The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 General Committees

[Pippa Heylings]

That is exactly the point that I am raising, which is about uncertainty. The National Farmers’ Union has estimated exactly that cost, which will ultimately be borne by British farmers. At a time when they face such volatility and uncertainty, we should be strengthening our food security, not undermining it. We would like the Government first to tell farmers what that rate would be.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will continue. We would also like the Government, potentially, to introduce a temporary derogation for imported fertilisers.

Unlike Conservative colleagues, we have a second concern about the slow progress in linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Without that linkage, the UK CBAM will be more complex, more administratively burdensome and more costly than it needs to be. Businesses trading with our largest trading partner should not be forced to navigate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy because the Government have failed to make progress in this area. A linked UK-EU carbon market would make the system simpler, more efficient and more effective, so we call on the Minister to make securing ETS linkage with the European Union an urgent priority at the upcoming UK-EU reset meeting.

These are not objections to the principle of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They are practical questions and improvements that would make the policy fairer for British farmers, less burdensome for British businesses and more effective in achieving its environmental objectives. If the Government want the mechanism to succeed, will they please ensure that it supports our climate ambitions and the long-term competitiveness of British agriculture and industry?

[Robbie Moore]

We are about to vote on a statutory instrument that will impose an additional tax on our farmers, going over and above the many other overheads that they are experiencing as a result of this Government. Fertiliser is already one of the most volatile and expensive inputs for many of our farmers and growers. Industry analysts project that the CBAM will add an additional £50 to £75 return on imported nitrous fertiliser, inflating farmers’ procurement costs by up to 20% to 25%. I would like to understand from the Minister what financial assessment the Government have made of the increase in costs associated with producing much of the food that this country likes to eat, and indeed much of the food that is exported too.

There is also a structural flaw. Analysis has rightly identified that CBAM applies a tax on fertiliser inputs but does not directly provide a tax on imported goods. It is putting a tax only on the fertiliser that our UK farmers are utilising to produce food in this country, not on the imported food that we are bringing into this country. It is therefore not creating a level playing field.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I was not in the House in 2021—I think the hon. Gentleman was—when the Conservative Government introduced the emissions trading scheme, which introduced the carbon levy on UK producers of fertilisers and other such produce. Is the hon. Gentleman against the ETS now, and if so did he speak against it at the time, or is he just against levelling the playing field for UK producers? What has changed?

[Robbie Moore]

The Conservatives are clear that we will vote against the implementation of the CBAM. We are against the increase in costs associated with this tax on our fertiliser. A level playing field must be generated, but that is not what this legislation will implement.

[Pippa Heylings]

Certainty!

[The Chair]

Order.

[Robbie Moore]

It is frightening that the Liberal Democrats will, I suspect, be voting today to impose an additional tax on our farmers on the cost of producing food.

Foreign growers outside the UK and EU can continue to use cheap, high-carbon fertilisers without penalty, while that food has direct access to UK markets and supermarkets, undercutting our British farmers. The UK has virtually no domestic mass scale fertiliser production left, so there is no option but to import that fertiliser into this country, which will carry increased costs through this tax being implemented by the Government. The tax cannot protect the domestic sector; its functions are therefore a direct penalty on UK growers.

I would also like to understand what assessment the Government have made of environmental implications. The mechanism is expected to apply a flat-rate tax based on weight or broad carbon categories. Industry specialists have noted that in this format it is likely to incentivise—accidentally, or maybe this is the Government’s intention—the use of nutrient-dense raw urea rather than cheaper, clean liquid options. That is completely contrary to DEFRA’s existing air quality policies, which actively discourage raw urea, due to high ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions. What assessment have the Government made of the roll-out of CBAM in relation to DEFRA’s own air quality policies, because they seem to be in contradiction?

Will the Minister outline again when the rate will be announced, with its implication for many of our UK farmers? What timeframe will apply for implementation? What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all the other increases to the cost of food production under this Government? What interplay is there with DEFRA’s own assessments, undertaken with Minette Batters’s profitability review, and with the air quality targets that have already been set by DEFRA?

I reiterate that I do not support this carbon tax. The Opposition will vote firmly against it when the Committee divides on the motion.