Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Debate between James Wild and Judith Cummins

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.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Wild and Judith Cummins

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Wild and Judith Cummins

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

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

I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition, and particularly to new clause 8. Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating the Bill. It comes after a Budget in which the Chancellor said that we must have

“an economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 811.]

But that is not what this Finance Bill delivers. Instead, the Budget is forecast to deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher inflation.

The Minister referred to choices, and the Government have indeed made choices. They have chosen to tax enterprise, to tax the wealth creators and to tax the farmers who are, again, outside Parliament protesting against the family farm tax—I wonder whether, on one of his rare jaunts to this country, the Prime Minister has gone out to speak to them. Rather than promote opportunity, it was the Government’s choice to bring in a new tax on aspiration.