Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I will be speaking primarily to new clauses 4 and 5 tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, specifically related to the electricity generator levy and the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday.

I have to say to the Exchequer Secretary that it is quite nice to see a Treasury Bill that is so concise, rather than the hundreds of pages that we see in every Finance Bill, adding complexity and costs for businesses. I hope that he will take that point back to the Treasury when he returns with the next Finance Bill. I think he has also given a commitment, or expressed an ambition: he said he likes to scrap taxes, so I hope that we will see more taxes scrapped. Now we turn to one that he is increasing, rather than introducing.

3.15 pm

New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the generator levy to 55% and to report on its findings to Parliament before 31 March 2028. Importantly, the review should also consider whether the levy should continue to be charged at a rate of 55%. Due to the resolutions passed by the House, it is not possible to seek to amend the Bill to put a levy end date on the face of the Bill, so this is a modest amendment, but it is an important one because it goes to the heart of whether this Government have thought through the consequences of their approach.

The levy was originally introduced as a temporary windfall tax, designed to capture exceptional receipts in extraordinary market conditions. The Government are now proposing to raise it further and to extend the regime, but without setting out an end date. In last week’s debate, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:

“we have not made a definitive announcement on whether that rate will last a short period or will go on into the future, but we will update in due course”.—[Official Report, 24 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 397.]

In his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary said he wanted to consider how the impact of the wholesale contracts for difference might impact on the levy. I gently suggest that a joined-up policy might have considered those two things before bringing forward one of them, because that is not a sound way to make energy or other policy.

If the Treasury believes the measure to be justified, it should welcome a formal review. This new clause matters because investment in energy depends on confidence, predictability and a stable fiscal framework. It would require that implications for consumers and energy security are considered. If the Government are going to increase the tax burden on generators, they must be prepared to show what that means for future investment decisions, project financing, and the UK’s attractiveness as a place to build and expand capacity. The new clause also asks questions about electricity prices and consumer bills.

Ministers have suggested that this measure and the policy may help to reshape the market—to decouple gas and electricity prices—but the measures designed to do that have not been published. All we know from the Exchequer Secretary is that they will be published by the end of the year. In those circumstances, we should not be asked to accept on trust that a higher and indefinite levy will have no adverse consequences. This new clause is a call for scrutiny, for transparency and for certainty, and the Government should have no objection to a review by March 2028 and a statement on whether they intend for the levy to continue.

Doubtless the Exchequer Secretary, who is consistently consistent, will say that all measures are always kept under review by the Treasury. If so, I look forward to him accepting the new clause, which simply says that there will be a review; otherwise, I will urge other hon. Members to support it.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the temporary VED rates for goods vehicles and to provide a report to Parliament. This report must consider whether it remains appropriate for the temporary excise duty rates on goods vehicles to continue, and it should be produced before 30 June 2027. It would force Ministers to explain whether this short-term relief is delivering and whether an extension might be appropriate.

The temporary holiday is welcome, but it is limited; it is not a silver bullet, as the Exchequer Secretary has acknowledged. Equally, I acknowledge that it is a good measure and the right starting point, because the freight and logistics sector is under immense pressure from rising operating costs, fuel costs, business costs and wider economic uncertainty; more than 95% of those road haulage firms are small and medium-sized enterprises operating on margins as low as 2%, and the sector simply cannot absorb repeated shocks.

A policy like this should therefore be tested properly, and the long-term benefits properly weighed. New clause 5 would do precisely that. It would also assess the impact on the public finances, the competitiveness of the freight sector and operating costs for goods vehicle operators. If the Government’s measure improves supply chains and helps firms keep goods moving efficiently across the UK, then they should demonstrate that. If it does not, Parliament should know that too.

The new clause also asks the sensible question of whether this temporary reduction should continue. Businesses need certainty, not a series of one-year sticking plasters. Haulage firms plan investment, staffing, maintenance and route costs on a long-term horizon, not on the Treasury’s timetable. In the face of mounting pressures, the Government should assess whether this support needs to be continued in the future.

Temporary relief is no substitute for a coherent growth strategy. New clause 5 would ensure that Parliament has the evidence to judge whether the policy is working and whether we should support an extension.

The Government have brought forward a package of measures that are more of a short-term fix than a serious plan. That package includes an indefinite tax on electricity generators, a limited increase in mileage allowance, and only temporary relief for HGV operators. They have failed to give the House the clarity that it deserves about the fiscal impact of the measures. The Exchequer Secretary referred to the OBR scoring of the original levy rate. That scoring was provided at the time that the levy was announced because we announced it at a Budget. The problem we have is that this Chancellor makes announcements outside of a Budget, and then refuses to provide any costings or estimates. Presumably she had advice from officials before she brought the measure forward, so why can she not share with us the indicative amounts in order to aid our debate?

The Government also failed to give clarity on the duration of the electricity generator levy—we are supposed to just wait and see—and on the long-term support needed for businesses and working people. I urge hon. Members to support our two modest new clauses.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

The shadow Exchequer Secretary seemed to suggest that the Opposition’s view is that we should not have introduced this change until wholesale contracts for difference have been consulted on and sorted out. The Opposition would choose to forgo the additional revenue that may come in if prices remain higher than the threshold in the coming years; the Government’s view is that that is not the right approach.

[James Wild]

I am happy to clarify that for the Minister. My point was rather that if the Government are to introduce a higher levy rate on the basis that it will incentivise people to move into wholesale contracts for difference, it might be as well to have the policy for those wholesale contracts for difference ready.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for that. As I said, we are consulting on that policy before the end of the year. It was the Chancellor’s and this Government’s decision that the better thing to do for the country—for businesses and for households—was to respond to the conflict in the middle east with pace and appropriate responsiveness rather than waiting until the next fiscal event, which is scheduled for the autumn.

I turn to new clause 5, which would require a report to the House of Commons on the impact of the measure on UK public finances, the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector and the contribution of the temporary VED rate to efficient supply chains, and whether the measure remains appropriate beyond the next 12 months. As always, taxes and reliefs will be looked at ahead of the next fiscal event in the context of the public finances. Consistent with the Chancellor’s approach, this is a targeted and time-limited intervention in response to the conflict in the middle east, in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods—including food—across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider further action as and if that may be necessary. As on other measures, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note, and the costing for the measure will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Finally, the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked of this measure as a short-term fix. I hope he is aware of and has seen the impact of the long-term decisions that the Government have made over our time in office to ensure that we can have higher economic growth, as we have had, and higher living standards—rather than their falling by 2%, as they did in the previous Parliament, they have already risen so far by 2% in this Parliament—in part because we have brought back economic stability and had wages rising faster than inflation in every single month since we took office. That has supported stability in the economy which has delivered six interest rate cuts. We have made sure that we are increasing capital investment and that we work with the private sector to get growth up and to invest in our public services and important infrastructure. We have done that in a way, along with investing in our NHS, that has enabled us to manage the public finances well and get borrowing falling in every year of this forecast, with the deficit lower than the G7 average, which the previous Conservative Government never achieved, despite how much they talked about it. They talked a good game on the public finances, but they were never able to deliver that. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

For the reasons that I have set out, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition. I commend the clauses in this short and well-formed Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Approved mileage allowance payments: review of rate for care workers

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a review of the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the rate of 55 pence per mile adequately reflects the costs incurred by paid care workers when travelling between the homes of those for whom they provide care;

(b) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who are required to transport specialist equipment, medication or mobility aids in connection with their caring responsibilities;

(c) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who make three or more separate care visits in a single day; and

(d) the interaction between mileage reimbursement practices in the social care sector and the effective hourly rate received by paid care workers relative to the National Living Wage.

(3) In preparing the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult—

(a) representatives of paid care workers;

(b) representatives of employers in the social care sector; and

(c) such other persons as the Chancellor considers appropriate.

(4) In this section “care worker” means a person employed to provide personal care to individuals in their own homes, whether employed directly or through a domiciliary care agency.”—(Daisy Cooper.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

This has indeed been fast-tracked legislation, at 90 minutes—no need for extra time here. [Laughter.] There is more.

The Government have sought to move rapidly to impose a higher levy on generators, but the measures designed to decouple electricity and gas prices have not been given the same priority. Motorists using their cars for work will welcome the increased mileage rates, but those driving more than 10,000 miles a year will be puzzled that those rates remain unchanged. Reducing the costs on those who keep goods moving around our country will make a difference, but that has to be seen as only part of the ledger and set against higher employment and higher taxes.

I congratulate the Minister on so ably shepherding the Bill through this afternoon. I am sure that he will have many more Bills to take through as the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, but this may well be the last piece of legislation to be granted Royal Assent before the Prime Minister shuffles off the stage. For this Bill and this Prime Minister, they think it’s all over—it is now.

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I know that this legislation is fast-tracked, but the Minister did rattle through very rapidly. I will seek to follow her lead as best I can.

It is a pleasure to debate the Bill on Second Reading and its measures on increasing the electricity generator levy, increasing the mileage allowance and introducing the 12-month HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. We are broadly supportive of the measures. However, we must consider the wider context in which we are debating them. The energy price cap has today increased by 13%, inflation is well above target, economic inactivity is rising, we have high borrowing costs, taxes are at record levels and are set to go higher, and, sadly, growth is non-existent. Those things cannot all be blamed on the conflict in the middle east, so it is little wonder that this zombie Government are under pressure to show that they have a plan for energy costs, business costs and the strain on ordinary family finances.

Given the title of the Bill, people might expect ambitious measures in it to deliver cheaper energy for consumers and businesses, make our economy more competitive, and unwind the bills, levies and targets that are increasing costs, but there are not. Instead, this is a small package of measures with no serious plan to ease the burden.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister speaks of the need for ambition, but does he not agree that there is little that is more ambitious than breaking the link between the cost of gas and electricity, which so many of our constituents have called on us to do in recent months?

[James Wild]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, which I will come to shortly. I just note that when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero had the opportunity to really break that link, he backed away from doing so. This measure does so in a limited way, but it does not make the ambitious reforms that could have been made by the Energy Secretary.

The electricity generator levy—[Interruption.] I am sure the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), can intervene if he is allowed. The electricity generator levy was introduced by the previous Government in 2023 as a temporary windfall tax applying to revenue above the benchmark price. It was a short-term response to exceptional circumstances and is due to end in 2028. What do the Government propose? To increase the rate from 45% to 55% and to extend it beyond 2028, with no end date. This is another example of Ministers reaching for higher taxes while offering no certainty in return.

The Government say, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), that the increased rates will support the decoupling of gas prices by incentivising generators into voluntary wholesale contracts for difference, but while the new higher levy applies from today, those new contracts are yet to be seen, the proposed strike price is not known, the likelihood of generators accepting them is therefore unknown and in question, and the value for money for taxpayers is yet to be proven. Will the Energy Secretary still be in post to oversee the reforms? We all sincerely hope he will not be in the Treasury.

In the winding-up speech, will the Minister provide an update on when the consultation on the CfDs will be launched, when the first contracts are set to be awarded, and if that will be through an auction or an allocation round? The Government have said that their intention is to extend the levy beyond 2028, but with no clarity on when it will end. The Government do not know how long they want it to last and have said there will be further legislation on that point. The Exchequer Secretary, in the debate on the resolutions last week, said that this was something “the Government are considering”. That is hardly a robust approach when bringing legislation before the House. Indeed, it seems like a hasty measure to give the Chancellor something to announce.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee previously recommended that for fast-track legislation, sunset clauses should be the default presumption. An amendment to add one is outside the resolutions of this House, but we have tabled a new clause that would require the Government to come forward before the due end date in March 2028 to say whether they think the levy should continue.

There is an absence of any publicly available costings on the measures. That is true for all the measures, yet this House is being asked to approve an indefinite extension. When the levy was first introduced, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that it would raise £2.3 billion a year, but the out-turn in 2024-25 was only £700 million. That matters, because part of the rationale for the higher levy is to generate revenues to support businesses and households. What measures is the Minister proposing in that regard? Surely not the Thorpe Park VAT cut, because that is funded by changes to corporation tax. Can the Minister enlighten us on what other benefits the consumers—my constituents—are getting from the tax?

The levy needs to be seen in the context of the Government promising to reduce energy bills by £300—instead, bills have increased by around that amount. That is what happens when Governments do not have a plan. The Conservatives would cut bills for businesses and consumers through our cheaper energy plan, taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and legacy subsidies, and backing the North sea to get drilling.

The second measure on increasing mileage payments to 55p for 10,000 business miles is something that we support. It is right that those workers, including carers, who are using their own vehicles for work should not be left to absorb the rising cost. The measure is backdated to the start of the financial year. When winding up, can the Minister guarantee that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not pursue anyone for any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise have arisen on payments made before the legislation took effect?

The increase applies only to the first 10,000 miles. When we debated the resolution, the Minister said that the Government considered an increase in the 25p rate, but that it did not represent good value for money. If Ministers accepted that the 45p rate needed to be increased, can the Minister explain how they justify leaving the longer-distance rate untouched at 25p? As has been set out, this is the first increase for some time, which raises the question of how we can avoid such a long period between increases in future. I accept that indexation would be complicated, but what commitments will the Minister make to regularly review increases?

Mileage is an important part of motorists’ costs, but the bigger impact comes from fuel duty. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to scrap both the 15-year freeze and the 5p cut that the Conservatives put in place. It was only after pressure from the Opposition that the Chancellor made a U-turn. However, it was only a partial one, and those costs are going to start hitting from as soon as January. For the logistics sector, which pays £5.4 billion in fuel duty, a 1p increase per litre will increase costs by nearly £83 million. Perhaps the new Chancellor will recognise the folly of that approach and reverse the plans they inherit.

We welcome the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. That duty had been frozen since 2014 until Labour came into office. For a year from today, HGVs will pay just £1, which will be a significant saving for the sector. However, the Government must recognise the full scale of the pressures facing hauliers and accept responsibility for those they have added; the Chancellor did not have to increase business rates, transport taxes and fuel duty.

More than 95% of road haulage firms are small businesses with small margins, so any increase in costs is a challenge. The Government say that the measure will save £600 for a typical lorry, and £900 for the largest vehicles. At peak prices, filling a single HGV costs more than £1,000. Yes, the measure is helpful, but not markedly so.

Taken together, the measures reveal a Government reaching for short-term fixes while avoiding the harder questions. On the generator levy, they are demanding higher taxes without certainty or proper costings—all while displaying a lack of urgency on reforms to decouple energy prices. Mileage allowances are a partial change, and one that leaves high-mileage workers behind. The vehicle excise duty holiday is a temporary relief without a plan for what comes next.

The Conservatives welcome the measures, as far as they go. However, they have not been brought forward by choice; they have been forced by the consequences of the Chancellor’s decisions. Taxes remain at record highs, and are set to go higher, costs continue to rise, and growth has stalled. Against that backdrop, the measures offer very limited relief.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

Today’s debate is progressing rapidly—so rapidly, in fact, that I am yet to turn to the speech in my folder. It is a privilege to close this rapid debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank Members for their contributions, as well as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for opening the Government’s arguments. She was right to point out that the conflict in the middle east has imposed additional costs on the British people, which is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been careful throughout the conflict—from the beginning, when other parties took a different approach—to tread carefully, be cautious and not rush to entangle ourselves in a foreign conflict, risking national security and potentially further harming our economic security.

The measures we are considering are an example of how the Government have responded in a proactive and positive way to the impact of the conflict in the middle east on households, families and businesses. Reasonable people can disagree about how the Government could have best responded to the conflict as it played out. It is this Government’s judgment that we have taken the right approach to ensure that we support those families and businesses that most need it. We have been there for them with the changes in this Bill and others—either already passed or making their way through the House via instruments of some form—such as continuing the freeze in fuel duty.

We wanted to ensure that our response was proportionate and targeted so that we could continue on the path that this Government have set out to bring down the deficit and bring down borrowing sustainably over the course of this Parliament. This year, for the first time since the 2000s, we have a lower deficit than the G7 average—something that the Conservatives never managed to achieve, despite all their talk about wanting to manage the public finances well.

I will not run through the measures in detail, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already done so. Instead, I will take the chance to respond to the questions asked by Opposition spokespeople.

I can confirm that the consultation on the electricity generator levy will come before the end of this year. It is being worked on at the moment by officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We will ensure that we consult on this at the end of the year. Questions such as auction allocation and details of the way the wholesale contracts for difference will work will, I am sure, be raised in the consultation or elsewhere in engagement.

[James Wild]

Given that the levy kicks in from today and the Minister said that the consultation will be published before the end of the year, six months henceforth, and then legislation will have to go through, are the Government considering any backdating provision? If a company generator wanted to go into one of these wholesale CfDs, doing so would allow it to have that backdated; at the moment, it would not have the option to go into the wholesale and will just be hit with the higher levy.

[Dan Tomlinson]

No. If prices are slightly above the threshold set in the electricity generator levy, as they are at the moment, I believe, those taxes will be due now, from 1 July, whether or not businesses make decisions down the line after the consultation, after engagement and after the detail of the wholesale contract for difference policy has been set out by the DESNZ Secretary of State.

Both the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked how much revenue will be raised by this and other measures. It is a good tradition—a tradition set in place, in fact, by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—that the Office for Budget Responsibility set out the costings of policy decisions when they are made. That is important. This Government and this Chancellor have been keen to protect the independence and integrity of the OBR, rather than throwing it under the bus and causing market turmoil, as Liz Truss did. At the Budget later this year, the OBR will, in the usual way, confirm the costings of the changes announced by the Chancellor and included in the Bill.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that the costings the OBR put out initially on the EGL ended up being very different from the revenue that it has pulled in. That is why it is right that we have an independent forecaster, so that even if things materialise differently than was forecast, we have forecasts that are robust to the information at the time and can be relied on by all.

The hon. Gentleman questions whether the Government have provided sufficient support more broadly. I would just mention that we have taken the decision to extend the fuel duty freeze. Going into the general election, the previous Government’s plan, as set out by the OBR, which we have already talked about, was for fuel duty to continue to rise and for the 5p cut to unwind. I believe that motorists would be paying a further 11p of fuel duty if it was not for their choice in 2024 to elect a Labour Government and not go ahead with the plans that the Conservatives set out.

A couple more points have been raised. The shadow Minister mentions a review of indexation. We will, of course, keep the mileage rates under review. The Chancellor announced a few weeks back that we will have a review. We have somewhat pre-empted that with this 10p increase, because we wanted to respond to the conflict in the middle east and the impact on households, but that review is still ongoing and will report if further changes are to be made to the policy at the Budget.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made the important point that many care workers and people who drive for work may be working for an employer who does not provide a mileage rate. It is not compulsory for employers to set the rate at the HMRC rates. We have increased rates from 45p per mile to 55p per mile up to 10,000 miles, and I encourage employers across the country to adopt that higher rate.

For employees who work for an employer who does not do so or who persists in having a significantly lower rate, as I am aware that some do, it is possible to claim back marginal tax up to that amount, so 55p per mile now. A basic rate taxpayer can in effect get 20% back on that. It was a pleasure to meet care workers and members of Unison, the trade union, a couple of weeks ago at No. 11 Downing Street. Some questions were raised about whether that process could be made any easier for workers to navigate, and that is something I certainly want to look at with my officials. This is a complex area of policy. I encourage Members to inform care workers and others who drive for work and who do not have mileage rates provided by their employer that they can claim the tax back from HMRC.

I hope that responds to many of the points made.

[James Wild]

I think the Minister might be coming to a conclusion, and I would not want him to miss the opportunity to refer to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the presumption that fast-tracked legislation should include sunset clauses. Could he explain why the Government have chosen not to follow that guidance in this case?

[Dan Tomlinson]

There is a very sensible policy rationale when it comes to the electricity generator levy, which I think is the clause the hon. Member is referring to. We want to ensure that the ending of the EGL and the future decisions made on it are made in the light of the decisions that will be made on the wholesale contracts for difference, which, as I have said, are coming forward. It would not have been the right decision to pick a future end date without considering how it would interact with the decisions that the Government will make and will be consulting on later this year on the detail of the wholesale contracts for difference.

I hope that that has responded to many, if not all, of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. I encourage Members to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wishart, presiding over our proceedings. Given the origin of this measure, with the policy work that underpins it having begun under the previous Government, we will not oppose it, but as the Minister may expect, I have a few questions for him.

The climate change agreements allow eligible facilities to reduce their energy use and, in exchange, pay reduced rates of the climate change levy. The discounts can be significant—up to 92% on electricity. The regulations make three changes: they expand the scheme to include the three new processes the Minister referred to, they consolidate the existing eligibility rules and they correct a numerical error in the formula used to calculate buy-out fees.

The consultation that preceded the changes was launched in November 2023 and closed in February 2024. Applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and in October the Government announced that the production of automative-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics were all to be included. The changes do not take effect until January 2027, over three years after the consultation opened—a lengthy process, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Wishart—and the response to the consultation highlighted that more time was needed. Will the Minister explain why the process has been so lengthy?

As I mentioned, applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and three were selected. I have looked into it but was unable to find the information, so perhaps the Minister can tell us what the other processes were and explain the basis on which they were rejected. I would also be interested to know whether there is the potential for those sectors to be given further opportunities to apply.

I will not dwell on the buy-out fee correction, because the adjustment goes to four decimal places. I am not sure that will have a substantial impact, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on that.

I have previously welcomed the Government’s decision to extend the climate change agreements scheme for a further six years. When businesses are facing headwinds, the extension offers much-needed respite. Nevertheless, as all Members will know, British manufacturers pay considerably more for energy than their competitors. Compared with the EU, UK firms pay 50% more, and the gap between the UK and America is much larger.

Excessive energy costs are undermining our growth and productivity prospects, yet in the most recent Finance Act, the Government raised the climate change levy rate, at a cost to business of £2 billion a year. That is a significant burden on businesses that are already struggling. We need cheaper energy, which is what the Conservative’s cheaper energy plan would deliver.

We welcome the lightening of the load on businesses, and we support the agreements, but the Government should stop adding levies and costs to the energy bills of companies and individuals, and instead look to remove them. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is good that the Chancellor has had those meetings, but perhaps they have come too late, because when the former Defence Secretary resigned, he said that the Treasury was “unwilling” to provide the resources needed to defend the country against rising threats. The Chancellor has said that national security always comes first, so why this dereliction of duty? Why is she failing to tackle the ever-expanding welfare budget and blocking the defence investment plan from getting the funding needed to meet the threats that we face?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman is literally sitting two places away from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the former welfare Secretary who presided over a record increase in welfare spending.

We have commissioned Alan Milburn to do a review—the first part of which was published recently—to address the problem that we inherited of young people not in employment, education or training and get young people back into work. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We funded that through our difficult decision to reduce overseas development assistance, but that was the right choice. When we set out the defence investment plan ahead of the Ankara NATO summit, the whole House will see the further changes we are making in order to better support defence in an increasingly unstable world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Next week, those swingeing 50% tariffs on steel imports will hit manufacturing businesses across the country, putting thousands of jobs at risk. While they are intended to protect domestic production, industry is warning that many grades simply are not made in the UK in the quantity needed. It is a simple question for the Chancellor: will she guarantee that tariffs will not apply where businesses cannot get steel in the UK?

[Rachel Reeves]

Our steel strategy protects the UK steel industry, so that more orders can come to British Steel and other steel manufacturers in the UK. We will not allow our steel sector to be undercut by cheap foreign imports.

Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this timely and important debate. I will certainly take him up on that pub crawl offer in the recess. It is fitting that this debate takes place on the day of the British Beer and Pub Association’s annual reception, when we will have the opportunity to speak directly to people in the sector and, of course, about the small matter of the England game later.

The BBPA has set out the challenges. For every £3 spent in a pub, £1 goes straight to the Exchequer. As hon. Members have said, rural pubs are at the heart of our villages as community hubs and gathering places. They play an important role in charity, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) set out. That is certainly the case in my constituency, where more than 5,000 jobs are supported by the pubs and hospitality sector. Sadly, thanks to the Chancellor’s choices, rural pubs face ever-growing pressures. When there are economic headwinds, although some are obviously beyond the Government’s control, the Government should act where they can to support our pubs.

That is what the previous Government did when we introduced a new strength-based duty system, including two new reliefs: draught beer duty relief, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) campaigned avidly, and small producer relief. Our support went further. We froze alcohol duty rates in 2023, which we extended in 2024. We also provided a 75% business rates relief scheme for pubs and hospitality businesses, which was a lifeline for thousands of rural pubs that would otherwise have faced higher bills they could not meet.

That record stands in stark contrast to this Government’s. Since the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, the Government have added layer upon layer of costs to a sector that operates on tight margins, where a single bad month can put a rural pub out of business. One of the Chancellor’s first decisions on business rates was to halve that 75% relief, increasing the average pub’s business rates bill from £4,000 to £9,500.

Next came the removal of the 40% relief, and then the revaluation. Some pubs are now seeing their rateable value double or triple, with the BBPA warning that 5,000 of the smallest pubs are now facing business rates for the first time. What was the Government’s response? A partial U-turn of a 15% relief after a significant backlash. However, only 6% of hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then, the average pub will see its rates increase by £5,300 under Labour.

Our commitment is different. The Conservatives would scrap business rates entirely for pubs up to the £110,000 cap, benefiting 250,000 businesses overall. Our cheap energy plan would reduce costs, particularly for rural pubs, and we would not proceed with the regulatory costs in the unemployment Bill, which the Government seem so keen on. Does the Minister really believe that a 15% reduction on a hike is sufficient to help these rural pubs?

Sadly, business rates are only the start. The Government also cut the employer national insurance threshold to £5,000 and hiked the rate to 15%. I know from conversations with landlords in small rural pubs employing four or five people that the extra cost is not a rounding error; it means fewer people employed in those pubs. In February, alcohol duty was increased by the retail prices index—a £400 million cost to the sector, passed on to consumers—which the chief executive of UKHospitality said would be the final straw for some pubs.

Then there is extended producer responsibility. The BBPA has warned that the pub sector will face a hit of about £50 million because glass bottles sold in venues will be considered household waste, even though pubs already pay to have their waste commercially recycled. What is the Minister’s response to that double charging and to the rules that do not reflect how glass bottles in pubs are collected by the vast majority of premises? Taken together, those additional costs create the cumulative impact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to, which is what matters.

Rural communities feel pub closures differently. A pub closing in a city can be replaced by one around the corner, but when a pub closes in a Norfolk village, it can be lost forever. I am grateful that the Rose and Crown in Harpley, which closed, has been reopened, but that is one positive story. There are other, less positive ones: in the first quarter of this year, 161 pubs closed—a 26% increase on the year before—and we are now on track for 500 pubs to close in the rest of this year.

A survey of 20,000 hospitality businesses—the people taking the risks; the people employing other people—tells a story: 64% plan to cut jobs and 42% will reduce their trading hours. UKHospitality and the BBPA said it together:

“Hospitality’s tax burden….is suffocating the sector…more lost jobs, less investment and business closures.”

Who is paying the heaviest price? It is young people. Youth unemployment is now at 16%. For generations, a job at the local was their first job—the first foot on the ladder.

As Conservatives, we want to see those opportunities given to young people who are out of work, instead of us rejoining the single market and importing people to come and take those jobs. The Government are kicking that ladder away. National insurance hikes, business rates hikes, duty rises, EPR fees, above inflation wage rises and a potential lowering of the drink drive limit, which particularly affects rural pubs—I could go on. With this Buckaroo effect, the Government are presiding over the accelerated loss of a British institution, which is felt particularly acutely in our rural communities.

As a first step, I urge the Minister to join the all-party parliamentary beer group—he will get the same fine tie that I am wearing if he does—where he will hear about these concerns. He will hear how rising costs mean that a third of venues are running at a loss and how the Government need to change course. When we were in government, we proved that targeted support works. Rather than load on more costs, the Government should support pubs with the decisive fiscal relief that the Conservatives have committed to.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind him to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 General Committees

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

As the Minister rightly says, he has been landed in it by his colleagues.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Well, I didn’t quite say that.

[James Wild]

Let us be in no doubt that these regulations, if approved, would cause serious damage to our manufacturing sector and be likely to result in the loss of thousands of skilled jobs. They replace the expiring UK steel safeguard measure. Two weeks from today, manufacturing and engineering businesses will be hit with a 50% tariff on steel imports across 20 product categories. Bright bar, wire and stainless steel are captured for the first time. As the Minister says, preferential rates—aside from those for Ukraine—are also being taken away.

In justifying the policy, the Government have said that higher tariffs will apply only to steel that is, or could be, made in the UK, but the industry has said repeatedly to Ministers and to Opposition Members that that is not the case. Those firms are clear that UK mills cannot produce the grades and type of steel that their businesses require. I raised that issue with another of the Minister’s colleagues, the Industry Minister, during an urgent question at which a number of Labour Members spoke against the regulations; I look forward to contributions from members of this Committee along the same lines. When I raised the issue, the Minister said that there were three mills in the country that could, with investment and additional capacity, provide that—but let’s get real. If approved, these regulations come into effect in just two weeks. That is not enough time to stand up the investment and the production for the grades of steel, the specification and the volume that so many manufacturing businesses need.

I have met representatives of companies in my constituency and beyond, and their message is stark: the Government are jeopardising jobs in crucial sectors, in a flawed attempt to protect UK steelmaking. That approach fails to understand how supply chains in defence, aerospace and other sectors work and why these regulations will undermine our national security.

As the Minister says, the newly broadened commodity codes are set out in the tariff of the United Kingdom—the 18,053 pages of it—and the quotas that will accompany that rate will be in separate regulations. That means that the industry currently has no certainty. The regulations are a risk to manufacturing jobs. They have been rushed without an adequate evidence base. The codes are drawn so broadly that they catch manufacturers for whom no domestic alternative exists. The instrument simply will not achieve the Government’s aims, so the Opposition will not be supporting it today.

I acknowledge the Minister’s point about the global overcapacity of steel. The US, Canada and the EU have introduced similar tariffs, and domestic production is important to our national security. However, agreeing with the importance of steel production in the UK is not the same as agreeing with the approach that the Government are taking in the regulations. The downstream steel-using sector employs 300,000 workers; primary steelmaking employs 30,000. Any credible strategy must account for both sides of that equation. Let us be clear on what the regulations are: they are a 50% tax on steel that British manufacturers cannot always source domestically because it simply is not made here or is not produced in the necessary volumes. That is why industry is sounding the alarm at the scope.

The stated policy is to protect all steel products that could be made in the UK, covering 100% of domestic production, but the commodity codes are drawn so broadly that they are catching manufacturers for whom there is no viable domestic alternative. That will be felt by British manufacturers who rely on specialist steel to produce high-value components for aerospace, defence, Formula 1 motorsport, energy and precision engineering. Those impacted are the manufacturers, the fabricators, the engineers and the specialist processors who depend on steel inputs that are simply not available in the UK. Materials used in house building, rail, logistics centres, food warehouses, pharmaceutical facilities, roofing, cladding and other specialist building capability will be hit.

Another point that colleagues across the House raised in the urgent question is that the fabrication sector has warned that 30,000 jobs could be at risk from these regulations and the tariff they introduce, as overseas competitors simply ship in fabricated products tariff-free. Canada amended its tariffs to include fabricated steelworks. I look forward to the Minister explaining why the Government have chosen not to do the same.

Our defence sector was represented at a roundtable that I was at earlier this week with colleagues from the Liberal Democrats and other parties. Many of the specialist steels used by UK manufacturers are currently not produced, approved or supplied at scale in the UK in the required grades. That is particularly acute in categories 14 and 27, which are currently due to face 50% tariffs once significantly reduced quotas are exhausted. This is not simply a matter of flicking a switch and changing supplier: in many cases, the steels that are required, for example in aerospace, are subject to very strict technical approvals and to very lengthy certification requirements and customer specifications, with supplier approval often taking years.

As for the supply chain, these partnerships are decades in the making and UK producers are unable to say if they will be able to produce what is needed. Companies cannot work on the basis that something “could be produced in the UK”. They need the product now.

These regulations will come into effect, if approved by Members, in two weeks, so I have a clear ask to put to the Minister: will he at least remove categories 14 and 27 from the incoming tariff regime, where there is insufficient domestic production capability, ensuring that tariffs are not applied to specialist steels that the UK does not currently produce? If UK firms cannot access the material that they need at competitive prices because of the tariffs that these regulations introduce, its customers may cut UK production. They may well move sourcing overseas or relocate parts of the supply chain to avoid avoidable cost increases.

That is certainly something that Airbus was talking about in relation to the next generation of civil aerospace. Airbus is unlikely to come to the UK if the tariffs make us far less competitive than its three EU partners. The Confederation of British Metalforming reports that manufacturers are already reviewing offshoring options and moving abroad. The British Chambers of Commerce has warned that firms may need to halt production altogether or are considering relocating. Once manufacturing capability leaves the UK, it is very difficult to draw it back, particularly given the energy policy that this Government are following and the prices that flow as a result. As the CBM’s president has put it,

“you cannot protect upstream production at the expense of downstream survival.”

The Minister will doubtless be aware that Canada offers steel tariff relief through a remission framework, allowing Canadian businesses to request relief if they are unable to source specific steel imports domestically. What assessment have the Government made of such an approach? If companies can demonstrate that they cannot source the steel in the UK, the Government’s policy intent is that they should not be penalised. Such a relief scheme would achieve that aim.

If companies are effectively required to buy from UK producers, pricing will reflect the tariffs. Industry is already reporting that quotes for products are priced just below where the 50% tariff would fall. Who’d have thunk it? Vital inputs are made only by UK Steel, which is behind its planned levels of production and would of course then be a monopoly supplier. Firms have to risk either unpredictable supply or expensive imports.

Given the long-term fixed-price contracts that are common across the defence supply chain, involving tens of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises, a 50% tariff imposed through these regulations cannot easily be passed on, to say it lightly. One SME at the roundtable told me that it would mean an extra £1.2 million on a turnover of around £30 million, which it would simply be unable to fund.

Companies will be incentivised to move production overseas. Ministers should be listening to these sirens and acting before it is too late and jobs are offshored. Even at this late stage, what engagement is the Minister having—perhaps with his ministerial colleagues who are leading on much of the policy, and with industry—to ensure that costs are contained and downstream manufacturing is protected?

If the tariffs are approved, they will come into force and quota rates will apply, but the Government have already said that those rates will be substantially lower than under the steel safeguard. Cutting quota volumes by an estimated 60% overall and by up to 97% in some categories will be achieved through the negative procedure. In discussions with hon. Members, including Labour Members, the Business Minister said that the Government were still negotiating those changes and where the tariffs would sit. I understand that, and I understand that discussions are going on with the EU, but that means that companies still lack certainty before these measures come into force in two weeks.

I implore the Minister to ensure that tariff quota levels are set at a sufficient volume to avoid the huge damage to our industrial base that companies have made very clear is likely if things proceed on this basis. Will the Minister commit to keeping the regulations under review? At the moment, it is proposed that they be reviewed only every 12 months. That is utterly inadequate, given the risk we are all being told about by companies in our constituencies, so I hope he will commit to reviewing them more regularly.

Lastly, I turn to a topic that I raise regularly when the Treasury brings measures forward: the absence of a substantive and costed impact assessment. It is frankly astonishing, with a change of this magnitude, that the downstream effects have not been properly looked at by the Treasury or the Department for Business and Trade. The explanatory memorandum, such as it is, admits that these measures will “raise steel prices”,

“increase…costs for user industries”,

harm downstream businesses and

“impact Small or Micro Businesses”.

I wonder why the Government have not done a fully costed assessment of what that will mean for our aerospace, defence, construction and other sectors that rely on steel. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.

National steel capacity matters for defence, for national security and for supply chain resilience, but these regulations simply fail to achieve the Government’s objective. Instead, they pose a threat to 300,000 jobs in downstream manufacturing. Ministers say that they are listening, but they have not put forward any changes or any solutions to the problems raised by companies. There is still time—just—for them to do so and avoid the enormous damage that we are being warned about.

If Ministers are determined to press ahead, we have two further requests: first, that they delay the implementation of these tariffs for at least six months, to give manufacturers as much time as possible to adjust, and secondly that they develop more forensic definitions and exclude grade sizes and specifications of specialist steel that is not produced in the UK.

The Opposition will vote against this measure. We ask the Government urgently to reconsider their plans, and instead to protect jobs and promote economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I was just coming to that point. As the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Exchequer Secretary have pointed out, the Government are not hiding from the impacts of the measures on some downstream sectors and businesses. He has just read out the explanatory memorandum that the Government themselves produced. The Government have taken a strategic view: in the end, we need a tariff and quota system that protects domestic steel so that, if the worst happens and we need to ensure that we have domestic supply in times of crisis for vital production here in the UK, we have it. Hon. Members know that we have seen a significant reduction in steel production in the UK—I believe a reduction of 50% over the past 10 years—and the representations that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and individual businesses and business groups have made to Ministers over recent months have of course been taken into account and considered, but on balance the Government’s view on this strategic assessment is that, in the end, strong production and a strong downstream sector go hand in hand.

[James Wild]

This is the kernel of the issue. The Minister is talking about protecting UK steel production, but as I and other colleagues have outlined, and as industry is furiously telling all MPs across the House, at the moment no UK production meets the demand that industry has, whether that is in the precision, the grading or the volume necessary. In two weeks’ time, however, a 50% tax is going to be slapped on businesses buying such steel, which they cannot get in the UK and for which they are forced to go overseas. How can that possibly be the right approach? Does he not recognise that that will lead to job losses and to businesses failing?

[Dan Tomlinson]

As I said, the Government have set out in the explanatory memorandum the fact that there will be an impact from the tariffs, from the 50% rate, but the Government’s view overall is that it is important to ensure that we have a strong and thriving domestic steel sector, which can help businesses here in the UK to weather, and to minimise their exposure to, global shocks, so that we can have a reliable and secure domestic supply. That is very important, and if we had continued on the path that we were on for the long term, we would have seen a continued decline in our domestic supply and in our ability to ensure resilience and security at times when we as a country might need them most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his question; he makes an important and valid point. Of course, if the different types of steel, products and manufacturing are not and cannot be produced in the UK, the 50% tariff that we are debating will not apply. Also, this House has not yet passed the quota levels, and Ministers are continuing to engage with businesses and industry. In preparation for today’s debate, I spoke to the Ministers who have led the work on this legislation, so I know that engagement has taken place in great depth over recent months to make sure that the Government account for concerns and get this difficult but important decision right.

On the complexities and challenges around the operation of the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland, and goods being “at risk” or “not at risk”, it is, of course, a difficult and sensitive issue. Broadly, the Government’s approach is to continue to find ways to reduce friction and to deepen our relationship with the European Union. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that on 22 July, there will be a summit, during which we can hopefully make progress on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and other areas. I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, as I cannot give more detail than was given in the House this morning by the Ministers leading on the policy, but the EU and the UK are committed to working together on seeking a solution, and are engaging constructively.

Of course, this issue is important for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. As a Minister for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, I have responsibility, in part, for the operation of the Windsor framework, and I have been looking with my officials at what more we can do to help.

[James Wild]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily give way.

[James Wild]

I sense that the Minister is either giving way or looking for a note with the answer to a couple more of my questions; I thought I would give him the opportunity to find a note.

I referred to the Canadian example. Canada provides relief to companies that are unable to source steel in Canada that is part of the tariff regime. The Minister keeps saying that if it cannot be produced in the UK, it will not be covered by tariffs, so that should be a simple thing to do. These codes will inevitably include products that are not able to be manufactured in the UK, so why can companies not get relief if that proves to be the case?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Of course the Government will continue to engage with industry and we will listen to any representations made. I am interested in the example from Canada, and I will personally make sure that it is passed on to the Minister with lead responsibility.

Even if Members are not fully satisfied with my responses, I hope they feel that I have endeavoured to take a range of interventions and respond as well as I can to the points raised. I hope Members can see that the goal of the instrument is to implement policy in line with the steel strategy to support the UK steel sector as a whole. For those reasons, I commend the legislation to the Committee.

Question put.

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?