Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) 2026-01-29

The clause aims to claw back winter fuel payments from individuals with a total taxable income over £35,000, costing around £1.8 billion in 2025-26 and settling at £1.3 billion the following year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have expressed concerns about potential complexity and anxiety for individuals navigating tax rules for the first time due to inflation eating away at the £35,000 cap over time.

Supports uprating by CPI as it gives people on fixed incomes certainty into the future. Uprating would prevent them from falling into fuel poverty.

He criticises James Wild for his language around the winter fuel allowance and questions his position regarding past Conservative policies on this issue.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the reversal of the decision to cancel winter fuel payments but express concerns about the cliff edge at £35,000 and the complexities involved in making the charge a notifiable tax liability.

Defends the Government's position that total income is an appropriate way of measuring income for assessing eligibility. He states that the measures are intended to ensure fairness and prevent those with higher incomes from receiving the payment unnecessarily.

Proposes simplifying the system by integrating winter fuel allowance into main pension payments, questioning the need for a separate threshold system.

Critiques the tax reform on carried interest, arguing it undermines competitiveness and may drive investment abroad. Proposes new clause 11 for a thorough impact assessment before implementing reforms.

Defends government’s position on tax reforms, emphasising engagement with the sector and commitment to balance revenue generation and economic competitiveness.

Clause 58 aims to fix an administrative problem that has frustrated many businesses and introduces a new £1,000 penalty where a group submits a return without any company having been validly appointed to act as the reporting company. Clause 59 makes targeted changes to ensure that certain types of capital expenditure related to cemeteries and crematoriums, environmental and infrastructure spending are excluded from limits on how much interest a group can deduct for tax purposes.

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 aims to deter such tax avoidance arrangements and secure receipts for the Exchequer that might otherwise be deferred through tax disputes.

The clause introduces a new anti-avoidance provision aimed at arrangements involving non-derecognition liabilities. The Opposition strongly support efforts to tackle avoidance and close loopholes that undermine trust in the tax system, but want to ensure businesses have confidence and know which existing structures could be at risk.

Supports the need to assess the impact of changes in energy profits levy on North Sea investment and employment. Cites research showing job losses at a rate of 1,000 per month and warns that the Government’s decision could cost tens of thousands of jobs and undermine energy security.

Defends the new clause stating it merely clarifies existing tax treatment and does not require additional monitoring as 'nothing has changed.' Reiterates that clauses 70 to 73 introduce adjustments to inheritance tax reforms, aiming at fairness and long-term effectiveness.

The clause introduces a power to extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments. Amendment 47 would require all regulations under the new powers to be subject to an affirmative procedure, but this is already provided by the clause if primary legislation is amended. The Government aims to introduce clear and prompt regulations later in the year through consultation with stakeholders.

Supports the clause as it honours a commitment made previously in the House for infected blood victims to receive compensation. Acknowledges the importance of supporting families navigating the system and urges consideration of similar provisions for other scandals like valproate and pelvic mesh.

Emphasises that the amendments would ensure accountability through parliamentary oversight, clear deadlines, and support mechanisms. Highlights ongoing issues with the Hughes report on other compensation scandals and urges the Government to consider similar provisions in future.

Argued that clauses 75 and 76 close an avoidance loophole to ensure the inheritance tax exemption for gifts to charities works as intended, rejecting new clause 13 proposed by James Wild, stating it would not impose a burden on charities.

Supported clauses 75 and 76 but emphasised the need for understanding practical consequences of rule tightening on charities. Proposed new clause 13 requiring the Treasury to publish a report on the impact of clause 75, expressing concerns about potential complexity and bureaucracy for charities.

Replied to James Wild's concerns by assuring that measures will not be unreasonable burdens on charities. Stated clauses 77 and 78 aim at ensuring value for money in the Motability scheme while supporting disabled people, removing VAT relief for top-up payments for more expensive vehicles.

Supported reforms to the Motability scheme but questioned wider welfare eligibility standards. Stressed the need for fairness in targeting taxpayer resources and welcomed measures mitigating additional welfare spending.

Asked questions regarding definitions of 'substantially and permanently adapted' vehicles and requested clarification on consultations with disability groups and impact assessments for those no longer receiving insurance premium tax relief.

Asked for a more expansive definition in Committee, likely questioning the clarity and strength of existing legislation.

Defended the words used in the existing legislation as clear and strong, suggesting reliance on current legal language rather than expanding definitions.