Mark Garnier MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · State Pension · Hansard source

  More

  Helping millions of people ensure financial security in their retirement is a cornerstone of the Minister’s Department, but in the Government’s first 18 months, they have disincentivised pension savings by introducing inheritance tax on pensions, removing pensions from their lifetime ISA reforms, forcing pension trustees into mandation and, most recently, introducing a cap on salary sacrifice savings incentives. Through their actions, this Government are pushing people to be more reliant on the state pension, rather than encouraging people to take control of their own financial future. Which will be the next Government U-turn: cancelling mandation, or abandoning salary sacrifice caps?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I should alert Members that I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. On that point about mental health issues, does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical markers on doctors’ records would be a perfect solution to that problem, rather than necessarily doing what is proposed in the petition?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the uprating for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments. This has been done on an annual basis and over many Governments. Today’s regulations specifically provide a 3.8% increase in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index rate. We welcome that inflation-linked increase so that the compensation amounts are more representative of today’s cost of living. That is especially important in this instance, given how debilitating these diseases can be. Colleagues will know that mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with known links to asbestos exposure. Pneumoconiosis is equally serious, often affecting those who worked in heavy industries such as coalmining. What is cruel about both those diseases is that it can take years for symptoms to start presenting themselves, and therefore, by the time that someone receives a diagnosis, in most cases it is already advanced and leaves them with little time to react. The other issue with the latency of diagnosis is that many sufferers struggle to pursue civil claims against employers. These schemes help to address those issues and provide decency for people affected. They also underpin the point that our benefits system should be a critical safety net for the some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I reiterate that the Opposition welcome this compensation lump sum uplift today and support the Government’s proposals.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency. On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  On exactly this point about the democratic process, my constituents were promised by the Reform candidates that they would cut council tax, but Worcestershire county council’s council tax is going up by 9%. It is a shame that not a single Reform Member of Parliament has turned up to defend what they have done. The worrying point is that we are being denied a referendum even though this goes above the 5% threshold. That bit of the democratic process has been removed from Worcestershire.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is nodding, and I am sure he agrees with us on this point. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Government have committed to extending this relief for the next two years. However, I point out that the Government said in the Budget document: “The government will extend the employer NICs relief for employers hiring veterans in their first civilian role to April 2028, from which point support for veterans into employment will be covered through spending review settlements rather than through this tax relief.” The Government have committed to consult on which way would be best to do that, which is positive, and I hope the Minister is open to considering continuing this relief as an option if a suitable alternative cannot be found. In due course, it would be great if he or the Government could let us know what is being planned and on what timeframe, so we may understand what will be happening for veterans. The child benefit and guardian’s order will uprate the allowances in line with CPI for the 2026-27 tax year. Again, we welcome the increases as these benefits are an important part of our welfare system. Guardian’s allowance is designed to provide further support to people who care for someone else’s child—for example, if the child’s parents have died. When these people step as guardians, they are incredibly important in the upbringing of young children, and we have a duty to support them so that they can ensure that the children they care for have the best start in life. Although these state benefits are important, the Government are abandoning their responsibilities to tackle the wider benefits bill. In this debate last year, the former Exchequer Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: “the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support to those who need it.” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 716.] When it came down to it, however, this Government did not take the opportunity to make those savings. Instead, it appears that they caved in to their Back Benchers, and we are now in a position where the benefits bill continues to balloon. According to The Times , even the Prime Minister has vetoed plans to reform the welfare system, simply to avoid the embarrassment of yet another U-turn. That is not fair to taxpayers, or to those who need support the most. In due course, I hope the Minister will set out when the needed benefit reforms will be brought forward and what steps he is taking to ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to those who need it most. The Conservatives will not stand in the way of any of the statutory instruments before us today, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—not necessarily this afternoon, I stress—on the points I have raised.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to debate these two statutory instruments with the Exchequer Secretary. As he stated, they are made each year, and the precedent is for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. I am glad to see that that practice continues, and I hope that the Government will keep this going for the remainder of the current premiership, however long that may last. I want to make it clear that we will not be voting against the measures before us when the debate concludes. However, I would like to comment on each SI and the wider political discourse around them. First, the social security regulations set the rates of certain national insurance contribution classes and the level of certain thresholds for the 2026-27 tax year. Specifically, they uprate the lower earnings limit, the small profit threshold and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions. The increase will be 3.8%, which is the consumer prices index figure from September 2025. All other limits and thresholds that these regulations cover will remain frozen at their current level. This highlights that the increase last year was 1.7% compared with 3.8% this year. Both these percentages represent the rate of inflation that our constituents are suffering, but the 1.7% is of course what we left the Government when they came to power, and 3.8% is the level of inflation they are now delivering for consumers. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. We had managed to get it down following a once-in-a-generation pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis. Since Labour has come in, inflation has risen almost every month and is now stuck at about 3.6%. Why is that? It is because the Government are relentlessly pursuing policies instead of making practical solutions—for example, the drive towards net zero. We of course want net zero and to get to the point where we clean up our carbon footprints, but by going too far they have managed to put up energy bills by £300 since they were elected. Is it any wonder that inflation is so high and shows little sign of coming down any time soon? I do not want to press the Minister on too many questions, but could he in due course let us know when the Government expect inflation to return to the target rate of 2%, which everybody agrees is where it should be? The other point that I want to make about the statutory instrument is that it extends the employer national insurance contributions relief for veterans to 2028, which means businesses will continue to pay no employer NICs on salaries up to the veterans upper secondary threshold of £50,000 or £270 for the first year of their employment, which is a very good thing, as I think the Minister will agree. We introduced this relief in 2022, as we wanted to encourage as many employers as possible to help our veterans. These people have done a huge amount to protect our country, and it is important that we show our gratitude to them.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my constituency next door neighbour for allowing me to intervene. Some of the post that goes to the southern part of his constituency may well be sorted through the Kidderminster postal sorting office. He mentioned that people are not getting their letters, and we have heard from other Members that urgent mail is not getting there. I too have raised this on Facebook and, independent from my residents in Stourport, Kidderminster and Bewdley—towns that should be well served—I have had 700 uninvited comments from people who are thoroughly fed up with the postal service in our part of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Ofcom requirement is not being met in any way, shape or form?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We did have a war and a pandemic.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all agree with the sincerity of the intention, but the problem is that there is always a grey area at the boundary. The question is how we define that area so that we make certain that a legitimate person does not get wrongly drawn in, while a bad actor gets away with it.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is all pretty uncontroversial, but there is one concern with clause 246, which states that the commencement date will be May this year. Although they have pushed this back by a month, are the Government not concerned that this is an insufficient length of time for tax advisers to register? From representations we have had from the industry, they are very concerned that the timeframe is too short. Indeed, is HMRC fully equipped to take on this extra workload? I expect that the Minister will say that advisers can do it all online, but I am slightly worried that things like that do not always work. There is a real concern in the advice industry of the widespread unintended effect that may come out of these measures. It is important that we get this right and that people have time to prepare. Would the Minister take that on board and have a think about how we can make sure that the process is efficient and works well?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That was sterling support for a terrible idea. The Office for Budget Responsibility was brought in back in 2010 to try to keep an eye on what had been going on through the financial crisis, the big problems as a result of the financial crash and, interestingly, the austerity measures brought in by Chancellor Alistair Darling before the 2010 general election, which were necessary to carry on and to sort out the public finances. It is really important that the Government are held to account, that Members of this House do so, and that they do so with as much information as they can possibly have. The Office for Budget Responsibility is there to mark the homework of the Government. To reduce that homework marking to just once a year—I appreciate that there are two events, but only measuring fiscal ability once a year—is not a good idea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came along about a year ago and proudly said that she had managed to repair the public finances, only for us to discover a year later that in fact the public finances had not been sorted out and we had to see huge amounts more taxation come in. To remove the opportunity for the OBR to have a look at the public finances is a bad idea and we do not support it.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 174 to 185 relate to anti-avoidance information notices. They also provide that they can be issued to connected persons, third parties and financial institutions. The make mostly technical amendments, but there are two technical amendments that we believe are missing from this grouping. Rather than go through every clause, I will concentrate on two. First, clause 182 restricts how recipients may disclose or publicise anti-avoidance notices. We follow the logic of this clause, as one would want to prevent people who receive a notice from tipping off the promoters or specified persons being investigated. However, what we would not want is for recipients of a notice, who often will not be the main targets of HMRC, to be prevented from accessing professional or legal advice. The wording of the clause, whether that be the title or the text, insinuates that this is not an option that is available. Therefore, we feel that clarity is required from the Government. The Chartered Institute of Taxation recommends adding the words: “making representations against the notice” to clause 182(2). This is a sensible recommendation, and I hope that the Minister will see it as such and commit to looking at adding these words before the Bill returns on Report. The other issue that has been raised with us is regarding clause 183. This clause sets out which categories of information cannot be required under anti-avoidance notices. More simply, this means that material that may be legally privileged between a lawyer and a client would be exempt from these notices. That is important, and we are not arguing that the Government should remove that exemption. However, the point has been made to us by industry bodies that legal professional privilege does not extend to advice provided by tax advisers or accountants. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is the expert on the Government Benches, looks up and—I hope—understands that point. That is despite the fact that a person would ask for advice on tax policy from an adviser or an accountant in the same manner that a person would ask for legal advice from a lawyer. Again, we understand that this clause is about tackling tax avoidance and the promoters of it. However, without additional exemptions it could result in people or entities being disincentivised from seeking advice from tax advisers or accountants based in the UK. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the rationale to protect legally privileged material but to exclude other types of advice from the list of exemptions, and to say whether the Government would consider—again—introducing changes to this clause to level the playing field.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The broad thrust of the measure is perfectly reasonable. As we go into a more digital world, it is perfectly acceptable that people should be required to interact with HMRC online. The only problem is that not everybody is as computer literate, so what measures will be in place to support people if they are genuinely struggling? That aside, we are in favour of the measure.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We would all agree that there is certainly a need to enhance HMRC’s ability to catch promoters of tax avoidance schemes. According to HMRC, there is currently a tax gap of about £500 million related to marketed avoidance schemes sold to individuals. HMRC has identified approximately 20 to 30 active promoters responsible for that. It seems that clauses 163 to 173 would theoretically affect only those engaging in highly risky schemes that HMRC has already disapproved of. We support the work of HMRC to protect the public from those groups and the overarching principles that drive these clauses but, on closer inspection, the scope of the proposals is wide. We have concerns that the proposals could inflict collateral damage on legitimate actors in the wider markets. Clause 163 outlines the process that HMRC undertakes to officially deem a person as a certified promoter. The big issue, however, is the difficulty of completing the process to officially certify what a promoter actually is. These promoters can be notoriously difficult to catch because some of them are based offshore and hide behind complex corporate structures, so although we support the purpose of clause 163, we are not entirely certain that it will achieve its intended result of tackling promoters offshore. Clause 164 has the same problem: it outlines how HMRC will require people who engage with promoters to disengage by issuing them with a promoter action notice. Will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering further steps to make the clauses enforceable? What steps are being taken with other countries to catch promoters not residing in but operating in the UK? That is an important point. Clause 165 is about the notification of a personal business that HMRC reasonably suspects is enabling a promoter. It is sensible to have that soft approach—to be followed, if necessary, by harder enforcement action later in the process. Our concern, however, is about the chilling effect that a preliminary notice might have on a legitimate actor. Once a recipient receives a preliminary notice, they may choose to pre-emptively sever ties with somebody whom HMRC has flagged as a suspected promoter, despite the fact that a preliminary notice is based on suspicion and is not an official conclusion. That means that preliminary notices will require a lower threshold of evidence in comparison with a promoter action notice, with no judicial oversight. In its technical consultation last year, UK Finance raised the fact that that could affect financial institutions as well. Clause 166 is similar. It specifies the information that an authorised HMRC officer and recipient of a preliminary notice or promoter action notice can disclose. Following the issuance of a notice, the investigation process keeps a suspected promoter completely unaware. That potential overreach could have chilling effects on people whom HMRC merely suspects. As clause 165 states, a person may sever ties with an entity being investigated even if that entity is only under suspicion. I encourage the Minister and officials to consider the safeguards that can protect legitimate actors from that prospect.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clauses follow a recent Delegated Legislation Committee debate that the Minister and I had, as a result of which we are going to get together with some members of the industry to talk about the confusion on this issue. One thing that worries me about the clauses is that they fail to differentiate between a cryptoasset and a stablecoin or tokenised currency. It is important to recognise that those are two different things. As I understand it, HMRC will take reporting on interest paid on deposit accounts, for example, so that it can understand what is going on in the economy and in individuals’ accounts. However, a bitcoin is not a currency; it is a tradeable asset. It can behave like a currency, or it can behave like a share, whereby it has its own intrinsic value and people can buy it with a view to selling it when it goes up in price. Similarly, people can use it, as we saw in the case of Tesla: Elon Musk was prepared to take bitcoin as payment for Tesla cars, although not for very long. However, it is not the same as a fiat currency and is not the same as a tokenised pound or stablecoin; those so-called cryptoassets act as part of a payment system. This is where we find ourselves getting into a potentially complicated area. We may be making legislation without necessarily understanding the difference between bitcoin, dogecoin and ethereum, which are tradeable assets, and a mechanism that enhances the payment system. It would be helpful if the Minister explained a more detail what, specifically, the clauses mean by “cryptoasset”. Standing back from the minute detail of what a cryptoasset is, as opposed to what a stablecoin is, the general thrust—participation in the wider reporting of what is going on with this stuff—is probably a good idea. We need to understand how it works, get things proportionate and not become over-regulated, because if we become over-regulated we become uncompetitive. There are a number of issues that cause me concern, so I will be grateful if the Minister can offer some explanations now, and then we can have more discussions when we meet in a week or two. If we go down the wrong track, it could put us a long way behind our international competitors.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 156 to 162 will place a statutory ban on promoting tax avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success. The clauses also set out the civil and criminal penalties. The Opposition absolutely support the Government’s efforts to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion, both of which are variations on a theme. It is important to remember exactly what they are. Tax planning is to be encouraged; tax evasion should lead to being sent to prison; and as for tax avoidance, we should try to persuade people not to use the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law in their tax planning. However, some concerns, which I hope the Minister can answer, have been raised with us about the clauses. Clauses 157 and 162 define what is meant by “promotion”, as well as other key definitions that are applicable to these clauses. Those definitions are welcome, but the Chartered Institute of Taxation has flagged concerns about the wording. For example, the clauses use the terms “marketed” and “likely to be” marketed but never define what they mean. The intention to prevent ineffective tax avoidance arrangements at source is noble, but “likely to be” marketed is too loose. What evidence would constitute an arrangement being classed as likely to be marketed? What evidence would an adviser need in order to show that advice was not likely to be marketed? Clarity is needed because the provision, if left unchanged, could accidentally catch normal tax advice. Will the Minister therefore commit to tightening up the wording of the clauses and providing specific details, either before Report or in any follow-up regulations? Secondly, how can the Government prove that someone is promoting arrangements that have “no realistic prospect” of success? Will it be for individual officers of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to determine, or will clarity be provided in the statutory instrument that will eventually follow? I ask because, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the term was not in the draft Finance Bill. Originally, the Government wanted to introduce a new criminal offence of failing to notify a tax avoidance arrangement under the rules on disclosure of tax avoidance schemes. We welcome the fact that the Government have consulted and, following the responses from industry, have decided to change tack. However, the new terminology of “no realistic prospect” of success was first raised only on 12 November last year. That was followed by a consultation that the industry has described as “very short, limited and confidential”. Will the Minister and HMRC therefore consider running a more open consultation?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses are wide and important, but they have also drawn significant criticism. The Government have decided to amend “dishonest conduct” rules to “sanctionable conduct” rules in schedule 21. That may seem like a minor change, but it changes the current high threshold of dishonesty to one that is lower and potentially ambiguous. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has described the definition of “sanctionable conduct” as “exceptionally broad;…based on inferred intention; and…not limited to unethical, unprofessional or deliberately incorrect behaviour.” Couple that with significant increases in penalties for conduct in scope, and it is unsurprising that the change causes a fair amount of concern in the industry. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the objective of the Government’s policy is to target deliberate behaviour. This change seems inadvertently to miss that objective entirely. Frankly, it seems to be the wrong move, and there is significant strength of feeling in the industry that the terminology should revert to its original wording. Can the Minister provide more detail on the decision to change the wording? What representations have the Government received from the industry about it? Will he also please commit to engaging further with industry stakeholders before Report stage, and to making the necessary changes to accomplish the well-intentioned aim of the policy? I have had other representations from groups such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales about related issues. There are a number of other issues about the way this is working. I will not trouble the Committee with them now, but we may follow up with a letter to the to the Minister about where parts of the Bill seem to be spreading into slightly negative territory.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. At the end of the day, we want to nail down people who have promoted those dodgy things, but at the same time we are a country with justice. If it takes more than 30 days on a regular basis to respond to such things, it is absolutely right that we would have longer time in order to help—but as with all such things, it is always a fine balance. Clause 167 outlines the appeal process for people who receive a promoter action notice. Under the clause, the recipient can only appeal if they are not providing a critical service to the promoter specified, or the goods and services are not being used wholly or partly for the promoter’s avoidance arrangements. The Association of Taxation Technicians has outlined the unfairness of that, given that promoters are able to challenge HMRC’s core allegations at a tribunal. Recipients, on the other hand, will only be able to address the technicalities of the arrangements, with no opportunity to have the wider picture taken into consideration. The recipient may just be an unwitting enabler, unable fully to appeal the notice. Therefore, will the Minister again outline how the Government will ensure that individuals can appeal against the notices? Clause 168 outlines the civil penalty regime. Under the Government proposals, the recipient of a promoter action notice will be required to pay £1,000 per day for non-compliance. A recipient of a promoter action notice may challenge that at a tribunal, which is good. However, there is no suspension period provision. Should a recipient challenge HMRC at a tribunal, the penalty of £1,000 per day will still apply as the tribunal considers the appeal. As the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants pointed out, the first-tier tribunal can take a significant amount of time. Therefore, is the Minister certain that HMRC has the resources to compensate for the increased workload? Will he consider implementing a suspension period provision? At the end of the day, if that drags on for too long, a provider could be put in financial jeopardy of business failure. Finally, clause 170 sets out when HMRC can report a recipient of a promoter action notice to a regulator, representative or trade body. I agree that regulators, and representative and trade bodies should be involved in the informative process, as their integrity and reputation could be at stake, too. However, the clause echoes similar concerns of mine regarding clauses 167 to 169. It means that reporting a recipient to the regulator in combination with publishing recipient details, as well as applying civil penalties, would all run concurrently before the recipient has even had a chance to reach a tribunal. Again, will the Minister outline what discussions have been had to ensure that there is not excessive duplication?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is all fairly straightforward. We are delighted that, since coming to power 18 months ago, the Government have decided that they are going to follow on with the great initiatives of the last Government, and I thank the Minister for so enthusiastically celebrating our achievements. However, there is one bit that we are slightly worried about. Clause 258 will require individual users of HMRC online services to provide and keep up to date their digital contact details. That is a perfectly reasonable request, but to enforce it, people can be subject to financial penalties of up to £1,000. As the Association of Taxation Technicians has said, the proposed £1,000 penalty is “unprecedented and disproportionate”. Much more importantly, there is no comparable HMRC penalty for failing to update a postal address or traditional form of contact. Are the Government not going a bit too far? I remind them that this is about regular taxpayers, and this penalty could catch out people who are more vulnerable or less financially literate. Can the Minister commit to reviewing whether this £1,000 fine is too high and, indeed, whether we should be bringing it in? We are completely behind the thrust of the clauses, but this penalty seems disproportionate. There is no fine for not updating a postal address, so why would there be one for not updating an email address?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for explaining what the clauses are all about. We are slightly worried about what they do not set out, which is the threshold for HMRC to pursue a criminal conviction that would result in a prison sentence. Prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious breaches. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity in any correspondence that may be published. Clauses 191 to 196 set out the civil sanctions for non-compliance with an anti-avoidance information notice. As we heard, the sanctions will consistently apply a fine of up to £5,000 for a breach, as well as daily penalties for continued breaches. Additionally, clause 196 allows for the daily penalty to be increased if the person continues to offend for more than 30 days since the original notice. Overall, these are important deterrents and strong sanctions to ensure that bad actors pay the price. At the same time, they seem to be fairly balanced with the safeguards in clauses 197 to 206. We are therefore generally content with the drive and execution of these clauses.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Could I ask for a little clarity on that? Does that mean that there will be a list, and that an adviser will get three months from the point at which they are published on the list? Can they elect when to go on to that list? I am not quite clear what the Minister meant.