Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her new role. As she has set out, the draft regulations will make targeted changes to the UK’s money laundering regime, which is central to efforts to fight economic crime and terrorist financing. Since its introduction, there have been various changes underpinned by the international standards to which the Minister referred. The consultation on improving the regulatory system and the effectiveness of the money laundering regulations began under the last Conservative Government, so I am happy to confirm to the Minister that the Opposition will support the draft regulations. However, I have some questions to which I would be grateful for a response.

The draft regulations will amend the customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence provisions so that they apply to “unusually complex” rather than just “complex” transactions, as well as to “unusually large” transactions. They will replace the broader grey list of “high-risk third countries” with the tighter “Call for Action” black list, so that North Korea, Iran and Myanmar are automatically covered. However, Syria and Yemen, for example, will no longer be covered. We support a risk-based proportionate approach, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this change will not undermine efforts to tackle illicit finance?

This is a rare example of deregulation from this Government. Having sat in a Committee Room going through 536 pages of the last Finance Bill, I simply say, “More, please!” Given the Government’s warning that firms may respond with overly cautious gold-plated compliance, what steps are being taken to ensure that the savings of £178 million a year to which the Minister referred will be realised?

Where a bank goes insolvent, the draft regulations will allow accounts to be opened for transferred customers before full due diligence is complete, with checks being carried out “as soon as practicable”. That makes sense, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank. However, the Treasury recognises in its explanatory memorandum that this measure does not deal with all the associated issues. How will the Minister and the Government deal with those issues?

On crypto, the draft regulations align with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 reforms, which is welcome, to apply due diligence checks. I note that the draft regulations will allow for a nine-month implementation period before those obligations apply. In a fast-moving sector, is the Minister confident that that will not open a window of vulnerability? How are the Government engaging with the sector to ensure that it is ready for these changes?

On trusts, the changes will both expand and narrow the trust registration service. Given the complexity in this area, and the Government’s admission that previous rules missed some trusts, how will HM Revenue and Customs prevent sophisticated actors from structuring around the rules, while ensuring that smaller, legitimate trusts can comply?

The draft regulations will explicitly require agents to carry out due diligence when selling off-the-shelf companies. The quantitative data on the prevalence and misuse of those companies is limited, since neither Companies House nor HMRC systematically tracks that activity, so there is a clear gap in the data. I appreciate that for that reason the Minister will not be able to provide an exact figure, but does she have an estimate of how widespread the abuse is around the tens of thousands of companies, if not more, that are registered each year?

As a result of the changes, the Government estimate that £1.5 billion-worth of net benefits will be delivered over the next 10 years, but the impact assessment, which I am sure all hon. Members have studied closely, makes it clear that much of the evidence is qualitative and that the costs have not been robustly quantified. The Treasury has not attempted to monetise some of the proposals to provide a broader analysis of the impact. Colleagues who served on the last Finance Bill Committee will be aware of the interest that the Opposition take in impact assessments. Can the Minister explain why more of the benefits that are supposed to come from these regulations have not been monetised in the way the due diligence checks have? How confident is she that they will deliver the promised savings over the next decade?

Finally, the Minister will know that when changes of this magnitude come in, they affect the sectors involved and the 95,000 companies that will be required to carry out some or all of these checks. They are looking for clear guidance to help interpret the regulations. Perhaps she could give an indication as to when such guidance will be provided to the sector.

As I say, we launched the consultation on changing the regulations, and we support the direction of travel, but I hope the Minister will be able to address some of my points.

Costs for Motorists

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend’s comments again highlight that the Conservative party would have raced to war. When I said that earlier—Conservative Members are doing it again; they are shaking their heads at me. The reality is—

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Not true!

[Lucy Rigby]

Okay. One of two things is true: either the Leader of the Opposition said that she would have taken us into the conflict and she did not mean it, in which case she is really confused, frankly; or she said it and she meant it, which is demonstrative of catastrophic judgment. Neither of those things—catastrophically bad judgment or deep confusion—is an ideal quality for someone who wants to run the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Chancellor said,

“National security always comes first”,

but she delayed the helicopter contract for our industrial base and we know that she is blocking the defence investment plan. Labour’s former Defence Secretary and secretary general of NATO, Lord Robertson, said,

“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”

He is right, so why is the Chancellor failing to grip the benefits bill and invest in our defence?

[James Murray]

Those on the Opposition Front Bench have some cheek. The hon. Gentleman is sat next to the hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who oversaw the biggest increase in welfare spending on record, with a £33 billion increase in welfare spending in the last year of the Conservative Government. This Government are serious about getting people back into work, while increasing defence investment at the same time to 2.6% of GDP by next April—something the previous Government never managed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Whereas the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, Labour is planning to increase it by 5p, costing families £150 a year and hauliers £2,000. When the Chancellor was asked to reverse her hike, she said she was

“loath to spend Government money”

to do so. There is no such thing as Government money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Rather than increase taxes again, will she actually help households and businesses facing higher prices and scrap this fuel hike?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We on the Labour Benches are fiscally responsible. We will make sure that we continue to get borrowing down in a sustainable way, as we did over the last financial year, when borrowing fell by £20 billion. Whenever the Conservatives have had the chance, they have borrowed more, which pushes up interest rates for families and means that we have to have higher taxes in the long run. That is not the approach that we will take. The plans that the Conservatives set out in their final Budget before they left office would have seen fuel duty increase every single year. Instead, we have frozen it since we took over.

Draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be talking about vape duty stamps again, Ms Vaz. We spent hours talking about these provisions during the passage of the Finance Act 2026, and the approach that the Minister has set out broadly follows the one that the previous Conservative Government had in mind. None the less, I have a few questions for him.

The first question is about the implementation timeline. HMRC opened applications from 1 April for manufacturers, importers and warehouse keepers, with the duty obligations due to go live on 1 October and a sell-through period to 1 April 2027. Are the current timelines for implementation on track, particularly in relation to the digital stamps duty system? What assurance can the Minister give legitimate businesses that apply in good time that they will be approved and able to continue trading by 1 October? Can he update us on how many have applied so far?

Having spoken to industry representatives, I know they are working hard to be ready, but the key is getting clear guidance as soon as possible. I have heard concerns about some of the timelines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the appointed supplier of duty stamps will give timely information to the industry ahead of the 1 October deadline?

I turn now to illicit trade and enforcement. In Committee stage of the 2026 Act, I raised the example of Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% after a similar duty was introduced. That was not because people stopped using vapes; it was because they shifted to black market and unregulated online sellers. Experience with alcohol duty stamps shows the problem of counterfeiting. What has His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs learned from the shortcomings and successes of the alcohol duty stamps regime? The Conservatives supported the powers in the 2026 Act for tougher enforcement to shut down premises, but have the Government considered giving trading standards further powers to seize products and issue penalties directly, rather than having to go through HMRC to do so?

The Minister did not mention the cost of this measure’s roll-out, but it is quite significant. Estimates show that HMRC will spend £140 million to deliver it: £20 million on the IT system and £120 million on staffing and compliance. Add in £10 million for UK Border Force, and the total is £150 million straightaway—a significant sum. What assurances can the Minister give that that will provide value for money?

In the spring statement, the Government revised upward the expected revenue from the vape duty from £120 million to £200 million. Will the Minister explain what underlies that estimate? Finally, can he assure us that appropriate due diligence was done before the appointment of SICPA as the provider of the track and trace software solutions, in the light of the fines previously issued by Swiss authorities in connection with acts of corruption?

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Exchequer Secretary played his own part in inspiring the next generation of athletes on social media during the recess.

The regulations provide a time-limited exemption from income tax for certain non-UK residents working on the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games. I am looking forward to the games and to our home athletes bringing home many medals. I also recognise the benefits that such sporting events will bring to Glasgow and more widely.

The Opposition have been pushing the Government to recognise the principle that underlies the regulations: the importance of making the UK attractive to globally mobile individuals. Sadly, more broadly, the Government have targeted such individuals through higher taxes. I therefore hope that the regulations represent a change of direction.

I have a few points to raise with the Exchequer Secretary. First, on scope, the regulations apply to “accredited persons”: individuals issued with an accreditation badge by Glasgow 2026 Ltd. Estimates say that that will impact around 9,000 non-UK residents. Will he set out what discussions His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has had with or what guidance has been issued to Glasgow 2026 Ltd on who should or should not be accredited for those purposes?

Secondly, on timing, the games run from 23 July to 2 August. Why does the exemption run from 16 July to 4 August rather than matching the dates of the games?

Thirdly, on avoidance, because trading and professional profits are covered, there could be an incentive to structure contracts so that income is characterised as games-related and performed in the UK within that exemption window. How has HMRC addressed that risk?

We will not oppose the regulations, but I would appreciate the Exchequer Secretary’s response to my three questions.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

We are grateful to the Minister for running through the plethora of Government amendments that are being added to this already stonkingly large Finance Bill. The sheer number of amendments is an admission that Ministers did not get this right the first time—or even the second time, in Committee, which we enjoyed.

Let me turn to amendments 1, 2 and 8 and 67 to 94, as well as new clause 10 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. This Bill embodies Labour’s approach of ever-higher taxes, spending and borrowing, for which hard-working families and businesses are paying the price. The measures in the Budget and in this Bill add a further £26 billion-worth of tax rises, bringing the cumulative total from the Chancellor’s first two Budgets to £66 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, that did not feature anywhere in the Government’s manifesto. Those further tax rises are despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more.

Debt interest is forecast to hit £140 billion by 2030. Unemployment is set to increase to 1.9 million, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.1%. Meanwhile, welfare spending is set to hit £406 billion, and living standards are expected to slow towards the end of this Parliament. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast once again and warned that the Chancellor’s plan, far from working, could “constrain economic activity”. Instead of backing the risk takers and the wealth creators, this Bill delivers slower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes.

Let me turn to the freeze in income tax thresholds set out in clause 10. The Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that there would be no extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it would “hurt working people” and

“take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

That promise has been broken by the measures in the Bill that do exactly the opposite, putting in place a £23 billion-a-year tax rise and bringing nearly 1 million more people into paying higher-rate tax.

It is not just working people who will pay the price. During this period, the state pension is forecast to be higher than the personal allowance. In the spring forecast, the OBR warned that an additional 1 million pensioners will find themselves liable for income tax by 2030-31 because of the Chancellor’s freeze. In anyone’s book, that is a retirement tax.

The Government have promised to protect people who rely solely on the state pension, but where is the detail? There is nothing in this legislation to do that. The public out there will rightly be sceptical, given that the Chancellor has already broken the promise not to freeze this threshold. Amendment 5 offers the House a very simple choice to stand by working people and pensioners and end the freeze.

Let me turn to the Government’s damaging family farm and family business tax. I know that Labour Members are going around their constituencies saying that they got a great win from the Chancellor just before Christmas, but let us be honest: that win was purely a fig leaf. The Government could have actually corrected their mistake, but the partial reversal that the Chancellor was forced into falls short of what is needed. The Country Land and Business Association has said that it only limits the damage—yet another broken promise from a Prime Minister who pledged not to impose an inheritance tax on farms. That measure epitomises Labour’s apparent hostility towards family farms, tenant farmers and our rural communities. I have spoken to farmers, as I am sure other hon. Members have, who are desperate about this situation. That is why we continue to strongly oppose the family farm and family business tax, and amendment 6 would scrap them.

Our further amendments seek to mitigate the worst effects of those taxes. Amendments 67 to 87 would remove the transition period for changes to the reliefs, and would delay implementation until after March 2027, lifting the unfair anti-forestalling rules that have tied the hands of farmers and business owners. The Chartered Institute of Taxation—which provided a lot of support in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, for which I am grateful—has warned that the measures particularly affect older farmers, robbing them of the ability to plan properly.

Amendment 88 would defer the deadline for inheritance tax instalments by a further 12 months. This reflects the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that the six-month deadline proposed for the first payment

“does not appear to be realistic”.

As we know, farming estates and family business are often asset-rich but cash-poor, which makes it difficult to raise the funds quickly. The National Farmers Union has warned that expecting probate to be granted within six months is

“completely unrealistic, especially given the complexity of valuing an agricultural business”.

Does the Minister recognise the strain that such unrealistic deadlines place on family farms and family businesses, and will he therefore accept our amendment and extend the payment deadline by 12 months? If he will not, will he explain to family farms and family businesses why not?

Amendments 89 to 94 would exclude from inheritance tax the value of any jointly held tenancy on the death of a joint tenant. This issue is causing concern across the sector, and has been raised by the Tenant Farmers Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Exempting genuine arm’s length tenancies between unconnected parties from inheritance tax is simply the fair thing to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what engagement he has had with the Tenant Farmers Association on that point, what his response is, and how he intends to rectify this injustice. Of course, this is not just about farms; family businesses, which make up 90% of our firms and employ well over half the workforce, are firmly in the Chancellor’s crosshairs as well. These are firms that focus on the long term, yet according to Family Business UK, over half of affected businesses have already paused or cancelled investment as a result of the threatened tax.

It would be remiss of me to not mention that the Government’s claims do not seem to add up. Will this tax actually end up raising money? While the OBR forecasts a £500 million gain, analysis by the Confederation of British Industry suggests a net loss of nearly £2 billion, once the wider damage to the economy is considered. The family farm and family business tax does nothing to promote growth or fairness. It targets those who anchor our rural economy and communities—the family businesses committed to long-term growth. It is already having a chilling effect on investment, and now there is a prospect that companies that would otherwise thrive under family stewardship will break up. Again, I urge hon. Members to support amendment 6, which would remove this damaging measure from the Bill.

Savers and investors are not safe from the Chancellor, either. Amendments 1 to 4 deal with the introduction of increases in income tax on dividends, savings, and property income in the years ahead. Increases to the dividend tax will hit 4 million people by 2029-30, while the savings tax rate increase will hit a further 3.8 million individuals, and 2.4 million landlords will now face higher bills, making it less attractive to provide the rental properties that our constituents want. These measures are targeted at entrepreneurs, investors, pensioners and hard-working families. Rather than supporting growth, the Government seem determined to stifle it.

The Government are also scrapping the long-standing inheritance tax exemption for pensions. Some 10,500 estates will be targeted under this measure, costing savers £1.5 billion by 2029. We oppose this extension of inheritance tax, which seems predicated on the Government’s belief that people’s money belongs to the Government, rather than being their own. We should be rewarding saving and people who do the right thing, but extending inheritance tax in this way does exactly the opposite. As we discussed previously, there is also a concern about the burden being placed on personal representatives, and I have mentioned the unintended consequences for unmarried couples. In some cases, a surviving partner could lose up to 40% of a pension fund built up over a lifetime. Again, this is manifestly unfair, and amendment 7 would remove this damaging new tax from the Bill.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Has my hon. Friend noticed a common thread through the Budget, which is that everyone who works hard, saves hard, invests and creates jobs is being penalised, and all that money is being used to benefit Benefits Street? It is no wonder that the growth rate is going down. [Interruption.]

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the chuntering that we hear from the Minister. The welfare bill is predicted to rise to £406 billion over the forecast period. The Chancellor keeps saying that she is fixing welfare. Where? What is she doing? She had to back away from very modest savings. We have identified £23 billion-worth of welfare savings, and the Minister could make those if he wished, but he does not, and that is why growth has once again been downgraded. The Chancellor boasts about beating the forecast last year. Well, the forecast at the beginning of the year was 2%, and the Government failed to get anywhere near 2%. They beat the downgraded forecast, so let us not hear any more about that. We want to hear what the Government will do to drive growth, and taxing the people generating it is precisely the wrong thing to do.

New clause 10 requires the Chancellor to review the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. We debated CBAM extensively in Committee, and it is dealt with in a great swathe of the Bill—in the schedules—but there is plenty more to come. Given the complexity of the policy, many industries believe that the absence from the Bill of a formal oversight and review process is a serious mis-step that needs to be addressed.

There are many potential pitfalls in this new mechanism. First, the measure fails to consider several sectors that are at significant risk of carbon leakage, such as chemicals and refining. Secondly, the Government have decided to link the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Following the announcement of that alignment, the price of carbon in the UK more than doubled, which cost our economy about £5 billion. We should be reducing the burden of carbon taxes on business, not increasing them. The EU has yet to publish its benchmark beyond 2030, which means that the UK would be signing up to a system that would effectively give Brussels a blank cheque. Moreover, CBAM does not address issues with carbon leakage in export markets. There are proposals to exempt our manufacturing exports from UK ETS costs and CBAM to make the industry more competitive, putting it on a level playing field internationally. Has the Minister considered maintaining long-term free allowances for products destined for the export markets? Given those complexities—I could go on about them more, but the Minister gets the gist—[Hon. Members: “More!”] It seems that other Members may want to come in on this issue.

I think that the Minister should recognise the value of regular reviews. I know he will say that the Government keep all taxes under review, but let us have an actual review that is published, so that we can see what is happening. I encourage Members to support new clause 10.

This is a Finance Bill full of tax increases that break trust with the British people. The Labour Government have introduced the family farm and business tax, frozen personal thresholds, hiked taxes on savers and investors, cut relief on employee ownership trusts, taxed inheritance pensions, taxed taxis—we discussed that in Committee—and increased gambling, alcohol and other duties and environmental levies. The list goes on and on. There is 534 pages-worth, which I could read out if there were any appetite for it. Our amendments and new clause would back the taxpayers, and the investors and businesses trying to drive growth in our economy, and I urge Members to support them.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the legislation. In particular, I want to talk about new clause 4.

I have to admit that I am a terrible person to go shopping with. [Laughter.] Wait for it. I grew up in a household where my dad used to stockpile copies of “Which?”. In the family, it was drilled into me that you had to seek advice; you could never just buy things. Pity my poor partner on the occasion when we went to try and buy a sofa; it was a very long, drawn-out day. I was taught the value of information and advice in making good choices in life—although I do not claim always to have followed that teaching—because it is easy to rip people off and mislead them, and there are people who will exploit misinformation to cause harm to others for their own financial gain. It is difficult for individual consumers to fight that, but collectively, with good regulation, we can make an economy work well.

New clause 4 is about good advice empowering consumers to make good choices. I welcome clauses 156 and 157, and the work that the Government are doing to crack down on organisations that promote harmful tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the companies that promote schemes to avoid paying tax, often to the elites—one can only think of Jimmy Carr, and what he must be thinking at this point in time.

Banning the promotion of tax avoidance schemes that have no realistic prospect of working is the right thing to do because it is causing harm, but I am not here to play a violin for the elites; I am here to bang the drum for the millions of people who are being harmed, but who have not yet had the same level of attention. Elite companies might be promoting tax avoidance schemes for an elite group of people, but online there are hundreds, if not thousands, that are now doing it for the masses, causing financial detriment and harm to our constituents as a result. I would argue that this is a much greater harm, because these are people with too much month at the end of their money. When they realise the mistake that they have made and how much money they have lost, they do not have the savings to be able to pay the bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate—there are rather more of them here than there have been throughout our proceedings. I also thank the parliamentary staff, and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee.

In this 534-page Bill, the Government have chosen to impose a raft of tax-raising measures that hit work, enterprise and investment, and which add significantly to the regulatory costs on UK businesses. They have extended the freeze on income tax thresholds, dragging hundreds of thousands more working people into higher tax bands; they have introduced a family farm and family business tax, targeting rural communities and family firms; and they have increased taxes on savings, property income and long-term investment. Taken together, these measures amount to billions of pounds-worth of extra taxation, pushing the overall tax burden to record levels. Ultimately, the Chancellor has chosen to make the UK a less attractive place for businesses and for the investors who we need to grow the economy.

Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility cut growth projects again. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government are taking the wrong course, and it shows. Unemployment is up, taxes are up, welfare spending is going up, and living standards will fall over the course of this Parliament. This Government have led the country into a high-tax, low-growth doom loop.

There is a long list of voices sounding the alarm over the economy, but the Chancellor is still not listening. Rather than change course, she is sticking to her failing plan of higher taxes, higher spending and borrowing. This Bill breaks the promises to the British people, and we will oppose it this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Chancellor promised in her first Budget that she would not extend the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it

“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

In her second Budget, the Chancellor broke her promise with a £23 billion tax rise, bringing a million more people into paying higher rate tax. When people are set to struggle with the cost of living over this Parliament, why are the Government choosing to make their lives harder?

[Rachel Reeves]

Some people have short memories, haven’t they, Mr Speaker? I remember the Conservatives freezing those thresholds on a number of occasions. We said in our manifesto that we would not increase the headline rates of national insurance, VAT and income tax that working people pay, but I did say clearly at the Budget last year that we would have to ask everyone to make a greater contribution, because of the downgrade in productivity, which is a result of the mismanagement of the economy by the last Government over 14 failed years.

Draft Climate Change Levy (Fuel Use and Recycling Processes) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the scope and the impact of the draft regulations. We support the approach to update the legislation to put it beyond doubt that electricity used in electrolysis processes to produce hydrogen will count as a non-fuel use, and therefore benefit from the exemption from the levy.

I also acknowledge that the inclusion of the production of sodium bicarbonate came as a result of the consultation, so there we have it: a Government who listen. Sadly, there are a host of issues on which the Government have not yet listened that I could talk about, were they in scope, from the farm tax to the jobs tax. We live in hope.

I do not propose to detain the Committee unduly, but I would like to raise a couple of points. First, as Members will know, the consultation proposed three options to deal with the issue. The Government justified selecting option A on the basis that it was the quickest to implement. It is a sensible procedure to adopt, but option B included support for a broader category of methods of producing hydrogen. Will the Minister confirm the proposed timetable for the consideration of broader treatment as part of the wider review of the climate change levy to which the Government have committed? I note that the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which the Minister and I discussed in Committee, increases the overall levy, adding £2 billion to the cost on British industry.

My second point concerns the costings in the tax information and impact note and the explanatory notes, which refer to this change as having a negligible impact. Given the ambitions for hydrogen across the economy, and the ramping up of its production, can the Minister share any projections of the potential benefits for the sector?

Road Safety

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family.

As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting.

Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Driving instructors and cyclists in my constituency have contacted me because they are concerned that experienced drivers are not aware of the 2022 changes to the highway code. Does the hon. Member agree that a campaign for greater awareness among experienced drivers would be welcome?

[James Wild]

I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important.

Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement.

Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully.

Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Wild]

I will not, given the time available.

A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals.

I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary?

I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is good to be back, Sir Roger.

The vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. The changes made by clause 112 will create a new charge to excise duty and set out the rate, which is £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. The changes made by clauses 113 and 114 will define a vaping product and what constitutes production for the purposes of the vaping products duty. The changes made by clause 115 make clear the powers under which regulations on the vaping products duty will be made, in anticipation of its entry into force on 1 October 2026. Finally, the changes made by clause 116 will allow HM Revenue and Customs to manage and collect the vaping products duty and provide administrative powers around the storage of vaping products before duty has been paid, as well as penalties.

Together, clauses 112 to 116 will establish a coherent and enforceable framework for the vaping products duty and will ensure that vaping products are taxed appropriately. I commend them to the Committee.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Good morning, Sir Roger and members of the Committee. As the Minister says, clauses 112 to 116 will introduce the UK’s excise duty on vaping products and set out the legal and administrative framework for its operation.

Clause 112 will establish the new vaping products duty, setting a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. Clause 113 sets out what counts as a vaping product; the definition is drawn deliberately widely to encompass any liquid that contains nicotine and the solvents used with it, and even liquids without nicotine if they are intended for vaporisation. That means that the apparently popular zero-nicotine shortfills used by smokers who are trying to quit or taper down will be taxed, too. I am advised that shortfills will be the hardest hit by the new duty; Vape 360 reports a 203% price increase. That raises an interesting public health question about the rationale for taxing zero-nicotine liquids in the same way as addictive nicotine-containing liquids. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concern that by adopting this taxation approach we might be discouraging people from switching to less harmful or nicotine-free alternatives.

Clause 114 defines when a product is regarded as produced for duty purposes, not just when liquids are mixed but when they are packaged, labelled or marketed as suitable for vapes. Clause 115 leaves it to future regulations to set out when duty becomes payable and who is liable. Clause 116, the final clause in this group, gives HMRC new powers to control vaping products before duty has been paid. The Opposition will not oppose the clauses, but we do want to probe the Government’s thinking.

Vaping has become increasingly common across the UK. According to the Government’s own tax information and impact note, approximately 5 million people in the UK vape. For the first time, according to the Office for National Statistics, more over-16s in Great Britain are using vapes or e-cigarettes than are smoking cigarettes: 5.4 million adults vape, compared with 4.9 million who still smoke.

The duty was first announced by the then Conservative Government in the spring Budget of March 2024. Alongside the announcement, a consultation was launched on how the duty should work in practice. The Government have since opted for a flat-rate duty rather than the three-tiered structure originally proposed, which would have varied the rate according to nicotine strength. Having read the responses to the consultation, I know that that decision clearly reflects the bulk of the evidence provided and will create a system that is simpler to administer. As the Exchequer Secretary might say, that is evidence of consultation working and the Government listening, which we are becoming very used to.

The tax will raise significant amounts: £400 million in 2027-28 and £465 million in 2028-29, with revenue then increasing further. When introducing a new tax, implementation matters. The Government’s own impact note shows that HMRC expects to spend £140 million just to deliver this measure, of which £20 million will be spent on IT systems, while the other £120 million will be for staffing and compliance costs. I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether the headline figure includes the £32 million contract that HMRC is currently advertising to deliver the vaping duty supply contract for five years.

As Border Force will also receive up to £10 million to prepare, delivering the new duty will cost about £150 million, all in. That is a pretty significant sum, so we need to be sure that it will provide proper value for money. Can the Minister give a little more clarity and break down the costs, particularly the £120 million on staffing and compliance? How many people will that involve bringing into HMRC? What exactly will they be doing? Why is the figure seemingly so high in comparison with the take?

Some consultation respondents have questioned whether the new duty will actually shift behaviour. If producers simply absorb the cost, as tobacco firms once did, prices may barely change, which will undermine the public health rationale behind the policy. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? Will the duty rate remain under review if outcomes fall short of the expected impact?

We can also look at the experiences of other countries such as Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% when a similar duty was introduced—not because consumers quit, but because purchases moved to the black market or unregulated online sellers. That takes us back to one of this Committee’s themes, which is about how raising taxes to a certain level drives people into the black market, and about where the sweet spot is for raising revenue without driving illegal behaviour. We will come on to the enforcement powers in some detail shortly, so I will not get into them now.

This measure will play a useful role in regulating a growing sector, but the Government need to strike a balance between discouraging youth vaping, supporting smokers to quit and maintaining a workable, enforceable tax regime that does not cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised, and particularly the point about zero-nicotine vapes being treated in the same way as nicotine vapes.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is good to hear that the shadow Exchequer Secretary will not oppose the clauses. He is right about the policy impetus behind what we are doing. For the first time in the UK, more people vape than smoke. The chief medical officer has been clear that vaping is not risk-free, and those who do not smoke should not vape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

As I stated in our debate on the previous group, the vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. Clause 117 is important in setting out what a duty stamp is for the purposes of the vaping products duty and the conditions under which a vaping product is considered sufficiently stamped and compliant with the vaping duty stamps scheme.

The changes made by clause 118 will allow HMRC commissioners to appoint an approved supplier to produce and distribute vaping duty stamps. In addition, the clause allows a fee to be charged for the duty stamp, separately from the liability of vaping products duty, and explains that that charge may not be offset against duty liability.

The changes introduced by clause 119 will establish a formal approval requirement for UK businesses to purchase duty stamps under the vaping duty stamps scheme, which will allow HMRC commissioners to maintain control over the scheme and ensure compliance.

Clause 120 will ensure that overseas vaping manufacturers have a representative in the UK who is legally and financially responsible for their compliance with the vaping duty stamps scheme, to ensure robust oversight. We are safeguarding compliance by requiring overseas manufacturers to operate within the framework of UK law, strengthening control and accountability across the supply chain. There will be impacts on all overseas importers and manufacturers of vaping products, who will be required to appoint a UK representative in the manner that I have described.

Together, the clauses will ensure that the vaping products duty is robustly enforced through a secure duty stamps regime and that all manufacturers, whether they are based in the UK or overseas, are subject to clear accountability. I commend clauses 117 to 120 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Clauses 117 to 120 will introduce the new vaping duty stamp scheme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to move forward with a duty stamps regime for vaping products: it is, after all, a measure that can help our enforcement agencies and responsible businesses alike to distinguish legitimate duty-paid products from those that are illegitimate and being traded illicitly and illegally. We know that there is a substantial illicit market for vapes across the country; without a credible system of verification and traceability, it will continue to undercut legitimate producers, harm public health and cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue, so we need to address it.

Clause 117 will establish the legal framework for the duty stamps system. It defines when a vaping product is considered to be stamped, and it sets out that the duty stamp, whether affixed to the product or to its retail packaging, must comply with regulations made under the Bill. Importantly, the clause will enable each stamp to be digitally linked to the product that it marks, and will allow HMRC to collect specified information about those goods, marrying the physical and digital trails of compliance. That is a positive step, and I am pleased that the Government have adopted at least some of the approach for which the Opposition argued during the passage of last year’s Finance Bill when we considered the introduction of the duty stamp regime.

In essence, these measures will bring to the vaping market a track and trace model that is similar to what already exists in the alcohol and tobacco sectors. Clearly, when used properly, such tools can be an effective enforcement system. They allow officers, retailers and consumers alike to verify legitimacy at a glance, building confidence in compliant businesses and exposing those who seek to cheat the system and the taxpayer.

We should be clear, however, about the scale of the challenge that could be created for smaller manufacturers and importers. In implementing this approach, we should ensure that the practical burden of stamping, activating, tracking and reporting, alongside new IT infrastructure, is proportionate for the many businesses that may not previously have had to operate at such a level of compliance. We cannot allow a regime that is intended to fight the black market to end up driving responsible producers to consider joining it.

Clause 118 will give HMRC the authority to issue and manage the duty stamps and to charge administrative fees. It also allows a third-party issuer to be appointed, as I referred to in my comments on the previous group of clauses. I hope that the Minister can confirm how those fees will be set. Will HMRC consult on the level of those fees? What safeguards will exist to ensure that the fees are proportionate and transparent so that businesses do not find themselves paying unpredictable charges that bear little relation to the cost of the compliance regime?

Clause 119 will establish who can hold and use duty stamps: only approved stamp holders may do so, and they must operate from a fixed location within the United Kingdom. That makes sense in principle—it limits the opportunity for diversion or counterfeiting—but the practical implementation will matter greatly. Subsection (5) grants HMRC wide powers to restrict transfers, to define what counts as a fixed place and to cap the number of stamps issued to a business. If the system becomes too bureaucratic or opaque, small UK producers could find themselves struggling in the market while larger incumbents consolidate their position.

The Minister referred to the logic behind clause 120 and the concept of a UK representative for overseas businesses that lack a domestic base. Clearly, there needs to be someone within UK jurisdiction who can be held responsible for compliance and any penalties that may be applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Anyone selling illicit vapes puts the public at risk and undermines legitimate businesses. One million illegal vapes were seized by trading standards in the last full year for which statistics are available, so we know that this is a significant enforcement challenge.

Clause 121 introduces enforcement powers to protect the integrity of the vaping duty stamps scheme. The changes made by clause 122 support robust compliance efforts under the vaping products duty and the stamps scheme, ensuring that only legitimate vaping products are supplied in the UK and penalising those who do not comply with the law. The changes made by clause 123 penalise those who lose stamps or attempt to use invalid stamps on illegitimate products to circumvent the rules. Clause 124 ensures that those who do not comply with the relevant regulations for the duty and stamps scheme are liable to penalties. Finally, clause 125 provides for the forfeiture of legitimate vaping products to complement the penalties imposed under the previous clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I rise to speak to clauses 121 to 125, which set out the framework on forfeiture and civil penalties for the new vaping duty regime. As the Minister said, this is a very important part of the new regime, given the impact that illicit vapes could have.

Clause 121 establishes a general liability to forfeiture for three categories of non-compliant goods, namely: an unstamped vaping product that should bear a duty stamp, any invalid duty stamp along with the product that it is attached to, or any unused duty stamp not affixed or returned within 12 months of issue. In plain terms, it gives HMRC the power to seize non-compliant vaping products. An invalid stamp is defined broadly, and includes any stamp that has been altered, forged or voided by HMRC. Other forfeiture triggers are linked to the wider civil and criminal offences contained elsewhere in this part of the Bill, which I am sure we will come on to. These powers are designed to allow both HMRC and local enforcement bodies to remove illicit or suspect products and counterfeit stamps from circulation. That is clearly an important deterrent against the black market in vaping products.

Can the Minister assess the risk of the 12-month rule on unused stamps, and the broad definition of invalid stamps, inadvertently capturing legitimate business activity? For example, operators may over-order stamps as a contingency or make administrative errors. How will the Government ensure that, in those circumstances, genuine stock is not caught up and lost alongside contraband products? Once forfeited, what will happen to those goods? Will they simply be destroyed? It would be helpful to get clarification on that point. Crucially, what safeguards will ensure that forfeiture powers are used proportionately, and that any minor administrative mistakes by otherwise compliant firms do not result in legitimate products being seized and destroyed at the first opportunity?

Clause 122 introduces a civil penalty regime for those who sell, offer for sale or deal in unstamped vaping products packaged for retail sale. The penalties set out are banded according to scale and repeat behaviour, rising to a maximum of £10,000 for 500 or more units, with escalating amounts for repeated contraventions within a rolling two-year period. It provides a strong financial penalty and a disincentive for retailers and wholesalers to stock unstamped products, and it complements the criminal provisions that follow later in this part of the Bill.

Clause 123 creates penalties for approved stamp holders who lose stamps or fail to use, return or destroy them within 12 months of issue, unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss. In those circumstances, the penalty is set at five times the monetary value of duty per lost stamp, equating to £11 per stamp when the scheme goes live. That comes alongside the existing Finance Act 1994 penalties for altering or misusing stamps. The intention is clear: to encourage tight control of duty stamps, treating them almost as cash equivalents, and to discourage casual or insecure handling that might enable diversion or counterfeiting, which is welcome.

Clause 124 introduces a broad, catch-all civil penalty for failure to comply with the vaping products duty regime using section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 as its legal framework. That is intended to ensure that HMRC can act where non-compliance occurs, but no specific penalty is written into the legislation, reinforcing the need for accurate record keeping and full compliance with operational rules. I can see why a general power may be convenient for HMRC, but for smaller businesses it could increase the risk of innocent mistakes attracting financial penalties. How will HMRC ensure that this general power is used proportionately? Will education and guidance be issued to firms?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Clause 126 creates new criminal offences relating to the possession and transfer of unstuck duty stamps. In plain terms, it becomes an offence for anyone who is not an approved stamp holder to possess a duty stamp that has not been affixed to a vaping product, or to transfer such a stamp to someone else. As the Minister says, the Bill allows a defence where the person did not know or have reason to suspect that they were handling an unstuck stamp, and carves out sensible exemptions, such as transfers between UK representatives and overseas principals, or during commercial delivery and returns.

I would be interested to know what assessment the Treasury has made of the level of abuse that it expects under this regime. HMRC and trading standards are being given a budget for enforcement. Underlying that, there is presumably some assumption about the level of abuse of this system, so it would be interesting to have a flavour of that, given that all of us will be familiar with vape shops and associated issues from our constituencies.

Clause 127 creates criminal offences for possessing, transporting, displaying, selling or otherwise dealing in unstamped vaping products. It also criminalises managers of premises who “cause or permit” the sale of unstamped goods. Under the definition in subsection (4), a manager of premises

“is a person who…is entitled to control their use…is entrusted with their management, or…is in charge of them.”

To pick up the example raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, if an 18-year-old is in charge of the premises such that they are unlocking on the day and will be locking up, are they the person, the individual, who could get the fine for dealing in the product, even though they may have had no role whatever in securing the stock and are simply there, getting their minimum wage payment to look after the shop? I would be grateful if the Minister could unpack what subsection (4) means in that sense.

It is right that deliberate participation in the illicit vape trade is met with serious, fierce sanctions. We must also make sure that any junior staff who are wholly innocent—who do not know anything about the matter and could not reasonably have been expected to—are not prosecuted for the actions of others. We need some clarity from the Minister on how responsibility in those cases would be apportioned, and we must again ensure that enforcement authorities are operating with clear guidance.

Clause 128 will enable courts, when convicting under clause 127, to make an order prohibiting the use of premises for the sale of vaping products for up to 12 months, and will create a further offence for managers who breach such an order. The power is of course intended to shut down problem premises that are repeatedly used for illicit trading. That is a tool that local authorities and trading standards officers—and, I suspect, Members of this place and our constituents—will very much welcome. There are many examples in constituencies across the country of illegal vapes being sold, and the communities near them suffer the impact of those criminal enterprises.

We support action to deter such enterprises, but we are also familiar with examples in which trading standards, HMRC or others go in and seize the illegal vapes—the police may be involved as well—and in a matter of hours, that same premises will reopen, selling more illegal vapes. It is great to have a power to shut down such premises, but how will it be enforced? Will the resources be in place to do that? Will there be clear criteria on when the powers will be used, and how a change of ownership of a premises could affect a ban? We may effectively see fake transfers of ownership to try to get around it, so it is important that HMRC and trading standards have robust systems in place.

Clause 129 sets out the penalty framework. On summary conviction, in England and Wales the maximum is the general magistrates limit—imprisonment, a fine or both; in Scotland, the maximum is 12 months and a statutory fine; and in Northern Ireland, it is six months and a statutory fine. So there is a little discrepancy there. On conviction on indictment, the maximum is two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. That clearly allows for flexibility to distinguish between serious organised criminal offending and smaller scale non-compliance with the law.

Of course, in the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government are effectively legislating to abolish sentences of up to 12 months, with a presumption that those will become suspended sentences. That is still a penalty, but it will mean that people are in the community rather than in jail serving their punishment, as they should be. The reality is that most people breaking this law are unlikely to actually go to prison; they may simply get a fine. Will the sentencing guidance make clear distinctions between organised criminality and smaller-scale offenders?

The final clause in the group, clause 130, deals with the issue of forfeiture. It goes beyond the general rules in clause 121 by allowing all unstuck stamps or unstamped products linked to offences under clauses 126 to 128 to be seized. In some cases, all the stock on the premises—the Minister made this point—may be forfeited if HMRC believes that it is used in a business connected with the offence. That could be a welcome measure, but we need to have some clarity about how unnecessarily broad powers could potentially be used. Will there be a clear route for traders to challenge such forfeiture of legitimate products where they consider that they have inadvertently breached the rules?

Taken together, the clauses introduce serious new powers, which is why it has been worth spending a few moments considering them and how they will actually be used. I think particularly of the power to shut down a premises for 12 months; we must ensure that that is effective, and that people are prevented from seeking to get around it by pretending to sell the business or list a new owner of the business. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have raised.

[Martin Wrigley]

I am afraid that my training was as an engineer, rather than as a lawyer, so I apologise if I get points of standard law wrong. However, it is fascinating to read the Bill in such detail. In clause 126(3), it says,

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know”

I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks that somebody might prove that they did not know something. It strikes me that it is something that a person cannot actually prove.

Secondly, in relation to clause 128, when a premises has been banned for 12 months, is there anything that prevents someone opening up the next-door premises and continuing exactly as before?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 131 to 138 and Schedule 14 set out general provisions to ensure the effective implementation of the duty and the scheme.

Clause 131 allows for the publication of information to ensure effective enforcement of the duty and the scheme. Clause 132 details the instances in which information may be shared between the commissioners and any persons with functions relating to the duty. It will allow information to be transferred in both directions, ensuring successful implementation and the proper joining up of compliance efforts. For any unauthorised disclosure, the clause includes an offence under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.

The changes made by clause 133 provide a definition for local enforcement authorities and allow them to investigate whether businesses in their local areas are compliant with the duty. Clause 134 ensures that HMRC can make regulations and publish notices to make further provisions in relation to both the duty and the scheme. Clause 135 provides that regulations must be made by statutory instrument and sets out circumstances in which the made-affirmative procedure must be followed, including any provision that extends the cases in which vaping products are required to be stamped.

Clause 136 allows for schedule 14 to the Finance Act 2020 to make changes to the Finance Acts of 1994, 2007, 2008, 2017 and 2021. Clause 137 does not make changes to legislation but merely ensures that the Bill is interpreted correctly. Clause 138 provides that the duty and the scheme will commence on 1 October 2026, and that vaping products manufactured or imported before that date will be liable if a duty stamp is affixed to that

product.

Two technical amendments are proposed to clause 138. Amendment 13 clarifies the drafting to ensure elements of the regulations can come into force at the proper time. Amendment 14 puts beyond doubt that the criminal offences under these schemes can apply to vaping products, regardless of the date that they were produced or imported. The amendments ensure that the duty can be successfully administered, and neither one reflects any change in Government policy.

[James Wild]

We come to the final group of provisions on the important issue of the new vaping duty. I speak to clauses 131 to 138, which concern the general provisions underpinning the new vaping products duty regime. Clause 131 authorises HMRC to publish information about stamped vaping products, for the purposes of enabling retailers, consumers and other persons to assess whether a duty stamp has been activated in respect of a duty product. That is clearly a sane, sound aim, which gives retailers a way to distinguish between legal stamped products and illicit ones. However, that will only work if the data HMRC publishes is accurate and accessible. Mislabelling would harm legitimate firms, and if the system is cumbersome it will put people off using it.

Can the Minister tell us when HMRC will make available a practical, user-friendly checking mechanism—whether that is a public database, an app or some other technology—so that retailers and consumers can verify stamps quickly and easily? What safeguards will exist to correct errors swiftly where inaccurate data risks unfairly damaging a compliant business?

Clause 132 sets out a new information-sharing framework specific to the duty, letting HMRC exchange data with other bodies involved in enforcement. This is a legitimate and useful tool, but can the Minister give assurances about how the data will be logged, audited, and subject to clear internal controls?

Clause 133 delegates day-to-day enforcement to local authorities and trading standards teams, which makes sense. Last year trading standards seized over a million illegal vapes inland and detained 1.2 million at ports in England. Those powers need to be properly resourced if they are going to be effective in stamping out illegal trade, as we know that trading standards is already under considerable pressure to deliver on its various legislative requirements. It is fair to say that there is patchy implementation across the country.

What support will Government provide to local authorities to ensure consistent enforcement and genuine deterrence everywhere, not just in well-resourced areas? Counties, such as my county of Norfolk, have suffered as a result of the revised local government funding formula that the Government have put in place. I want to see them able to deal with the threat of illicit vapes in the same way as the metropolitan areas that benefit from the new formula that the Labour Government put in place.

Clause 134 gives the Treasury wide discretion to make supplementary transitional regulations under the regime. In practice, it is a broad power to fill in the blanks. Can the Minister give some confidence that it will not lead to a complex, rapidly changing rulebook? The Minister referred to the parliamentary procedure for such regulations under clause 135. To be clear, those regulations include the ability to amend an Act of Parliament, which is a considerable power. If such measures came forward, it would clearly be right to properly consult and debate them before they took effect. Will the Minister commit to formal consultation in such cases?

Clause 136 simply implements consequential amendments so that vaping products are recognised across the existing excise framework. Clause 137 deals with the definitions that determine which products fall within scope—clearly, they need to be kept up to date.

Finally, clause 138 sets the commencement and transitional arrangements. As we have discussed, businesses are expected to register from 1 April, with liability beginning from October. That is an ambitious timetable, but I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the interim guidance is available on gov.uk. I was not aware of that, so I will look it up later this evening, as she suggested.

We do not oppose any of these clauses, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether there will be formal consultation, particularly where Acts of Parliament will be changed by regulations. That is something every member of the Committee should expect.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Exchequer Secretary asked about HMRC making compliance-checking methods available. There will be an app for access based on scans of products. It will be available before 1 October, and no scanning will be required before that date. He, fairly, asked a question about the flow of information. That is covered by subsections (3) and (4) of clause 132, which ensure that information can be used only for the purposes for which it was disclosed. Indeed, any other purpose would require further permission from the commissioners. Subsection (4) sets out the penalties that would apply for contravening the preceding provisions.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary also asked about the resources available to trading standards and local authorities. He mentioned Norfolk, is that right?

[James Wild]

Yes—come visit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Thank you. Burnley is a fantastic place to visit, and I hope to come before too long.

These clauses create the charge to CBAM, define the goods and emissions in scope, identify who is liable, and set out how the tax rate is calculated and how the relief operates. Together they form the substantive charging provisions that will underpin the operation of CBAM from 1 January 2027.

Clause 139 introduces CBAM as a new tax and signposts the structure of part 5 of the Bill. Clause 140 establishes the charge to CBAM, which applies to the emissions embodied in specified CBAM goods when they are imported into the UK. Schedule 15 defines the goods in scope, initially covering the aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel sectors. Clauses 141 to 143 set out when goods are treated as imported for CBAM purposes, and who is liable for the charge. In line with established customs principles, liability rests with the importer, with detailed provisions to ensure that the correct person is identified across different importation scenarios, including goods entering via Northern Ireland or subject to special customs procedures.

Clause 144 provides relevant exemptions from the charge. Clause 145 defines “emissions embodied in a CBAM good” and provides powers for the Treasury to specify, in regulations, how those emissions are determined and evidenced. Clause 146 sets out how the CBAM rate is calculated, and clause 147 provides for carbon price relief, allowing the CBAM charge to be reduced where a relevant carbon price has been incurred overseas in relation to the same emissions. That avoids double taxation while maintaining the integrity of the mechanism. Amendment 15 will ensure that the CBAM rate functions as intended, and that CBAM goods face a carbon price comparable to what would apply if the goods were produced in the UK.

The clauses are central to mitigating carbon leakage, and supporting the UK’s path to net zero.

[James Wild]

I am not clear from the Minister’s comments whether he has accepted the Valentine’s invitation, but I am sure I am not alone in not expecting a member of the Committee to corpse on CBAM, which some might say is a rather dry topic.

While CBAM can play a role in ensuring a level playing field for UK manufacturers and producers, it also highlights the levies and taxes applied by the Government on energy, which means that our energy prices are much higher than our competitors. I think we all want to see that burden reduced.

At the 2024 Budget, the Government confirmed the UK will introduce this new CBAM from January 2027, covering broadly the same types of highly traded carbon-intensive basic materials, and putting a carbon price on emissions embodied in certain imported goods, so that they face a comparable cost to that paid by domestic producers. Different countries clearly regulate industrial emissions to very different standards.

UK manufacturers already have to follow obligations to measure, reduce and pay for their emissions, which are costs that we think need to be ameliorated. Extending that principle to imports should, in theory, help to prevent carbon leakage and ensure it results in real global emissions cuts, rather than simply offshoring production and pollution.

As the Minister said, the new charge will initially apply to five sectors: aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen, and iron and steel. Fertilisers, which are one of the sectors brought within the scope of CBAM, are clearly a critical input for British agricultural producers, particularly for arable farms, where fertilisers already account for around 40% of crop-specific spending and around 12% of total farm costs.

The National Farmers Union has warned about what it calls a fertiliser tax, and has said that using domestic production as the baseline for CBAM levies, despite the UK no longer producing ammonium nitrate at scale, risks a wholesale increase in fertiliser prices at a time when farm confidence, as we all know, is at rock bottom.

The direction of travel is clear. Over time, both the EU and UK will raise the cost of high-carbon fertilisers, making lower-carbon alternatives more competitive as carbon prices tighten. Applying higher taxes where the UK is not a significant producer increases input costs for our British farmers. There is a risk of downstream leakage where UK farmers pay more for fertiliser due to CBAM, while competing with imported food from non-CBAM regimes that are still benefiting from cheaper, higher-carbon inputs, again undermining British producers and our food security.

This all lands on top of the other provisions within the Bill, namely the family farm and family business tax, as well as the cuts and delays we have seen in the sustainable farming incentive and the land management payment schemes and, of course, the additional pressures that are coming through in the cost of employment.

Will the Minister set out what specific assessment the Treasury has made of the impact of CBAM on fertiliser prices, on different farm sectors and on UK food security? How does he intend to prevent downstream carbon leakage, which simply shifts emissions from factories to fields?

Some industry groups, as recently reported in the Financial Times, warn that they think the Government’s current design has flaws and could accelerate de-industrialisation rather than prevent it. A major concern is that the Government plan to apply a single sector-wide rate, based on average emissions, instead of differentiating by product type and country of origin, as I understand the EU scheme does. UK Steel, the Mineral Products Association and the Chemical Industries Association have warned that, without changes, the mechanism will leave domestic producers worse off than their overseas competitors and undermine planned investment and decarbonisation. Has the Minister modelled the impact of using a single sector-wide rate rather than a more granular approach, as well as the impact on investment, jobs and emissions in each of the covered industries?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has provided considerable help and input on all the provisions of the Bill, has flagged that further uncertainty will be caused by questions about the UK and EU emissions trading schemes being linked before the implementation date. The Government and the EU announced last May that they intend to link their ETSs, with mutual exemption from CBAM as part of the package, but I understand that formal negotiations have yet to begin. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update. There are also ongoing political discussions with the EU on the interaction of the two schemes, and the EU’s CBAM is undergoing some delays. That impacts on certainty for some transactions involving Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on where those discussions have got to.

Clause 139 establishes CBAM as the new UK tax on emissions, where a broadly equivalent price has not already been paid overseas. That is the foundation of the new charge. Clause 140 defines CBAM as

“charged on the emissions embodied in a CBAM good”

when it

“is imported into the United Kingdom.”

Those goods are defined by reference to the detailed tariff codes set out in schedule 15.

Schedule 15 focuses on the initial regime for aluminium, cement, fertiliser, iron and steel products, and hydrogen, and it gives HMRC powers to keep the schedule updated in line with tariff changes. Could the Minister elaborate on why those five sectors were chosen for inclusion from 2027, and on when the Government will set out a clear timetable and test for extending CBAM to other sectors, such as glass or ceramics?

Will there be a competitive disadvantage for high-carbon sectors left outside the first tranche, as they will still be exposed to cheaper, higher-emissions imports without any corresponding border adjustment? That point has been made to me privately by some of the Minister’s colleagues who would like to see a wider scope. Has the Treasury modelled how many businesses fall just above the £50,000 annual import threshold, and is it confident that it is capturing those that have substantial business and not imposing a burden on others?

Clause 141 sets out when a good is treated as imported into the UK for CBAM. It covers standard imports and goods under special customs procedures, such as warehousing and movements between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. The clause intends to dovetail CBAM with existing customs laws. In Committee, I have repeatedly highlighted the importance of practical guidance: the hands-on support that HMRC will give to smaller and medium-sized importers —I suggest that the £50,000 limit is fairly low.

Clause 142 ensures that where

“a CBAM good has been declared for a special customs procedure,”

processed into a non-CBAM good and then imported, CBAM is still charged on those emissions. This anti-avoidance provision aims to prevent companies from avoiding CBAM by doing limited processing to move a good out of the product list before releasing it into free circulation. The provision is welcome, as it would prevent people from dodging the rules.

Clause 143 places the liability for CBAM on the importer, broadly mirroring customs law by tying liability to the person in whose name the customs declaration is made, or on whose behalf it is made. That is intended to provide certainty, which is important, by aligning CBAM with established customs concepts and practices. Will HMRC give simple template wording or clear guidance so that businesses know how to declare who is responsible for CBAM and for sharing information throughout the supply chain?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also raised an important question. As the Minister will know, some businesses operate within VAT groups. If they import goods, they hold an EORI—economic operators registration and identification—number, which anyone who lived through the Brexit negotiations and debates will be familiar with. Under HMRC guidance, one VAT group member with an EORI number can make a customs declaration on behalf of another member. However, this group of clauses does not appear to allow for the formation of a CBAM group similar to a VAT or plastic packaging tax group.

It is unclear how the measures affect those liable under the clause where one VAT group member uses another’s EORI number. If the current easement does not apply to CBAM goods, each member may need its own EORI number, which would add some complexity and administrative burden. Will the Minister clarify the position and understanding on that? If an issue needs to be addressed, will the Government introduce legislation to allow for CBAM grouping to maintain the existing simplifications, as I am sure is their intention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I appreciate your accommodation of the cold in the room, Sir Roger. I hope this afternoon proves that we can be both sartorially elegant and warm. Committee members may take their own view, but I look forward to this afternoon.

Clauses 148 and 149 and schedules 16 and 17 provide the administrative and enforcement framework necessary to ensure the effective operation of CBAM. They ensure that CBAM can be administered properly by HMRC, complied with by businesses, and enforced where necessary.

The clause introduces schedule 16, which makes detailed provision for the administration and enforcement of CBAM, including requirements for registration, accounting periods, CBAM returns, record keeping, payment deadlines, assessments, penalties and appeals. The schedule aligns CBAM administration with established HMRC processes where possible, helping to minimise additional burdens on businesses while ensuring robust compliance.

Clause 149 introduces schedule 17, which provides for criminal offences relating to CBAM. Those offences apply in serious cases, such as deliberate evasion or fraudulent behaviour, and mirror existing approaches taken elsewhere in the tax system. The inclusion of criminal offences ensures that appropriate deterrents are in place, protecting the integrity of the regime and ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses.

Together, clauses 148 and 149 provide the necessary administrative and enforcement backbone for CBAM. They ensure that the regime is credible, enforceable and fair, while giving HMRC the tools it needs to administer CBAM effectively. I commend the clauses and schedules 16 and 17 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

We are sorry to see the Exchequer Secretary disappear. I hope that he comes back this afternoon for our further deliberations.

The clause introduces schedule 16, providing for the administration and enforcement of CBAM. They hand responsibility for managing this new carbon import charge to HMRC, and set out detailed compliance rules, including registration, accounting periods, returns, assessments and appeals. The schedule runs to 27 pages of text. Under these measures, any business importing CBAM goods worth more than £50,000 in a 12-month period, or expecting to reach that threshold within 30 days, must register, report each quarter and keep detailed records potentially for up to six years. HMRC will have wide discretion to make “best judgment” assessments and to counteract any artificial separation of business activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

The £50,000 threshold imposed as part of schedule 16 is incredibly low. It catches small construction firms importing tonnes of cement or steel, materials that could be consumed in one single medium-sized building project. The businesses importing such volumes will lack the resource of dedicated compliance teams and environmental consultants for quarterly emission verification. Meanwhile, large industrial importers, responsible for the vast majority of imported carbon emissions, face identical per unit compliance obligations, giving them a competitive advantage through their economies of scale.

CBAM introduces entirely new foreign concepts to normal commercial activities, such as calculating the emissions across international supply chains, determining whether carbon prices were paid in origin countries and applying complex fee allocation formulas. A family-run metalworking shop that has successfully filed VAT for 20 years must suddenly become an expert in lifetime emission methodologies and international carbon-pricing verifications. I do not believe that the Government have published any analysis comparing the £50,000 threshold to alternatives such £100,000 or £250,000 thresholds. I am interested to hear from the Minister what verification and changes have been made, and what assessment has been made of the compliance costs for various businesses.

Schedule 16 also introduces a £500 fixed penalty plus a £40 daily charge for failure to notify a change of circumstances, and a £500 penalty for record-keeping failures. While paragraph 40 of schedule 16 includes a reasonable excuse defence, HMRC interprets that quite narrowly as applying to circumstances such as illness, postal strikes or computer failures. The idea that the system or methodology was confusing or, “My supplier could not provide the data,” typically do not fall within the reasonable excuse defence.

The problem here is timings: the comprehensive penalties for CBAM take effect on 1 January 2027, so businesses navigating entirely unprecedented requirements are going to have a challenge. I note that the EU’s CBAM began with a transitional reporting period before enforcement ramped up, whereas the UK’s has no such mechanism.

These are not familiar tax concepts for lots of businesses. They involve new software, new tracking and international verification. These things have not been done in British business before, and I believe that small importers will face penalties while genuinely trying to comply with the regulations. The Liberal Democrats are not against the concept of a CBAM, but we take issue with the way that it has been put together.

Has the Minister considered a 12-month transitional period during which full penalties for deliberate avoidance are maintained but an allowance is given for honest compliance?

[James Wild]

I share the hon. Member’s concerns about the £50,000 threshold. Has he considered what might be a more appropriate level, in order to reduce the impact on smaller producers?

[Mr Reynolds]

The EU, for its CBAM, has not set a specific number in that way; it has set a number of tonnes of product. I would be interested to hear from the Government what work has been done to analyse the different impacts of £50,000, £100,000 and £250,000. The Treasury must have done some work on this, but I could not see any. We need the answer to that in order to find out where we stand.

Let me finish by saying that a transitional period may be quite beneficial. It would make sure that we are not setting our small and medium-sized enterprises up to fail and penalising them when they try to do the right thing but unfortunately, because of the complications in the system, they are unable to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 make the general, supplementary and commencement provisions for CBAM. They are designed to ensure that CBAM integrates properly with the wider statute book, operates coherently over time and comes into force as intended from 1 January 2027.

More specifically, clause 150 introduces schedule 18, which makes supplementary amendments to other legislation to ensure that CBAM operates consistently alongside existing customs and tax law.

Clauses 151 and 152 provide key definitions and interpretation provisions, including the meaning of “emissions”, “carbon dioxide equivalent”, “importer” and “CBAM good”. These clauses are designed to ensure clarity and legal certainty across the regime.

Clause 153 provides a power to make provision in relation to linked emissions trading schemes. This allows imported goods originating in countries with linked emissions trading scheme arrangements to be excluded from CBAM, reflecting international co-operation and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

Clause 154 sets out how regulations and notices under CBAM are to be made, including the applicable parliamentary procedures, to ensure appropriate scrutiny, with affirmative or made affirmative procedures applying where regulations have a significant impact.

Clause 155 provides for commencement and transitional arrangements. CBAM will apply to goods imported on or after 1 January 2027, with powers to smooth the transition during the initial years of operation.

In summary, clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 provide the essential supporting framework that allows for the effective functioning of CBAM, and I commend them to the Committee.

[James Wild]

We come to the final group on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Clause 150, along with schedule 18, makes the technical but critical changes needed to fit CBAM into the UK’s existing tax and enforcement framework. These measures ensure that the new tax uses the same information gathering powers, collection mechanisms and penalties already in place. It is sensible to integrate CBAM in this way without creating a new process.

Clause 151 defines what we mean by “emissions” for CBAM purposes and firmly anchors the tax in the existing climate policy framework by adopting the definition in the Climate Change Act 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions will be measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is sensible.

Clause 152 sets out the interpretive rules for part 5 of the Bill, working alongside clause 151 and schedule 16 to ensure that terminology throughout CBAM is coherent.

Clause 153 gives the Treasury the power to adjust CBAM if the UK’s emissions trading scheme is linked to another country’s carbon pricing system. The Minister touched on this briefly, but as I mentioned in the debate on an earlier group, in May the Government and the EU formally agreed to work towards linking their emissions trading systems to align carbon markets. I do not think the Exchequer Secretary responded to me on that point before he left the Committee. I am conscious that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, but can she give an update on where the EU-UK negotiations on the linkage have got to? This is a broad delegated power that could have real implications for competitiveness, trade and treatment of foreign carbon prices. We have expressed concerns previously about the linkage with the EU ETS and the higher charges that might hit UK businesses as a result. I would be grateful for an update on where the negotiations have got to—if they have actually started—and how the Treasury will ensure that there is proper consultation and debate before using the powers.