Lucy Rigby MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Right.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps both.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR is, of course, critically important. The best demonstration of why is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s previous Government. He referred consistently to the Chancellor having to repair the public finances, but seemingly with a huge amount of brass neck. He ought to be asking himself why the Chancellor needed to repair the public finances. The answer is of course that after 14 years of his party being in government, the public finances were in dire need of repair. Question put and agreed to . Clause 251 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 252 Data-gathering Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow EST’s interest in these matters. The DL Committee debate to which he referred was indeed an interesting one. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am glad that other Members agree. The matters that the hon. Member and I discussed in that debate included the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervisory powers vis-à-vis qualifying cryptoassets and indeed the definition of qualifying stablecoin. The matters addressed by the clauses are slightly different. I can speak to the definitions, but this is a slightly different context: it is about CARF, the cryptoasset reporting framework. Stablecoins are cryptoassets for the purposes of the legislation. They can be a specified electronic money product: they would meet that definition if they meet the criteria set out in the legislation. If they do, they will be reported under the common standard; if they do not, they will be reportable under the reporting framework. Clarification on these matters has been reflected in HMRC guidance and stems from the OECD FAQs on this area. I could talk about the extent to which tokenised financial products need to be reported under CARF, a position of which those involved with traditional financial products—TradFi, as I believe they are called by those in the game—have been aware for some time. We have engaged extensively with industry and with the OECD on the subject, and this has been reflected in HMRC guidance. Q uestion put and agreed to. Clause 272 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 273 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 274 Stamp duty: piloting of digital service etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In 1925?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses introduce the advance tax certainty service for major investment projects, which will be launched in July 2026. The service will provide a binding decision on how the UK’s tax rules will apply to a project before material investment has taken place. Clause 263 will give HMRC the power to issue decisions, known as clearances, about how corporation tax, VAT, stamp duty, PAYE and the construction industry scheme will apply to investors undertaking large investment projects in the UK. The threshold for investors to be accepted into the service is expenditure of £1 billion in the UK over the lifetime of a project. The clause confirms that the person undertaking the project, or a person who controls the project, such as a consortium member, joint venture partner or partner in a partnership that shares control, qualifies as an applicant. Clause 264 sets out the extent to which HMRC is bound to maintain the tax treatment agreed in the clearance for five years, unless material facts change. I should point out that the clearance will not be binding on the customer. The clause binds HMRC against changing its interpretation of the law, but not against a change in case law or the will of Parliament by changes in legislation. Clause 265 simply provides for advance tax clearances issued by HMRC to be extended past the initial five-year period. Clause 266 will provide for modification or revocation of an advance tax clearance issued by HMRC. Clause 267 will ensure that HMRC can request information from customers; it sets out the potential consequences of a clearance being revoked. Clause 268 will allow HMRC to revoke an advance tax clearance and charge a penalty in circumstances in which false or misleading information has been provided. Clause 269 will allow HMRC to publish notices governing the administration of the service. Clause 270 sets out that the Government may make adjustments by statutory instrument to ensure the effective functioning of the service. Finally, clause 271 sets out and defines certain terms used in the advance tax clearance provision. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause will improve the fiscal cycle in support of the Government’s commitment to having one major annual fiscal event. In line with recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund, the Office for Budget Responsibility will now assess the fiscal rules only once per year, at the Budget, when the Government will set out their fiscal strategy. That will help create a more predictable framework and strengthen economic and fiscal stability. The clause will reduce the minimum number of occasions on which the OBR must prepare an assessment of performance against the fiscal rules from two to one in each financial year. That will apply from the current financial year onwards. The OBR will continue to produce two five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances each year, but it will now be required to assess performance against the fiscal rules only at the autumn Budget. The spring forecast will now provide an interim update on the economy and public finances, and the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy, unless there is a significant change in economic conditions. Where there are small fluctuations between Budgets, it is right that the Government take fiscal decisions in the round only at the Budget. This will in no way impact the Government’s adherence to the fiscal rules, which remain iron-clad. They will continue to be assessed at every Budget and the Government will always meet them. To conclude, these changes, recommended by the IMF, align the fiscal framework with the Government’s commitment to hold a single major annual fiscal event. Taken together with the larger buffer against the fiscal rules at the last Budget, this measure will support stability for households and businesses right across the country.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 253 to 256 amend existing legislation to digitalise and improve the accuracy of tax reporting through HMRC’s Making Tax Digital for income tax programme. Clauses 257 and 258 make changes to enable HMRC to modernise how it communicates with customers digitally. Clauses 253 to 255 amend schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970 to support new digital record keeping and reporting obligations for sole traders and landlords who pay income tax. Clause 253 is a procedural one. It sets out some exemptions and defines key terms for later regulations. It clarifies that a “relevant person” is an individual with taxable income, a “relevant partnership” includes at least one individual partner, and “relevant activity” refers to business activities that may incur income tax. Clause 254 adds new powers for HMRC to create regulations for exemptions from Making Tax Digital for income tax. It allows HMRC to cancel existing requirements if an exemption is granted after the tax year has started and to issue directions enabling further exemptions. Clause 255 adds new powers for HMRC to make a certain set of regulations. Clause 256 is consequential to changes introduced in clause 255. Clause 257 will allow HMRC to move customers to digital by default more easily, and clause 258 enables HMRC to require digital contact details, such as email addresses or mobile phone numbers, from customers using HMRC digital services at secure digital touchpoints. These changes provide the legislative basis for the Making Tax Digital for income tax programme.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will do exactly that, although hon. Members will have to forgive me because I do not have the notes in front of me. It is right to say that promoter action notices are legal notices that require businesses to stop providing goods or services where those services are used in the promotion of avoidance. Of course, such a notice can be issued only in the case of a breach of a stop notice or if the prohibition on promoting tax avoidance—also included in the Bill—also applies. Question put and agreed to. Clause 156 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 157 to 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 163 Certification of promoters Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 252 and schedule 22 introduce new provisions for HMRC to acquire improved data from specific data holders to be used for risk assessment, tax administration and compliance. The improved data will help taxpayers to get their tax right first time while closing the tax gap. First, the clause and schedule will introduce standing reporting obligations, replacing the current manual notices issued to data holders. Secondly, they will increase the frequency and improve the timeliness with which data holders report data, bringing data reporting closer to real time so that HMRC can use it proactively to help customers get their tax right first time. Thirdly, they will standardise the format for how HMRC receives the data, reducing errors and improving efficiency when ingesting it into HMRC systems. Fourthly, they will place obligations on data holders to collect, verify and report specific tax identifiers, such as national insurance numbers, which will help HMRC to improve the amount of data that it can match to existing customer records. Fifthly, they will reform the penalty regime to ensure that data holders comply with their obligations. HMRC thinks that the measure will cost around £50 million to implement; however, the OBR has certified that it will raise £845 million in additional tax revenue from 2028 to 2031.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The impetus behind the series of changes made by these clauses is to implement the corporate tax road map, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary recognises, with the aim of supporting inward investment and helping investors to invest in the UK with confidence. As for the £1 billion threshold, the Government will assess the performance of the service when it has been in operation for one year and will consider lowering the threshold as part of that review. To answer the remainder of the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s questions directly, there is no limit on the number of extensions that can be sought or granted. Once again, he will be thrilled to know that—as is so often my answer to his questions—there is already draft guidance on gov.uk to add to the draft guidance that he has committed to reading this evening. Question put and agreed to. Clause 263 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 264 to 271 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 272 Cryptoasset reporting: users and controlling persons resident in the UK Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Maidenhead raises a series of important points on financial and digital inclusion, which are matters close to my heart. He will have spotted the publication of the financial inclusion strategy a couple of months ago, which I hope contains many measures that he welcomes on the matters he was raising. Older customers and those with certain disabilities are more likely to be digitally excluded or digitally assisted and may be disproportionately reliant on paper correspondence. Safeguards will be included to ensure that those groups can continue accessing paper communications if specifically needed, with a clear and simple opt-out process and ongoing support through non-digital channels. This measure is designed to target customers who are already using HMRC’s digital services, and it is important to important to bear that in mind. More broadly, HMRC’s customer service is improving. It is improving its IT systems and investing in the digital aspects, which have higher approval rates. As the Exchequer Secretary said earlier, some of these matters are trending in the right direction, albeit I accept that there is further to go. I welcome the support for these measures from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. I am sorry if I was not effusive enough for him; I shall be effusive now. He will be shocked to hear me reiterate that we keep all tax policy under review, and that statement continues to apply to the matters he raised in relation to this clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 253 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 254 to 258 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 259 Penalty points and late submission penalties (power to cancel etc)

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to clauses 259 to 262 in brief terms, and I will then speak to amendment 50. The clauses make changes to ensure that penalties are fairer and more proportionate across the tax system. They also make sure that HMRC is consistent when penalising late payment of amounts due, following the decision of a tribunal, and increase the penalties for taxpayers who are late in filing their corporation tax return. I welcome the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s support for these changes. He points out the unfairness now, but I gently say to him that the Conservatives did nothing to change the system to make it fairer during the 14 years that they had the opportunity to do so. He is right to say that moving to a points-based system is better: it ensures that those who make the occasional mistake do not face financial penalties, while those who persistently fail to meet obligations will still face them. Late payment penalties are more proportionate to the amount of tax owed and the time taken to pay. Amendment 50, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary outlined, seeks to stop customers being penalised for late filing, even if they do not have a tax liability. We reject that amendment. The late submission penalty regime is intended to underpin the legal obligation to submit returns on time, whether there is tax to be paid or not, and amendment 50 is entirely contrary to that intention. The tax return helps HMRC to administer the tax system effectively, and to protect the Exchequer from error and fraud. The late submission penalty regime already offers leniency for those occasionally submitting late, as they would receive a penalty point, rather than an immediate financial penalty. Customers who believe that they should not be in self-assessment should contact HMRC as soon as possible, so that they can be taken out of the system and avoid any unnecessary penalties. A question was raised about when lower income taxpayers will move into the system: it will apply to all taxpayers in IT self-assessment from the 2027-28 tax year. Clause 261 makes technical changes to ensure that HMRC is consistent when penalising late payment of amounts due, following the decision of a tribunal. It will enable a late payment penalty to be charged in the circumstances I have just described. That ensures that the consequences of not paying income tax or capital gains tax by the statutory due date are fair and consistent. Clause 262 will increase the penalties for taxpayers who are late in filing their corporation tax return for the first time since 1998, as part of the Government’s work to close the tax gap and make more money available to fund vital public services. Specifically, clause 262 will increase the flat-rate penalty for a company that fails to file its company tax return on time from £100 to £200. If the return is more than three months late, the flat-rate penalty of £200 will increase to £400, replacing the initial penalty. If there are three successive failures, the flat-rate penalties of £500 and £1,000 will be increased to £1,000 and £2,000 respectively. The clause also gives the Government the power to amend the penalties by regulation in future. I commend clauses 259 to 262 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the shadow City Minister’s point about people who are less au fait with digital means, I can reassure him that people will be able to provide information to HMRC in all the traditional ways. Indeed, the Exchequer Secretary referred earlier to some of the recent improvements that have been made to HMRC’s phone lines. With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, HMRC already receives bulk data from third parties, such as financial institutions, relating to interest-bearing products, and card sales data from card-acquiring services. This measure will improve and modernise the way HMRC acquires that data from third parties, and will have all the benefits I have just described. The Bill is clear that the improved data that HMRC will collect as a result of the measure will be strictly limited to the purposes for which it is necessary for HMRC to discharge its tax functions. He will know that HMRC has a statutory duty of confidentiality to protect taxpayers’ information. It can share data only where there is an express legal provision to do so provided by Parliament. As to the wider implication in the hon. Member’s question, I can assure him that the Government take data privacy extremely seriously. As such, this measure is compliant with all legal data obligations, and HMRC continues to work with the industry, and legal and data experts, to ensure that all relevant requirements are met.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s concern goes to the point that I have addressed twice now, once before lunch and once after. The measures are not intended to be directed at legitimate tax advisers who operate to a high standard but make a genuine mistake. By virtue of the consultations, the changes to the proposed legislation and the fact that detailed draft guidance will be issued, I hope that hon. Members will be comfortable with the intention behind the legislation and the impact that it will have.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 272 and 273 will make changes to ensure that HMRC receives information under the cryptoasset reporting framework from UK cryptoasset businesses about their UK-resident customers. This will streamline reporting for businesses, which will be able to use the same HMRC reporting portal for both their UK and non-UK resident customers. The changes made by clause 272 will require UK cryptoasset businesses to report data about their UK customers to HMRC in a consistent manner. That will streamline reporting and ensure that HMRC will have standardised data on all UK taxpayers in countries, including the UK, that have implemented the cryptoasset reporting framework. That data will consist of details of the taxpayer and aggregated data concerning their transactions involving cryptoassets. Clause 273 is a maintenance provision for clause 272 that allows the Treasury to lay further secondary legislation, if required, to maintain the domestic reporting legislation under the reporting framework. The clauses legislate to provide HMRC with reporting framework information on UK-resident customers reported by UK cryptoasset businesses, which will streamline reporting. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow City Minister gives voice to a legitimate concern, and I was about to come on to some of the ways we are tackling it. As I said before lunch, the Exchequer Secretary has asked HMRC officials to work with stakeholders in developing the fine detail everyone wants to see in the guidance on how this prohibition will work in practice. The power in clause 156 will allow HMRC to make regulations only where arrangements have been or are likely to be marketed, where they are unlikely to work and where they are likely to cause harm to taxpayers. That limits HMRC’s scope to proscribe arrangements. The power is not at all intended so that HMRC can ban advisers from recommending tax positions they think are right, based on all the facts of the law, but with which HMRC disagrees. On the consultation with industry, we have consulted extensively on these measures. What was originally described as the universal stop notice was introduced as part of a 12-week consultation by HMRC in March 2025. A further eight-week consultation was held on the draft legislation after it was published on L day. The initial consultation received 37 written responses from a range of stakeholders—primarily those in the tax and legal sectors—while a further 19 responses were received in response to the L day consultations. Importantly, three key changes were made in response to those stakeholder concerns, including the rule of law concerns given voice to by the Law Society regarding universal stop notices and giving HMRC legislative power that ultimately carries a criminal offence. That has evolved into the prohibition and the regulations that now require the approval of Parliament. In the light of stakeholder concerns around the threshold to issue regulations, HMRC introduced the taxpayer harms test to limit what arrangements are caught by the measure, ensuring that legitimate advisers are not in scope of the measure. The marketing test was originally drafted as “could be marketed”, but following consultation it was amended to “likely to be”, precisely to narrow the power.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the support from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for these measures. As I said—I will repeat it because we have all had lunch since—these clauses are about targeting those who continue to promote tax avoidance; they are very much not intended to be directed against legitimate tax advisers who operate to a high professional standard but who may, acting in good faith, make a genuine mistake.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 126 introduces two new criminal offences, to which we have already alluded, for possessing or transferring duty stamps in contravention of the scheme rules. Clause 127 introduces the two new criminal offences that I have just described, and sets out a defence for the purposes of those offences. Clause 128 introduces the power for a court to ban the sales of vaping products, along with an associated criminal offence for non-compliance with the order. Clause 129 sets the level of the penalty associated with the offences, according to the respective legal systems of the devolved nations. Clause 130 introduces additional powers to allow HMRC to enforce the new rules around vaping products by taking illicit products off shelves. In summary, the clauses represent a comprehensive suite of enforcement tools that support the Government to address the illegal trade and support the legitimate industry. I therefore urge that clauses 126 to 130 stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Exchequer Secretary raised a point about the strong penalties associated with the regime. I have already set out the Government’s aim: that the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill are deliberately tough and are aimed at being a strong deterrent. We believe that the strong penalties, including custodial sentences, are justified due to the size of the illicit vaping market in the UK. Indeed, that goes to the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about our assessment of the illicit market and the assessment of abuse. We understand that there is a large illicit market in this area. The powers are deliberately tough, with the aim of ensuring that there is no circumvention. I will now address the fair points that were made previously by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot and raised again in the context of these clauses. All prosecutions, as hon. Members will know, must meet the public interest test. The test that the Crown Prosecution Service must meet has two limbs: the evidential and public interest elements. Both limbs must be met for prosecutions to be brought. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot referred, fairly, to clause 126(3) and 127(3), which outline the defence that is applicable to both offences. As he helpfully mentioned, it is a defence for a person charged with offences under sections 126 and 127 to “prove that they did not know, suspect or have reason to suspect” that they were possessing or transferring a duty stamp that had not been affixed to a vaping product. In that regard, on the question about proof of knowledge, I return to the CPS’s test and to the burden of proof that applies in proceedings in the UK. Question put and agreed to. Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 127 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 131 Publication of information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Exchequer Secretary’s points about the criminal offences are similar to some of the points that were raised earlier in relation to other criminal offences set out in the Bill. I made the point in relation to those other offences, and I make it again here, about the standards that the CPS, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, has to meet in satisfying both the evidential test and the public interest test. I am not sure that I need to take up the invitation to liaise with the Law Officers in that regard. Questions were fairly raised about proportionality and the burden on businesses. The UK CBAM will operate like a conventional tax, in order to simplify the administrative and compliance burden for those who need to comply without, we think, undermining the environmental integrity of CBAM. However, the Government recognise that alignment with existing regimes—the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, referred to the EU CBAM and, indeed, to the ETS—can reduce administrative burdens, so where possible we will align with and build upon existing methodologies for calculating embodied emissions, as well as rules for monitoring reporting and verification under the ETS. As hon. Members know, CBAM is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts or a significant impact on prices for individuals, households and families. CBAM imports make up only around 1% of average UK industry input costs. Therefore, as the Exchequer Secretary said, the Government do not expect CBAM to have a material impact on food prices, and the impact on farmers would be modest. On the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s point about thresholds, the threshold will retain over 99% of CBAM imports while removing 80% of otherwise registrable businesses, and over 70% of those removed from CBAM altogether by the threshold will be micro, small and medium-sized businesses. Question put and agreed to. Clause 148 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 16 agreed to. Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 17 agreed to. Clause 150 Supplementary amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate your accommodation of the cold in the room, Sir Roger. I hope this afternoon proves that we can be both sartorially elegant and warm. Committee members may take their own view, but I look forward to this afternoon. Clauses 148 and 149 and schedules 16 and 17 provide the administrative and enforcement framework necessary to ensure the effective operation of CBAM. They ensure that CBAM can be administered properly by HMRC, complied with by businesses, and enforced where necessary. The clause introduces schedule 16, which makes detailed provision for the administration and enforcement of CBAM, including requirements for registration, accounting periods, CBAM returns, record keeping, payment deadlines, assessments, penalties and appeals. The schedule aligns CBAM administration with established HMRC processes where possible, helping to minimise additional burdens on businesses while ensuring robust compliance. Clause 149 introduces schedule 17, which provides for criminal offences relating to CBAM. Those offences apply in serious cases, such as deliberate evasion or fraudulent behaviour, and mirror existing approaches taken elsewhere in the tax system. The inclusion of criminal offences ensures that appropriate deterrents are in place, protecting the integrity of the regime and ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses. Together, clauses 148 and 149 provide the necessary administrative and enforcement backbone for CBAM. They ensure that the regime is credible, enforceable and fair, while giving HMRC the tools it needs to administer CBAM effectively. I commend the clauses and schedules 16 and 17 to the Committee.