Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Debate between James Wild and Noah Law

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.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Wild and Noah Law

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes the point that this measure may have been introduced by a Chancellor who did not actually understand the impact it was going to have. The Government should have stuck to the promise they made at the election not to increase national insurance at all.

New clause 2 concerns the Government’s plan to undermine our energy security by increasing the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, extending the tax by a year and removing investment allowances. The consequences are fairly predictable. Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off billions of pounds of investment in the North sea, putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

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

Does the hon. Member not agree that if such a rate is good enough for Norway, a clean energy superpower, it is good enough for the United Kingdom?

[James Wild]

In short, no, I do not, which is why we voted against that previously. We should be maximising our home-grown energy, not undermining domestic production and choosing to rely instead on importers with higher carbon emissions.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between James Wild and Noah Law

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Member not welcome the potential proceeds of great British energy projects that could be unlocked by this new entity?

[James Wild]

My point about the new clause is trying to get some transparency about what those proceeds might be. I do not whether the hon. Member can enlighten me as to from where they might be coming and which projects will be invested in, or how many jobs will be created. He might apply for the job of the chairman of GB Energy, because the current one does not seem to know the answer to any of those very important questions. We are being asked to legislate to support a partnership between the new entity of GB Energy and the Crown Estate, so I make no apology for seeking greater transparency.

When pushed on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed:

“Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive”—

I think he said “very commercially sensitive” this afternoon, or “highly”—

“the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report.” —[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 806.]

But at all stages of the Bill’s passage and in the amendments that have been tabled, the Government have had to be pressured to be more transparent. Given that the Bill makes significant changes to the operation of the Crown Estate and reduces parliamentary oversight, I do not see why Parliament should not have sight of an agreement. It is simply not good enough to hide behind excuses of commercial confidentiality.

If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the conservative nature of this—[Laughter.] He probably is! I should have said: if the Minister is genuinely concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the agreement, perhaps a redacted version could be laid before Parliament, for example, or the full version could be provided to the Public Accounts Committee. I had the pleasure to serve on that Committee for over two years, and it was not uncommon for similar agreements to be provided in confidence to the Chair and the Committee to give assurance, on behalf of other Members of the House, that this was a bona fide commitment that did not need to be drawn more widely to public attention, noting the strictures there may be about commercial confidentiality.

I have spoken to the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about this, and he would be very happy to receive a copy of the partnership agreement and continue to operate—as he has done over a decade or more as deputy Chair—by recognising and respecting confidentiality and the basis on which it is provided. It would provide assurance for all Members of the House that one of the pre-eminent Committees of the House has oversight of the agreement. If the Minister is not minded to agree to our new clause—I detect that he is not—perhaps he will look at the feasibility of a taking a redacted version of the agreement, or a similar approach, to the Public Accounts Committee.

In advance of this Bill Committee, I wrote to Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate, to seek clarity on the partnership agreement. I am grateful that he took the time to respond. I asked whether the Crown Estate is planning to agree to invest a certain amount with GB Energy. His response was:

“Any arrangements the Crown Estate enter into with GBE will be expressly subsidiary to our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, but with due regard to the requirements of good management…We will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to deliver on our wider obligations”.

Can the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate’s statutory duty will always have primacy? Without the agreement being laid before Parliament, we will not have the transparency to see whether commitments have been given, and to judge and assess whether they meet the criteria.

I also asked Dan Labbad how the Crown Estate will decide between projects that GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return. I note the comments from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, but it may be that the Crown Estate could identify non-GB Energy projects that may generate a greater return for the taxpayer and our constituents. In that case, it should be investing in those, not a political project under the Energy Secretary. Dan Labbad said:

“The Crown Estate will have a clear business plan in relation to the partnership… The consideration of which projects fulfil that business plan will take into account our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate…and the obligation upon the Crown Estate to secure the best consideration, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case at the time.”

“All the circumstances” is rather broad, and “take into account” could be seen as rather weak. Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen a copy of any such business plan? Would he expect to? I fear the answer will be no, but would he be prepared to lay a copy of it before the House so that Members can scrutinise it?

Finally, I asked Dan Labbad about the new division’s decision-making process, because the new clause is about trying to get underneath the bonnet of the agreement. He said:

“The Crown Estate’s agreement with GBE is such that activity undertaken through the partnership will not undermine the Crown Estate’s independence. The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

“Compelled” is a very strong word to use in that context.

On one level, the responses could be seen as reassuring, but I think back to the exuberant press release I referred to earlier and the excitement in the announcement of what the partnership could deliver and what the Government thought it could do. Can the Minister clarify how much he expects the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s personal investment fund? Can he rule out Ministers pressuring the Crown Estate, whether that be through GB Energy and the chairman they have appointed or the chairman of the Crown Estate, who will shortly be going before the Treasury Committee? Can he rule out pressuring any of those people to invest more than the Crown Estate considers to be prudent?

I have raised my points briefly. I could go on for longer, though I am not sure the Committee would enjoy that. We are asking reasonable questions about this “groundbreaking partnership” agreement—I am looking at the exciting press release in front of me. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide some clarity and assurance on this—and I hope, having listened to the argument, accept that it is not unreasonable to place before Parliament a partnership agreement that can be redacted and before the Public Accounts Committee the full agreement. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Finance Bill

Debate between James Wild and Noah Law

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

[James Wild]

We turn to the important issue of taxes on residential property, and another set of tax rises from this tax-raising Labour Government. I will speak to clauses 50 to 53, and new clauses 6 and 7. Over 14 years in government we delivered 2.5 million additional homes. Our manifesto pledge to build 1 million homes in the course of the last Parliament was met, and we delivered on our commitment to build the homes that people need for a more secure future. The Bill introduces measures that dampen the housing market, increase pressure on housing supply, and reduce labour mobility. The Government talk about helping renters, but experts warn that these measures could increase rents, and they do nothing for those who cannot afford to buy their own home.

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the prevalence of second homes is a crucial part of ensuring that people can afford to live and work in the communities they are from?

[James Wild]

Indeed, and representing an area with some of the most attractive coastline in the country, I certainly recognise and share those concerns. There has been warning that the measures could make that issue worse. People also need to be able to rent in those areas, and if local people who need to work where the jobs are have to move from long-term lets to short-term, that does nothing to help.