to charities to be within scope of tax Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“The Government have published a tax information and impact note that sets out the impact of the changes, and it showed that the measures will have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations such as charities. Once the measures have been implemented, HMRC will assess the impact by monitoring tax reliefs claimed by UK charities, so a formal evaluation is not required. I therefore propose that clause 52 should stand part of the Bill, and that new clause 6 should be rejected.”
“Clause 52, in combination with the other clauses in the Bill, will support the Government’s aims of closing the tax gap by strengthening compliance powers to challenge abusive arrangements by which donors or trustees of charities can enrich themselves. The clauses also simplify the tax rules by equalising the tax treatment of investment types and tax reliefs used by charities. The changes made in clause 52 will bring legacies into the definition of “attributable income”. New clause 6 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 52 on charitable giving through estates and on the income of the charity sector. The changes are aimed at those charities and donors who seek to make a financial gain. They will not penalise charities when legitimate donations are received and investments are made.”
“The Government of course recognise that many small charities are run by unpaid volunteers, and for that reason we have sought to design the new rules in a fair and proportionate way. HMRC will help the sector to understand and prepare for the changes by providing clear communications and guidance. I also want to be clear, in response to the shadow Minister, that the changes to the attributable income rules mean that legacies received by a charity will become chargeable to tax if they are not spent charitably. The changes reflect the fact that this income may have already received considerable tax relief. We have no plans to stop charities accumulating donations, so there will be no deadline for the spending of legacy funds. Question put and agreed to. Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“I will start with the principle that, because legacies have received tax relief, it is important that they are spent on charitable purposes, otherwise they will be subject to a tax charge. More broadly, the Government are very much committed to supporting charities and their donors through tax relief, which was worth over £6.7 billion in 2024. The changes in the clause are aimed at those charities and donors that seek to make financial gain. They will not penalise charities where legitimate donations are received and investments are made. The measures are intended to protect the integrity of the charitable sector by ensuring that donations, investments and charity expenditure are deployed for charitable purposes, not the avoidance of tax. The shadow Minister fairly referred to any burden that may fall on smaller charities.”
“As the shadow Minister may expect, we have published a TIIN setting out the impact of these changes, which showed that these measures will have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations such as charities. I commend clause 53 to the Committee, and I ask that new clause 7 be rejected.”
“Clause 53 changes the definition of “approved charitable investments”. The Government recognise 12 types of investments for charitable tax relief, but presently only one type of investment is required to be for the benefit of the charity and not the avoidance of tax. The Government are extending this rule to all 12 types of investment, making the rules both simpler and tighter. New clause 7 would once again require the Government to report on the impact of clause 53 on charity investment strategies. As with clause 52, these changes are aimed at those charities and donors that seek to make financial gain. They will not penalise charities where legitimate donations are received and investments are made.”
“Member for North West Norfolk, questioned whether some specific wording had been considered as part of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot confirm that now, and will have to get back to him in writing. Question put and agreed to. Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 54 Tainted charity donations: replacement of purpose test with outcome test Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“In answer to the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, as in relation to the previous clauses, I can confirm that HMRC will be coming forward with guidance that will make clear the exact scope of the changes and what needs to happen on behalf of charities in order to ensure compliance. The compliance changes apply equally to all charities regardless of size. I come back to the statement that I recognise I have made repeatedly: these changes, along with those in the previous clause, are designed to protect the integrity of charitable tax reliefs. Although some smaller charities may need to review processes, the measures are proportionate and targeted at preventing abuse—not burdening charities, which in the main do incredibly good work. The shadow Minister, the hon.”
“I come back to the same justification as for the previous clauses: these changes are aimed at those charities and donors who seek to make financial gain; they will not penalise charities when legitimate donations are received and investments are made. The TIIN, which was published alongside these changes, showed that these measures would have a negligible impact on businesses and civil society organisations. I therefore commend clause 54 and schedule 9 to the Committee, and urge it to reject new clauses 8 and 9.”
“Clause 54 and schedule 9 will support the Government’s aims of closing the tax gap by strengthening compliance powers to challenge abusive arrangements by which donors or trustees of charities can enrich themselves. The changes made in clause 54 tighten the rules on tainted donations. New clauses 8 and 9 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 54 and schedule 9 on legitimate charitable giving and the prevention of tax avoidance, to review the implementation of the outcome test in clause 54, and to assess whether it is clearer and more effective that the existing purpose test.”
“We are taking a range of steps to ensure that the charity sector and the wider public are aware of the changes, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. A detailed summary of consultation responses has been published. As I said, HMRC will provide clear and practical guidance in advance of implementation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 9 agreed to. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Mark Ferguson.)”
“It is important to recognise that the tainted donations rules ensure that the usual tax reliefs are not available where someone gives money to a charity with the intention to benefit financially from it. Previously, HMRC was only permitted to consider the intention of a donation and whether a donor had received a financial advantage from a donation, but now, with these changes, it will also be able to consider the outcome of the donation and whether a donor had received financial assistance. In that respect, considering the outcome of a tainted donation is a positive step towards challenging abusive arrangements. As I have said in relation to previous clauses, HMRC will come forward with clear guidance on the application of the clauses, and, to the shadow Minister’s point, that guidance might well contain examples.”
“I am very pleased to be opening the first debate in this Finance Bill Committee. Clause 11 sets the charge for corporation tax for the financial year commencing in April 2027 and sets the main rate at 25%. Clause 12 sets the small profits rate at 19% for the same period. The Government are committed to a stable and predictable tax system for businesses, and we are supporting businesses by creating the economic stability and fiscal sustainability needed for future growth. That is why we are delivering on our commitment, set out in the 2024 corporate tax road map, to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament. The changes made by clauses 11 and 12 will establish the right of the Government to charge corporation tax for the financial year beginning in April 2027.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for his comments and for highlighting the fact that we have kept our manifesto commitment on tax. This is part of that: we are capping corporation tax at 25% in line with our corporate tax road map. Question put and agreed to . Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Enterprise management incentives: thresholds and period for exercise”
“I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 13, page 7, line 37, at end insert— “( ) In section 169I(7D)(b) of TCGA 1992 (material disposal of business assets)— (a) for ‘tenth ’ substitute ‘specified’; (b) at the end insert ‘(with “specified anniversary” having the meaning given in section 529(2A) of that Act)’.” This amendment to TCGA 1992 would reflect the changes made to section 529 of ITEPA 2003 by clause 13 of the Bill.”
“The Government have published a tax information and impact note setting out the impact of the EMI expansion. That showed that the measure will cost £585 million in 2029-30. The expansion is expected to support an extra 1,800 of the highest growth scale-up companies over the next five years, allowing them to reward an estimated 70,000 more employees. The Government keep all taxes under review, and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis. We have also launched a call for evidence to gather views from founders, entrepreneurs, scaling companies and investors on tax policy support for investment in high-growth UK companies.”
“Clause 13 significantly expands the enterprise management incentives scheme eligibility to allow greater access for scaling companies. Specifically, the changes made by the clause will expand the EMI company eligibility limits to maintain the world-leading nature of the scheme. Government amendments 37 and 38 are consequential to the business asset disposal relief legislation, updating it to align with the EMI maximum holding period expansion provided by the clause. The change will significantly expand the EMI limits and expand access for scale-up companies. New clause 24 would require reports to the House of Commons on the impact of the clause on recruitment and retention in qualifying companies, on high-growth and innovative businesses and on the Exchequer finances.”
“Amendment made: 38, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, for “(7)” substitute “(8)”.— (Lucy Rigby.) This amendment is consequential on the addition of a new subsection by Amendment 37. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Enterprise investment scheme: increase in amounts and asset requirements Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I am pleased to tell him that the Government’s objectives on the growth of financial services very much align with that report. Our objectives and the report have much in common, but most importantly, we share the sense of urgency and ambition that it outlines. The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to his desire to see more companies remain in the UK. That is imperative, and it is behind the Government’s reforms to a series of tax incentives in this area. We believe that the UK is already the best place in the world to start a company, and we have to make sure that it continues to be, but it must also be the best place to scale and to list a company. That is why the reforms are so important—so that companies stay. Amendment 37 agreed to.”
“The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a series of important points. I come back to the fact that the Government have opened a call for evidence on tax in this area. The Committee will come to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, which the call for evidence also covers. Importantly, the call for evidence covers the changes we have made to the enterprise management incentives scheme. All of those changes, as well as the clauses we are about to discuss, are important to the Government’s objective of making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and I encourage any views to be fed into that call for evidence. The hon. Member referred to an important report from TheCityUK and PwC; I attended its launch yesterday.”
“Alongside that, as I said, the VCT up front income tax relief will decrease from 30% to 20% from April 2026. Government amendments 3 and 4 fix wording in clause 15 so that the annual and lifetime investment limits consistently apply to “the relevant company”, removing any ambiguity in how the VCT limits should be interpreted.”
“Clauses 14 and 15 double the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme, as well as the gross assets limit for companies using the scheme. The VCT income tax relief will also be reduced from 30% to 20%. The changes made by clause 14 will mean that, from April 2026, the EIS annual company investment limits will increase to £10 million, or £20 million for knowledge-intensive companies. The lifetime company investment limits will increase to £24 million, or £40 million for knowledge-intensive companies. The gross assets test will increase to £30 million before share issue, and £35 million after. Likewise, clause 15 will mean that from April 2026, the VCT company investment limits and gross assets test will increase to the same levels.”
“Clause 15 Venture capital trusts: rate of relief and amounts and asset requirements Amendment proposed : 29, in clause 15, page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (2).— (James Wild.) This amendment would maintain the rate of income tax relief for investments into venture capital trusts at 30 per cent. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The reduction in income tax relief therefore reflects the overall reduction in investment risk that comes with investing in later-stage companies. It is important to bear in mind that the VCT scheme remains very generous with, as I said, 100% tax relief on dividend payments and 100% capital gains tax relief on the sale of shares, alongside that 20% income tax relief. I know that the shadow Minister does not like TIINs in general—he has made that point in the Chamber—but they do contain the full details of the assumptions and impacts, and indeed the policy rationale. I therefore commend clauses 14 and 15 and Government amendments 3 and 4 to the Committee, and ask that amendment 29 and new clause 1 be rejected. Question put and agreed to. Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“I welcome the shadow Minister’s welcoming of the majority of the changes that we are making. To address his criticism of what we are doing in relation to the venture capital trust income tax relief, I come back to the impetus behind this package of reforms as a whole on EMI, EIS and VCT, which is to make sure that the UK is the best to start, scale, list a company and to ensure that companies stay. The specific change to VCT to reduce the income tax relief from 30% to 20% is to help rebalance the up-front tax reliefs offered across the schemes, where the VCT scheme offers tax relief on dividend income, which the EIS scheme investors do not get. VCTs tend to invest in larger, less risky, scaling companies compared with EIS scheme investors.”
“The change will therefore support more employees of growing UK companies to access the tax advantages of EMIs, and ensures that the tax system keeps pace with innovation in the wider economy. It also, of course, supports the launch of PISCES, which will provide a key stepping stone for public markets, supporting our world-leading capital markets. I commend clause 16 to the Committee.”
“Clause 16 will enable the existing enterprise management incentives scheme and company share option plan contracts agreed before 6 April 2028 to be amended to include a sale on the private intermittent securities and capital exchange system—known by its much more catchy acronym of PISCES—as an exercisable event, without losing the tax advantages. The legislation will have retrospective effect from 15 May 2025. In the interim, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be able to use its collection and management powers to not collect tax on exercise. That means that this change will benefit PISCES trading events that happen before the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent.”
“That is exactly why we have the April 2028 extension, to allow PISCES to become more embedded and therefore more standard in EMI and company share option plan contracts. As I said, I understand the impetus behind the suggested change; I just do not think it is necessary. Question put and agreed to . Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 17 Employee car and van ownership schemes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“The Government delivered the regulatory framework for PISCES in May 2025, and the shadow Minister has, fairly, asked for an update. I am pleased to tell him that the Financial Conduct Authority has since approved, as he may know, two PISCES market operators: JP Jenkins and the London Stock Exchange. We are hopeful that the first trading events on PISCES will take place soon. I understand the impetus behind the shadow Minister’s other points. PISCES can, of course, be written into new contracts when they are agreed, meaning that those contracts should not need to be amended to include PISCES, because it can be there ab initio. However, it is fair to say that companies might not yet be aware of PISCES, as it was only recently introduced.”
“The Government recognise that although it is right that higher-emitting vehicles pay more tax, lower-emission company cars such as plug-in hybrid vehicles continue to play an important role in supporting our transition towards zero emission vehicles and the decarbonisation of transport. The changes made by the clause will introduce a temporary benefit-in-kind tax easement for employers providing, and employees being provided with, PHEVs as company cars. I commend clauses 17 to 19 to the Committee.”
“This measure will ensure fairness to other taxpayers, reduce distortions in the tax system and reinforce the emissions-based company car tax regime, which incentivises the take-up of zero emission vehicles. To support the automotive industry and provide employers with more time to adjust to the changes, the Government have delayed implementation of the measure to 6 April 2030 and have introduced transitional rules. On clause 19, new emissions standards being introduced in the UK reflect the higher real-world emissions of PHEVs. It is important that a car’s official emissions figures reflect real-world emissions, but that can lead to tax increases where tax is linked to emissions levels.”
“Clauses 17 and 18 will bring employee car ownership schemes into the benefit-in-kind regime from 2030, with transitional arrangements until 2032. Clause 19 will ensure that the introduction of new emissions standards does not lead to a sharp increase in benefit-in-kind tax for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. On clauses 17 and 18, the costing, published alongside the Budget, accounts for a behavioural response whereby a significant number of taxpayers switch towards alternative vehicles or move away from using company cars altogether. That has been updated since the 2024 autumn Budget, taking into account further evidence on the impacts of the measure provided by the sector. Private use of a company car is a valuable benefit, and it is right that the appropriate tax be paid on it.”
“Various points have been made about the tax incentives, but underpinning all of them is our commitment to support the automotive industry in a challenging fiscal environment. We will publish in due course the guidance that the hon. Member for Maidenhead requests. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Employment income: miscellaneous exemptions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”