Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lucy Rigby]

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

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Vaping is a difficult issue, particularly when it comes to recycling. I understand that vape shops are expected to take them back, but local authorities have real problems with the disposal of used vape canister things—I do not know what they are called—with batteries in them. Will the Minister consider helping local authorities with vape recycling, and providing funds to give them more facilities and a way to dispose of them?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which I will come to in a second.

On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s central point about the definition of vaping and the inclusion of nicotine-free liquids, the definition is deliberately broad to reflect how the market operates and to support what we hope will be effective enforcement. Most liquids used in vapes contain nicotine and either glycerine or glycol. The clause therefore focuses on those ingredients and on whether the liquid is intended to be vaped. Bringing into scope liquids that need to be mixed before use closes a potential loophole in a manner that I am sure we all want, because products could otherwise be sold in separate components to avoid their duty. Nicotine-free liquids are included because it would be easy to misdescribe or mislabel liquids and, in doing so, evade the duty.

The approach that we are taking will give Border Force and HMRC clear rules to work with, enabling quick decisions at the border. That is in line with how other excise regimes define products to minimise avoidance.

As to the cost of implementation, the cost of the duty stamps contract was considered in the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s beloved TIINs, but the industry will pay for it through the stamps.

Finally, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot raised a fair point about recycling. We are considering the impact of recycling and existing Government contracts, so this will be considered in the round.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Stamping of vaping products

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Wrigley]

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

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

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

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Tomlinson]

There are different ways of measuring income. In this instance, the Government’s decision is that total income is an appropriate way of measuring it. We keep all taxes and all thresholds under review. We are legislating for the threshold to remain at £35,000 but, as hon. Members with experience in government in the run-up to Budgets will know, all things are always considered in the round. Other thresholds in the tax system were frozen by the previous Government and, as was debated in Committee of the whole House a few weeks back, income tax thresholds were frozen as well.

On the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about tapering, the Government’s view is that that would add complexity to the system. We think that a simple threshold is a preferable approach.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The Minister mentions that our suggestion would add complexity to the system, but the system, in and of itself, is becoming overly complex. It started very simply: “Here is a winter fuel allowance for a harsh winter.” Every winter is harsh. Would it not be much simpler and more efficient to wind this into the main pension in future years? Will the Government consider that?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government’s view was that it was right to put a threshold in the system. Labour Members do not think that it is right for the super-rich to continue to receive the winter fuel payment. On the hon. Member’s broader point, the Government’s policy is to continue with the payment as it stands, as a stand-alone payment for those who have a total income below £35,000 a year.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10

Winter fuel payment charge

Amendment proposed: 41, in schedule 10, page 395, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) The Treasury must, each tax year, amend the amount specified under section 681I(1)(b) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”—(James Wild.)

This amendment would provide for the £35,000 income threshold for implementation of the winter fuel payment charge to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber

“has swerved paying millions of pounds”

by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts

“as an agent, rather than as the supplier”

outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares.

Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change? Why are we now in a position where we have an absurd two-tier system in which identical journeys are taxed differently depending on whether they take place inside or outside London? I note that no Government amendment to the clause has been tabled. Has the Treasury accepted that because of Uber’s decision, this policy has failed before it has even begun?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On reading the clause, I too was concerned about the costs for SEND. Devon, which is a very rural county, spends something like—from memory—£50 million a year on taxis to move children across the county who require special schools in different areas. A 20% tax on that would equate to £10 million. Will the Minister clarify whether taxis used for SEND transport by councils are included? If so, will the Minister please negotiate the extra money that will be required, so that we do not have our SEND budget in Devon cut by £10 million?

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am very glad to see you in the Chair. Rather than running through these changes in detail, let me respond to some of the points that have been raised, because they are important and, in some cases, valid.

As a tax Minister, I am not going to comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers, by which I mean individual businesses, but I will say that the exclusion from TOMS applied to several large private hire vehicle operators. Crucially, it ensured that they were subject to the same tax rules as everyone else. That is what this change is trying to do.

Regarding any subsequent potential changes to the operation of business models that may or may not have taken place—hon. Members have mentioned some reports, but at this stage they are only reports—HM Revenue and Customs will always make an operationally independent assessment of whether a private hire vehicle operator is operating as an agent or, as it is sometimes called, a principal, and it will charge tax accordingly. If there are any implications—we do not know yet whether there will be—any costing update will flow into the forecast as usual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

We are confident that the exclusion drafted in the Bill is carefully targeted and will not have unintended implications by limiting the activities of legitimate tour operators. It is right to make this change, which will raise £700 million of tax revenue that the Government believe should already be being paid. It will be a vital contribution to the public finances.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the Minister address the SEND concerns, please?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government are, of course, aware of the pressures on local council finances as a result of the growing number of children with additional needs who require transportation or other support. It is important to note that the clause does not seek to apply additional VAT to those who are not already seeking to make use of the TOMS. The vast majority of taxi services across the country are not using the TOMS and will be unaffected by this change, but we think it right to ensure that this particular use of the TOMS cannot continue, in order that we can raise revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reynolds]

I am very glad that the Government have ditched the plan to converge the rates of landfill tax and to massively hike the charge for inert waste, adding tens of thousands of pounds to the cost of a new build home at a time when the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes. That was not joined-up government, and I am concerned at the lack of joined-up thinking when the Treasury put forward this proposal.

There are a number of gravel quarries in my Maidenhead constituency, and converging the rates would have meant that a significant number of those quarries would have gone unfilled, resulting in more quarry lakes in our town. We know that quarry lakes are dangerous: they are quite shallow until they suddenly become incredibly deep. That is dangerous when young people are out on the water or swimming, and in areas not too far from my own we have seen some unfortunate deaths as a result.

I am glad that the Government have decided to back down on this and are not going to burden the quarry sector or developments with that proposal. However, can the Minister confirm what the cost would have been to UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, and what the additional cost to the taxpayer would have been?

[Martin Wrigley]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We have a number of quarries in Newton Abbot, and the same principles apply. I am, however, doubly pleased that the extensive increase was not included in the Budget. I was taken to a local factory in Newton Abbot that makes high-value, high-performance propellers that it exports all over the world. The factory was to be put out of business, because it pours the metal into moulds of sand, and the cost of disposal of that sand would have been more than it could have borne. That would have shut down a £20 million-a-year business. I am extremely grateful that the increase has not been implemented, but I draw the Minister’s attention to such side effects when considering future proposals.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank Opposition Members for their contributions and for welcoming the Government’s decision on this matter at the Budget. I find it a bit tiresome that the Conservatives, when we consult, accuse us of consulting, and when we do not, accuse us of not consulting. It is right and proper, where possible, for the Government to engage with industry on proposals and then come forward with good policy outcomes. I am glad that there has been acknowledgment across the Committee that we have listened, engaged and come forward with proposals that are proportionate.

Rural Fuel Duty Relief

Martin Wrigley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the relief scheme could be complemented by a pumpwatch scheme, whereby the petrol price comparison platform has rapid publication of all fuel costs for forecourt prices? That is approved by the Competition and Markets Authority and the RAC estimates it could take up to 3p off a litre, in addition to the specific rural relief scheme that he mentions.

[Ian Roome]

I know there are various apps that do that. There should be more awareness of them among members of the public.

Fuel duty is only part of the expense of running a vehicle, but many who fill up in areas impacted by the scheme have simply no transport alternatives. In my constituency, the households that benefit are 20 miles from their nearest train station, and bus passengers receive only the most limited bus service. Every January, those passengers are also hit by annual price increases from bus companies, which put extra strain on the cost of living.

The scheme is not particularly expensive. In the published list of non-structural tax reliefs, the Treasury estimates that the rural fuel duty relief scheme costs only around £5 million per year, and its uncertainty rating is considered low, yet during the past decade the scheme has been a roaring success. Barbrook filling station in my constituency tells me that this tax relief has made a massive difference to the viability of its business, keeping open an essential local service for many rural residents, local farmers and tourists.