James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Support for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has repeatedly referred to steel that “could be made” in the UK, but these tariffs come in in two weeks’ time. That is of no use to the manufacturers I have spoken to in North West Norfolk, where grade specification and volumes are simply not available. Why are the Government failing to recognise this, and why will they not guarantee that tariffs will not apply where people cannot get the steel in the UK?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

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

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Passengers on Great Northern services to and from King’s Lynn are fed up with repeated weekend closures. Given that the Secretary of State now oversees the track and those trains, does she agree that discounts should be offered when rail replacement buses are in operation?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak as we embark on the Government’s back to the future nationalisation plan. I will be speaking to new clause 35 and amendments 68 and 69, tabled in my name. Together, they are designed to ensure that Ministers and Great British Railways treat Ely junction as the nationally significant bottleneck it is, and that they make the progress that passengers, freight operators and local communities are entitled to expect. It is important to set out the context in which my amendments sit. Rail services to North West Norfolk are not good enough. There are too many late trains, cancellations and engineering weekend closures. Those unreliable rail services put people off travelling and have a damaging effect on the local economy, particularly the visitor economy. My constituents deserve better, and improvements to Ely Junction would help deliver that.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Cost of Fertiliser · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help support farmers with the cost of fertiliser.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Cost of Fertiliser · Hansard source

  More

  North West Norfolk is home to the leading UK producer of liquid fertilisers, whose production depends on urea ammonium nitrate. With no domestic supply and conflict in the middle east constraining global markets, the United States is our primary reliable source. Will the Minister urge the Department for Business and Trade to suspend the 6% import tariff on US origin UAN in order to protect farmers and food prices?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Youth unemployment in North West Norfolk has increased by 10% over the last year, and the Minister referred to paragraph 268 of the Milburn report on the jobs tax. It actually says that if policy aims to increase growth, “it has to help minimise risks and maximise incentives. It needs to avoid creating a labour market in which costs of entry have risen”. Will he listen to that and lift the costs on employers, so that they do not have to subsidise so many jobs?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Thursday I was on the water with King’s Lynn Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets. As the Minister will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are wholly funded by the Ministry of Defence. What provision will the Royal Navy make to fund vital equipment, such as the new boats that those cadets need?