Commons Chamber

Wednesday 1st July 2026

(began 2 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
None Portrait Prime Minister's Question Time
-

12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister? >> Mr. speaker, what they did was to cut defence spending when they came into power. Defence spending was 2.5%. What did they do? They cut it to 2.3%. They cut. But on welfare what did they do? They put it up by £88 billion. So we'll take no lectures from them about welfare or defence. This is £15 billion of new investment for defence delivered outside of the Budget, outside of a spending review, Mr. Speaker, that's about £1 billion a year over four years.

Because of the decisions at the last Budget, we've had headroom of £22 billion. That is precisely so we can take decisions like this. We delivered it outside a Budget, outside a spending review, just like we did with the special educational needs, outside the Budget, outside of spending review, just like the previous government did. Mr. speaker, when they announced their five year NHS plan in 2018. Outside a Budget, outside a spending review. And what did they say when they were challenged about it? Mr.

speaker, I'll quote. We will be able to explain exactly where every penny is coming from, but we will do that in the Budget. That was the former health secretary, then the Chancellor, when they published their integrated defence review in 2020. What did they do? They said the funding of the next spending review. So let's drop the faux outrage. Focus on what matters. The bigger sustained increase. For 40 years, the biggest increase for 45 years, providing what is needed to keep the country safe.
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Israel’s planned illegal expansion in the E1 zone in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Israel's planned illegal expansion in the E1 zone in the occupied Palestinian territories.
12:42
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Minister. government firmly opposes the E1 settlement plan. It would divide the West Bank in two and mark a serious breach of international law. The Prime Minister led 11 other world leaders in a joint statement last month that condemned the E1 plans, urged the Israeli government to end settlement expansion and warned businesses of legal and reputational consequences of participating in construction in E1 and other settlements. We are clear. Businesses should not bid for construction tenders in E1 or other settlements.

We are deeply alarmed by the situation in the West Bank. Illegal settlements continue to expand. Settler violence remains at record levels, and the Israeli government has further entrenched its control. Last month, the Foreign Secretary announced further sanctions in response to that violence in the West Bank. That is the fourth package under this government. We welcome the condemnation of settler violence at the highest levels of Israeli society. Now Israel must conduct swift and transparent investigations into these attacks and ensure accountability.

The Foreign Secretary also announced that we have updated our business guidance to clearly advise British businesses and citizens not to engage in economic and financial activity in settlements. We have been concerned by efforts to advertise settlement property in the UK and by reports of charitable links between the UK and settlements. I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority and spoken to the Charity Commission on these issues, but I want to reassure the House, Mr. Speaker, that whilst these trends in the West Bank continue to worsen, we will continue to take steps to ensure no one can profit from the sale of land that has been taken unlawfully, that violent settlers are held to account that the British government stands up for the rule of law, the right of Palestinians to self-determination and for the prospects for peace and security through a two state solution.

We are in discussion with partners, including discussions with those few countries who have explored how bans to settlement trade might work. We are looking at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and to promote peace and security. It is only through a negotiated two state solution, not unilateral action, that a viable path to long term peace can be achieved. That must be a path that guarantees security to both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
12:45
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
-
-
Matt Western. >> Matt Western. >> Mr. speaker, just yesterday, the Israeli Land Authority published new dates for the tenders for the new dates for the tenders for the construction of the proposed E1 settlement zone in the West Bank. The bidding period for the tender ends in October, and once the contracts have been awarded, it will become impossible to stop E1. So, Mr. Speaker, why is E1 so critical? Because the proposed settlement would absolutely and permanently destroy any prospect of a true two state solution.

It is a large area of land which would split the West Bank from north to south, severing connections between Palestinian communities and East Jerusalem, while forcibly transferring 7000 Palestinians itself a war crime under the Rome Statute. A few of us visited just four weeks ago. We saw first hand the accelerated pace at which Israel is expanding its illegal settlements. A massive 2000 housing units have been approved just since that visit, according to the United Kingdom chargé d'affaires to the UN on Monday.

It is clear Israel is systematically and deliberately doing all it can to make a two state solution impossible, and its impunity must end. Mr. speaker, will the Minister today make categorically clear that any businesses, organisations, including financial and insurance institutions or individuals that participate in or facilitate the construction of the E1 zone will be sanctioned and not allowed to trade and do business here with with the UK and legislate accordingly as a matter of urgency. Secondly, I, alongside 139 parliamentary colleagues, have urged the Minister to end all trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Can I once again urge the Minister to implement a full ban and suspend the FTA with Israel, based on continued violations of human rights and the prospect of this development? Mr. speaker, Palestine is fracturing before our eyes. Our intelligence can see this. The international community must stop. E1.
12:47
12:48
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
Wendy Morton Shadow Minister. >> Wendy Morton Shadow Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will directly address the matter of settlements in just a moment, but I settlements in just a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. That is that diplomacy is about rolling up your sleeves. It's putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. So I do believe if the Minister wants to have a real sway with the government of Israel, then there has to be a meaningful dialogue.

But at the moment, there is no dialogue between this Labour government and Israel. Despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains. That is because of the decisions Labour has made from suspending export licences. When Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks, to recognising a Palestinian state while hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity, and by deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze. Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground.

Nonetheless, let me say that settlement expansion in the West Bank is not helpful for achieving the long term peace we all want to see, and that has long been my party's position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to really bear down on settler violence. We on these benches do support a two state solution, one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. So today, I'd like to ask the Minister if he can tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the situation.

Is the government doing anything at all to help the Abraham Accords expand or to unblock issues, holding up a broader regional peace? And finally, can you update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority's plan to hold elections in November, and whether he is concerned by the PA's lack of progress on the total overhaul of curriculums and welfare policy that is so clearly needed.
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:42
13:42
13:43
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Flood Insurance: Reforming Flood Re
-

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the reforms flood. We are announcing today with support of this government. These changes will ensure that flood Re remains fair, sustainable and focussed on those who need it the most while supporting a transition to a more resilient insurance market by 2039. Flood risk unites members across this House. We all recognise the devastating impact flooding has on people and communities, and the importance of having access to affordable insurance.

That is why this government has put a record amount of investment into flood protections and simplified the funding rules. This year alone, we unlock £1.4 billion to enhance flood resilience across England, funding more than 600 projects and better protecting more than 70,000 properties from the devastating impacts of flooding. But despite this record investment, flooding is an ever increasing risk. Flood re was established to manage a transition to prices that better reflect underlying flood risk and promote affordability and availability of insurance.

And since its launch, Flood Re has been a big success and is a strong example of government and industry working together to address systemic risk. A partnership that started to be strengthened under a Labour government after the 2007 floods now flood re works by receiving a subsidy paid for by households that buy insurance. That money is then used to purchase insurance, so households who wouldn't be able to get insurance in an open market have affordable premiums. But the context in which it operates has changed.

Rising claims, higher reinsurance costs and more properties being identified at risk are placing increased pressure on the scheme. We now have a perverse system where money collected from all insurance customers, from all parts of the country, from all income brackets, is flowing to the richest households in the country. That is not fair and it needs to change. In the last three of the four years, Flood Re has spent more repairing homes in the most expensive council tax bands of G and H, which make up less than 4% of homes in UK homes than it has spent in repairing homes in bands A and B, which make up around 45% of homes.

An example shows why change is necessary. In 2025, a property near a river was flooded, resulting in a claim cost to flood re of over £3 million. The property had very limited flood resilience measures in place, and the claim covered extensive restoration costs including a quad garage, an indoor swimming pool, a Jacuzzi and gym, a music room and den, a machinery storage unit, an outdoor astroturf padel court and a five a side football pitch. It is, of course, right that all properties are insured, but without reforms, a flood re.

We will continue to have a system where the average and low income households are subsidising flood insurance for the richest households in the country. That is why reforming flood re is needed not to set a new policy direction, but to restore it to its original purpose. And that's what we're doing. So first flood, we will work with insurers to reform its premium model to support is better targeted flood. We aim to make premiums as fair as possible across different council tax bands, regions and areas.

Second, Flood Re will introduce a cap on the claims insurers can pass to flood Re, limiting payouts to an agreed level with insurance companies, of course covering the remainder. And that will be worked out with flood re and insurers. And third, I have spoken to people who have lost everything through flooding and been unable to afford contents insurance. So I am delighted that flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges insurers for contents only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year from April 2027.

This government is restoring fairness. We are making insurance affordable and we are helping with the cost of living pressure. And finally, flood re will improve efficiency, make a better use of its resources, reduce reliance on costly reinsurance while maintaining financial resilience. But to protect all homes from ongoing flood risk, we need more than just flood insurance and flood defences. We need individual homes to become more flood resilient. That is why Flood Re will also work with insurers and lenders to introduce flood performance certificates, helping households better understand their flood risk and ensuring that if they take actions to make their homes more resilient, it is reflected in the cost of their premiums, and this builds on the work of the recommendations in the report.

Flood re will also strengthen incentives for Build Back Better. A UK home insurance sector initiative which, instead of simply restoring a home to the condition exactly as it was before, allows an additional £10,000 as part of the insurance claim to improve the flood resilience of the home. These reforms will be implemented from 2028, with the reduction in contents premium for bands A and B taking effect from April 27th and flood. We will keep the scheme's eligibility criteria under review, including how it applies to leaseholders.

So under this government, more homes are better protected from flooding than they were when we came into government. Our country will become more resilient to flooding as homes are incentivised to take action with flood performance certificates, and the 45% of people living in average and low income households will now be able to afford to protect their homes from the devastation of flooding. This is the difference a Labour government makes and I commend this statement to the House.
13:49
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister for Ashley Fox. And can I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement? I'd also like to thank her for the recent conversations we've had about flooding in Somerset. Flooding is a huge challenge for areas around the country. 6.3 million properties in England are currently located in areas at risk of flooding, including many in my own constituency. When floods occur, the Environment Agency, local volunteer groups and farmers work to help people quickly, often in difficult circumstances.

I was humbled and deeply proud to see the way the community pulled together in affected areas in flooding earlier this year, particularly in moorland and fordgate. So the Minister knows how seriously I take flooding and has engaged with me, following my requests for stronger national support, clearer local responsibilities, more dredging and improving pumping capacity. The last conservative government took real action to prevent flooding and protect homes and businesses. That ensured that over 600,000 properties were better protected from flooding and coastal erosion.

And between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 acres of farmland were protected. In 2020, the last government announced a doubling of capital capital funding into flood defences in England to £5.6 billion from 2021 to 27. Flood ray was set up under the former conservative government and remains an important scheme to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance for eligible homes. Flood Rees recent accounts report contains serious warnings for Ministers. Flood is clear. Environment has changed materially with higher climate driven loss, volatility, tighter global reinsurance capacity and greater pressure on affordability, it says the scheme is now retaining higher levels of risk and facing increased liability exposure, and at the same time, flood.

Ray warns that the scheme is under structural pressure. Its board has said that improved flood mapping has led to more properties being classified as high risk, including a growing number of higher value homes, and that without change, the scheme risks are being asked to carry unsustainable levels of exposure and cost. So please, will the Minister explain what steps she is taking so that flood risk growing pressures don't result in additional costs for households through higher insurance bills? Will Ministers bring forward a credible long term flood resilience plan? Will she say whether the government has plans to include businesses in flood? Ray? What assessment has the department made of the impact of these changes on households who are asset rich but income poor, including pensioners living in higher band homes in flood risk areas? Now, in her statement, the Minister said flood ray will reform its premium model across council tax bands and regions.

So will she publish the modelling behind those changes, including regional impacts, so households can see what this means for them. Flood performance certificates may help households understand risk, but will she confirm who will pay for them? Will they be mandatory and will they affect mortgage availability? Flood ray has done valuable work, but households continue to need affordable insurance. They also need a government that is serious about flood prevention, resilient homes and long term protection for communities. On this side of the House, we will always work with the government to ensure that every person living in a property vulnerable to flooding gets the support they need.
13:53
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman and I >> I thank the hon. Gentleman and I recognise his commitment to flood protection and reference he made to the meeting that we had, where we the meeting that we had, where we discussed the £50 million that we're putting into Somerset because of the very particular landscape and challenges that Somerset has, and he's right to highlight the accounts that flood we have produced and quite rightly, without reform and without change, we would be in a poor situation now.

Flood re has been an amazing success, but to continue for the next ten years it needs to have change. And that's why those changes I mentioned where we're looking at targeting for those who need it the most by looking at introducing that cap, making it cheaper contents cover for lower council tax bands, but also the work on the premium model. One of the other changes, which is probably not as eye catching, but it's allowing access to some of its trapped capital to make reinsurance costs cheaper.

All of these reforms that flood we are introducing are there to ensure that it's sustainable, and it keeps going. There are, and in terms of continuing our support for flood protection, he'll know that we've put the most money any government has ever put ever into flood protection. So £10.5 billion committed for the next ten years. There are no current plans to include businesses because, as I say, it works on levying every insurance company. So if you were to look at including businesses, you would be levying every business in the country to to pay for it.

And in terms of how we can look at those people in those top council tax bands, that's why we're looking at the flood performance certificates. So if they can take action to improve the resilience of their home, it's reflected in their premiums. We're doing some pilots and I'm being pushing insurance companies and others to get these pilots out the door as quickly as possible. But we're also looking not just at the top and top council tax bands, but also people in social housing as well.

To see how flood performance certificates could could work. And then in terms of flood re and sort of when are these changes going to take place? Contents. Insurance changes take place from 27. But in terms of putting the cap, it's from 2028. So up until that period, Flood Re is going to be doing extensive engagement with insurers and with other people to make sure that they're setting the affordable limit. But this is all about ensuring that flood Re is there for the next ten years.
13:55
13:56
13:57
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of her statement. While we Liberal Democrats support the flood Re Democrats support the flood Re scheme and the protection it provides, we are concerned that the package still risks falling short in a few ways. We agree it cannot be right for lower income households to subsidise the most expensive properties. Targeting support more fairly is overdue, but fairness must also mean reducing costs at source, and that means a far stronger focus on protection.

We are still spending billions reacting to floods rather than systematically reducing risk. Flood risk future must be tied more clearly to resilient homes, sustainable drainage and a planning system that stops putting people in harm's way in the first place. That includes progressing schemes like Guildford flood alleviation scheme more quickly through greater government support, which will protect homes and unlock sustainable brownfield development. Without doing this, we're merely rearranging who pays for failure the proposals on flood performance certificates and Build Back Better are welcome, but remain incremental.

We need a step change, embedding resilience upgrades as standard, ensuring insurers reward households that act and bring lenders fully into that framework. Serious gaps also remain. Millions are excluded from flood re, including many leaseholders and those in homes built after 2009. And if we're serious about fairness, those gaps need to be addressed. Finally, the transition to risk reflective market by 2039 cannot simply mean a cliff edge and higher premiums to those most exposed. Reform is needed, but it must be matched with ambition.

Fairness, resilience and prevention must go hand in hand. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
13:58
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. And she's quite right to say that we need to take action to say that we need to take action on risk of flooding. I mean, that is why this government is putting in the most money any government has ever put into flood protection and taking action against flooding. In the first year of government, we delivered 151 flood schemes, better protecting more than 24000 homes. And this was after we put £108 million into maintenance to restore and repair some of our poorer condition.

Many of our flood defences were in. We're also putting money into natural flood management again, the most money any government has ever put into natural flood management. So £300 million and we've put in another £30 million for coastal adaption. And we performed the flood funding formula to ensure that it gives deprivation weighting to ensure that communities who are most affected by flooding and least able to recover have more support and a total funding of £91 million into internal drainage boards. So I think we've ticked the box when it comes to has this government put its money where its mouth is in terms of protecting our country from flooding, and we've not only done that, we've not only done that, everyone, we've also looked at looking at sustainable urban drainage system.

We're looking at introducing flood performance certificates to Wycombe homes that become more resilient to flooding. And we're looking at a fundamental change to the way we address resilience and flooding as a country. And I also want to put on record that, yes, when flooding happens, the people that go out there and do the work in the communities, the local people, the Environment Agency, and of course, all the emergency services deserve our absolute defence because the only thing I cannot protect this country against, and that is climate change, right?
14:00
14:01
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know how much he cares about this issue, and indeed, cares about this issue, and indeed, we've been to visit some of the areas in his constituency that have been flooded. And I remember prior been flooded. And I remember prior to the election, the devastating loss he had in his constituency and how he was out there on the front line, helping to lead some of that, that flood recovery work. And so in terms of how this will impact, obviously, flood really needs to work really carefully with insurers.

It's why we've sort of said we'll introduce the cap by 2028 to enable them to have that time to work through it carefully and properly. And it is that issue around around fairness. I mean, council tax band G and H are 4%, but yet they're making up 20% of the risk to claims on on flood re at the moment. But of course we want to do this in conjunction with them piloting the flood performance certificates, I think will be so important.

And that has to be done hand in hand with insurance, because what we want to be able to say to people is to incentivise them, to say, if you take action to improve your home, make it more resilient to flooding, you will be rewarded with lower premiums. So you're trying to encourage people where they can to do the right thing, while recognising there are people at other end of the scale. Some of the people that we've seen and seen in his constituency who simply are unable, for various reasons, to take actions to improve the resilience of their own, of their own property.

So it's all about keeping it in balance. Dave Harriett Baldwin.
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:19
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
Caroline Johnson Portrait Points of Order Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
That is the. >> That is the. >> End of. >> The statement on flood insurance reform in flood risk. Point of order, Doctor Caroline Johnson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order, Doctor Caroline Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 15th of October 2024, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, and I quote, The government are committed as we were in opposition to doubling the number of medical school places on the 22nd of April 2026. In a Westminster Hall debate, the current Minister for primary care said, and I quote, yes, it is still our intention to double the number of medical school places. However, on the 27th of April, some five days later, the Minister of Primary Care issued a somewhat bizarre ministerial correction.

He said, and I quote, The government have never committed to doubling medical school places. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, given this has been said by so many members of the government before the election and by the Secretary of former Secretary of State at Redditch Dispatch Box in this House, how can that be accurate? I raised it at health Bill Committee last week with the the Minister of State for for Secondary Care. But still, there has never been no response. How can I establish if this was if this was indeed.

Well, we know it was indeed. But if this is still still. Indeed, government policy. The honourable.
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
comes the issue of actually getting to the hospitals and healthcare centres. Bus services in my North centres. Bus services in my North Cornwall constituency are few and far between, to put it mildly, and the transport network lacks direct bus services from every single one of my major towns to their nearest of my major towns to their nearest district hospitals. Due to Barnstable Hospital, 5 to 6 hour Barnstable Hospital, 5 to 6 hour round trip. Three buses Bodmin to Treliske four hour round trip, two buses and a lengthy train journey launched into Plymouth.

Four hour round trip. Three buses Wadebridge to Treliske. Five hour round trip. Camelford to Treliske six hour round trip. And that's not to mention my many villages across north Cornwall who even have worse bus connectivity. To access her 20 minute chemotherapy appointment, one constituent was forced to travel from due to Derriford Hospital, which is a three hour round trip even by car. She did that journey every day for three weeks. Another constituent undertook a 120 mile round trip up to Tiverton last week, only to be told the appointment had been cancelled.

When she got there, the hospital told her this was down to staff shortages due to sickness. But why was there no adequate cover in place for vital appointments like these? Staff shortages due to sickness caused major problems for my constituents in London last summer when, during the peak tourist season, the town's MoU had to close its doors again due to staff shortages. But in this case, the shortages came from just one staff member being off sick. The remaining staff were then distributed to other areas, none of which are described as being nearby.

Leaving my constituents and North Cornwall visitors travelling much, much further to access minor injury treatment and that's if they are able to travel at all. Many told me during that time they had vital aid administered at home. Instead of being seen by a healthcare professional. Another area my constituents have urged me to raise today is the lack of dementia care. Despite having one of the oldest populations of the UK, Cornwall sadly ranks among the lowest capacity for dementia care due to its lack of specialist care, home beds and community support.

As one of the worst affected areas. Cornwall, comparatively, has less than half the number of specialist care home beds per 100,000 people than Surrey. As an example, this is for a population where around 1 in 3 people in Cornwall are over the age of 70. On a personal note, my own grandmother suffered from dementia towards the end of her life, and my father and I shared the care for her in the final years. Through this experience, I saw firsthand how dedicated those care home and medical staff were, but how dangerously overstretched they were, too.

Had I not gone in to feed her every evening, she wouldn't have eaten. And for those dementia patients interacting with the rest of our creaking health system, the situation gets even worse. One constituent with advanced dementia fell and sustained a head injury. After an hour long journey to their nearest major hospital, he was forced to wait outside in an ambulance for over eight hours. During this time, he was brought in for an assessment and then taken back outside again. As night fell, he became became more confused, more agitated.

His family had no choice but to take him home to Launceston without blood tests, without confirming the suspected brain bleeding, no testing and no treatment. And on the subject of waiting times, those suffering from mental health issues in Cornwall can be stuck on referral waiting lists for months and months and when they reach crisis point, their options are limited, with some of those attending their local urgent treatment centres or miss in rural areas like mine, where people can be extremely isolated from others, their mental health can really suffer.

Our farmers, in particular are facing a mental health epidemic at the moment. In Cornwall, mental health patients can be sent from one end of the Duchy to the other, or even to another end of other end of the country, driven miles and miles from their families and support systems even further isolated. This is often the case, and one constituent attended my surgery just last week. Madam Deputy Speaker, waiting 313 days for accommodation back near his family. I urge the government to ensure that Rurality is factored into their ongoing mental health consultation.

As part of that ten year health plan commitment. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I come to one of the most pressing issues for my constituents affecting all ages, and that's a complete and total lack of NHS dentists in North Cornwall. This massive issue puts a major strain on our major hospitals, but it also has a serious knock on effect when those same patients visit their local MRU with serious dental problems. And that's not to mention the huge pressure on A&E if they can get their.

As part of the strategy required by this bill, I'd like to please ask the government to address the chronic lack of NHS dentistry in rural areas. We know that the NHS dental contract needs urgent reform, but would the government also look at stopping Icbs handing back unused ring fenced funding, like the unspent £1.2 million recently handed back by Cornwall's ICB? All of the issues I've raised today affect literally thousands of my constituents. They've paid their taxes and National Insurance contributions for decades.

They've put their faith in a national health service, and they've been very badly let down when they needed it the most. What I've described today sounds like the sort of access to healthcare, which would shock us if we were looking at third world country. But sadly, that's the reality. My constituents face Madam Deputy Speaker with seemingly no help on the way for healthcare transport. Both the Government and Cornwall Council tell me regularly there is no money available for any more buses, even if those routes are a matter of life or death.

I do want to make it clear. However, I of course recognise the absolutely incredible and tireless work of our nurses, doctors and other staff at our hospitals and medical facilities. They work under incredibly stressful environments and stretched resources, dealing with patients that have been let down by the system itself. But more effort must be put in by this government for recruitment and retention of MCU staff, including expanding key worker housing for MCU nurses, which seems to be a key reason why Cornwall is failing to attract a workforce, further exacerbating our closure problems.

From the constant short staffing, our local GP surgeries are also experiencing enormous pressure placed on them during these MCU closures, and I appreciate the Minister in her place has helped me and my constituents in finally securing a desperately needed new GP surgery building in Bodmin, but unfortunately, that battle continues and I will be coming back to the Minister to get some further assistance with that. We've been needing help, we've been needing funding and we've been needing more support in North Cornwall for decades, but we haven't just sat by and waited for it not to come.

Our amazing volunteers and their excellent initiatives have demonstrated we can offer real value for money and great healthcare outcomes, even compared to more urban areas. Barry Cornelius runs a pioneering healthcare transport system. SIM Downing and many others run amazing memory cafes and mental health charity Man Down provide excellent mental health services, with countless others filling in those service gaps. Staffed by incredible volunteers. To end, I'd ask the government to set out for my constituents in writing how this government plans to ensure minimum staffing levels at MCU and urgent treatment centres in rural areas like North Cornwall, and to let them know exactly how they'll expand the provision of these medical facilities for rural areas that need them most.

I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill to the House. Thank you. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as I say, I, as many of that opinion say I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Andrew George. Steff Aquarone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew George. Steff Aquarone. Joshua Reynolds. Ian Roome. Edward Morello. Rachel Gilmour. Danny Chambers. Layla Moran David Chadwick. Freddie van Mierlo Charlie Maynard and myself. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Orfhlaith Orfhlaith Begley. Orfhlaith Begley. Yeah, Orfhlaith Begley. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Orfhlaith Begley. Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Medical services, rural areas. Bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday the 16th of October 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 16th of October 2026. Do the frontbenchers wish to shuffle over? Right. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Supply and appropriation. Main estimates.
14:38
14:38
14:38
None Portrait Legislation: Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill: all stages
-

bill. Second Reading. >> Now a Minister to move. Second Reading. Minister. Rachel Blake.
14:39
Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
>> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be now read a second time. The conflict in the Middle East has left British families and businesses exposed to volatile gas prices, which has made it more expensive for those that drive for work, including care workers. And even though much of the country's electricity comes from cheaper renewables and nuclear electricity, prices are still largely set by gas, which means that running a wash, turning the lights on or boiling the kettle have also become more costly for families across the UK.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in May, the government is keenly aware of the costs like these that the conflict in the Middle East will impose on British people, and this government has taken steps to put our economic security and national security first. The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses, to be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. Madam Deputy Speaker, some legacy renewable energy generators stand to benefit from a disparity when higher gas prices determine the price of electricity without any new costs or risks, these generators receive extraordinary revenues.

The electricity generator levy already recouped some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when electricity prices are over £82.61 per megawatt hour. But the government has decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from today, the 1st of July. This rate rise will have two main benefits. It will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to government, which provides a vital revenue stream so that money is available for government to support businesses and families.

With the impact of the conflict in the Middle East in the longer term, the increase in the rate will also encourage participation in the new Voluntary Contracts for difference scheme, announced in April as part of a broader package of measures to break the link between electricity and gas prices. Importantly, new investment is excluded from the levy, ensuring the measure is targeted solely at legacy windfall returns and does not deter future clean energy development. Madam Deputy Speaker In March, the government announced a review of mileage rates for employees using their own vehicle for work and the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates in recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the effects of the conflict in the Middle East.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced in May the 1st uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026 2027 from 45 to £0.55 for the first 10,000 miles and £0.25

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thereafter, with effect from the 6th of April 2026. On that point. I will give way on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way on that. I thank my hon. Friend and an. Excellent speech. This is fantastic news, if I may say, for my constituents, for my farmers and of course, for businesses as well. Does she welcome the statement from Does she welcome the statement from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, who said that increasing the rates on said that increasing the rates on the approved mileage allowance payments is absolutely the right thing to be doing right now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention. And I his thoughtful intervention. And I absolutely do agree that this will make a real difference to those workers who are who are driving for workers who are who are driving for their work, and I think that this is a long overdue measure, and I'm very happy to be putting forward very happy to be putting forward this bill today. These proposals will represent the largest ever will represent the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6000 business miles.

Looking ahead and beyond 2026 2027, the government has already committed to a review of these rates and will set this out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the Budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, recognising the key role the road recognising the key role the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and their disproportionate exposure and their disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The government is is introducing a 12 month holiday from introducing a 12 month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles majority of heavy goods vehicles for licences taken out between the 1st of July 2026 today and the 30th of June 2027.

This will save a typical HGV £600 on top of savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs and this action will help prevent cost pressures from the conflict in the Middle East spreading across the spreading across the economy. These announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists £0.11 per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV compared to previous plans.

For these reasons, I commend this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House. The question is that the Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time and I call the Shadow Minister. James one. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I know this legislation. Is fast tracked for. The Minister did rattle through very rapidly, so I will seek to follow rapidly, so I will seek to follow her lead as best I can. It's a pleasure to be debating the Second Reading and the measures around Reading and the measures around increasing the Electricity Generator Levy, increasing the mileage allowance and the 12 month HGV holiday, and we are broadly supportive of the measures. However, we must consider the wider context
14:45
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
in which we are debating this, and the energy price cap has increased the energy price cap has increased by £0.13 per cent today. Inflation is well above target. Economic is well above target. Economic inactivity is rising. We have high borrowing costs and taxes are at record levels and set to go higher. record levels and set to go higher. Higher and sadly, growth is non-existent. And these can't all non-existent. And these can't all be blamed on the conflict in the Middle East.

So it's little wonder that this zombie government is under pressure to show it has a plan for energy costs. Business costs and the strain on ordinary family finances. And given the title of the bill, people might expect that there would be ambitious measures within it to deliver cheaper energy for consumers and businesses to make our economy more competitive, to unwind the bills, levies and targets increasing costs. But there are not. Instead, this is a small package of measures with no serious plan to ease the burden.

Happy to. shadow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister for giving way. He speaks of the need for ambition, but does he not agree with me that there is little more ambition than break, more ambitious than breaking the link between the cost of gas and electricity is so many of our constituents have called on us to do in recent months.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do in recent months. Well. I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I'll come on to that shortly. But I just note on to that shortly. But I just note that the Energy Secretary, when he had the opportunity to really break that link, backed away from doing so. So whilst this measure does so in a limited way, it doesn't do the ambitious reforms which could have been taken by the Energy Secretary and the energy, the Electricity Generator Levy. I'm sure the PSE wants to intervene if he's allowed, was introduced by the previous government in 2023 as a temporary windfall tax, applying to revenue above the benchmark price, and this was a short term response to exceptional circumstances, and it's due to end in 2028.

So what does the government propose to increase the rate from 45 to 55% and extending 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 says to the point the hon. Gentleman has raised the increased rates will support 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, therefore accepting them is unknown and in question, and the value for money to taxpayers is also yet to be proven. Will the current Energy Secretary still be in post to oversee those reforms? We all sincerely hope he will not be in the Treasury. So in the wind up, could the Minister provide an update on when the consultation on those 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.

And the government has said its intention is to extend the levy beyond 2028, but with no clarity on when it will end. The government doesn't know how long it wants to last, and has said that there will be further legislation on this point. The Exchequer Secretary, in the debate on the resolutions last week said this was something the government is considering hardly a robust approach when you're bringing legislation before the House. Indeed, it seems like a hasty measure in order to give the Chancellor something to announce, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee previously recommended that full 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 will require the government to come forward before the due end date of March 2028, to say whether they think the levy should continue. There's also an absence of any publicly available costings on the measures, and that's true for all of the measures. Yet this House is being asked to approve an indefinite extension. When the levy was first introduced, the OBR predicted a 2.3 revenue raising, but the outturn in 2020 425 was only £700 million.

And this matters because part of the rationale for the higher levy is generating revenues to support businesses and households. And what measures is the Minister proposing on that? Surely not the Thorpe Park VAT cut, because that's being funded by the changes to corporation tax. So perhaps he can enlighten us on what other benefit the consumers, my constituents are getting from this tax and this levy needs to be seen in the context of a government that promised to reduce energy bills by £300 when they have increased by around that amount.

And that's what happens when you don't have a plan. We would cut bills for businesses and consumers through our cheaper energy plan, taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax, axing legacy subsidies and backing the North Sea to get drilling. The second measure around the increased mileage payments to £0.55 for 10,000 business miles is something that we support. It's right that those workers, including carers who are using their own vehicles for work, should not be left to absorb the rising costs.

The measures backdated to the start of the financial year. Can the Minister in wind up give a guarantee that HMRC will not be pursuing anyone for any income tax or National Insurance contributions that may otherwise have arisen on payments made before the legislation taking effect? The increase, of course, only applies to the first 10,000 miles. And the Minister, again, when we debated the resolution, said that the government did consider an increase in the £0.25 rate, but it did not represent good value for money.

If Ministers accept the £0.45 rate needed to be increased, could the Minister explain how they justify leaving the longer distance rate untouched at £0.25? And, as has been said out, this is the first increase for some time. And that raises the question of how, going forward, we can avoid such a long period between increases. And I accept that indexation would be complicated. But what commitments will the Minister make to regularly review this? And mileage is an important part of motorists costs.

But of course, the bigger impact comes from fuel duty. And at the last Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to scrap both the 15 year freeze and the £0.05 cut that we put in place. It was only after pressure from this side of the House. The Chancellor made a U-turn, but it was only partial. Those costs are going to start hitting in from as soon as January. For the logistics sector, who pay £5.4 billion in fuel duty, a one p increase a litre would increase the cost by nearly £83 million.

Perhaps the new Chancellor will recognise the folly of this approach and reverse the plans they inherit. Finally, we welcome the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. That duty had been frozen since 2014 until Labour came into office, but it's for a year from today that HGV will pay just £1, and that will be a significant saving to the sector. But the government must recognise the full scale of pressures facing hauliers and accept responsibility for the pressures that it's added to.

Where the Chancellor didn't have to, increasing business rates, transport, taxes and fuel duty, and more than 95% of road haulage firms are small businesses with very small margins. So any increase in costs is a challenge. The government says that this measure will save £600 for a typical lorry, £900 for the largest vehicles at its peak. Filling a HGV costs more than £1,000. So is this helpful? Yes. Is it markedly so? Not really. So taken together, these measures reveal a government reaching for short term fixes while avoiding the harder questions on the generator levy.

They're demanding higher taxes without certainty or proper costings, all while displaying a lack of urgency at the reform to decouple energy prices. Mileage allowances are a partial change while leaving high mileage workers behind, and the vehicle excise duty is a temporary relief without a plan for what comes next. So we welcome these measures as far as they go, but they've not been brought forward by choice but forced by the consequences of the Chancellor's decisions. Taxes remain at record highs set to go higher, costs continue to rise and growth has stalled.

Against that backdrop, these measures offer very limited relief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Order! I will now announce the result of today's deferred divisions on the Employment Tribunal. Extension of time limits, miscellaneous amendments and Transitional amendments and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026. The eyes with 323. The nose were 107 to eyes with 323. The nose were 107 to the eyes. Have it on the employment tribunals extension of jurisdiction. tribunals extension of jurisdiction. England and Wales Amendment Order 2026. The eyes with 318. The nose were 107. So the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. I now come to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, Daisy Cooper. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We Liberal Democrats support all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We Liberal Democrats support all three measures in this bill on the Electricity Generator Levy. We recognise that this measure is recognise that this measure is intended to encourage legacy renewable generators to move away from volatile wholesale electricity from volatile wholesale electricity prices and on to contracts for difference. As the only party to put in their manifesto, the put in their manifesto, the commitment to decoupling gas and electricity, we support this objective from the government. If it succeeds, consumers will benefit from greater protection against future gas price shocks and the volatility that we've seen in recent years.

But if the measure does not achieve that behavioural change and instead primarily generates additional revenue, then I believe that Parliament and the public deserve clarity about how that money will be used. So as the bill progresses through this House, I hope that Ministers will say a word or two about how they intend to report to this House on the amount of money that this levy raises, and how, indeed, they intend to spend it. We Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for an emergency transport package to help Britain keep moving for emergency home insulation schemes and low interest loans, to support households to adopt energy security measures, something I proposed last autumn, which I believe the government are now consulting on.

There are many ways in which the government could be helping households and businesses with the rising cost of living. Turning to the changes to income tax mileage allowance payments again, this is another measure that we Liberal Democrats are pleased to support. However, the Ministers will be aware that there are many carers who drive their own personal cars, often hundreds of miles a week, who do not benefit from mileage allowances. And I hope again, as the bill progresses through this House, that Ministers might say a word or two about what measures it intends to take to ensure that all of our valued and professional care workers can benefit from this measure.

And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to the 12 month vehicle excise duty holiday for Hdbs. This is a sensible measure and one again, that we welcome. But we must also recognise the unprecedented pressures facing the haulage sector. So as international instability continues and global energy markets remain uncertain, once again, we urge Ministers to remain vigilant and responsive to the impact that these pressures are having on households and businesses and on industry and haulage as well.
14:57
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Minister Dan Tomlinson. >> Good. >> Very good. Madam Deputy Speaker And this is progressing rapidly. Today's debate so rapidly. In fact, I'll just turn to the point in my folders with the speech. Madam Chair, is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the government. And I thank members on the opposite side of the House for their contributions, as well as my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary, making her arguments and the government's arguments at the beginning of the debate.

She's she is right to point out that the conflict in the Middle East. Yes, it has imposed additional costs on the British people. That's why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been careful throughout this conflict from the very beginning, when other parties took a different approach to make sure that we trod very carefully, that we were cautious, and that we didn't rush to entangle ourselves in a foreign conflict, potentially risking national security, but also potentially harming our economic security.

Further, these measures are an example, though, of how the government has responded in a proactive and positive way to the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on on households, on families and on businesses. Now, of course, reasonable people can disagree as to how best the government could have responded to the conflict. As it has played out. It is this government's judgement that we've taken the right approach to make sure we do support those families and businesses who most need support, and to be there for them.

With the changes, some of which are in this bill, others have been passed through the House or making their way through the House in various instruments of some form, such as continuing the freeze in fuel duty. But we wanted to make sure that we did that. We that the response that we took was proportionate and targeted so that we could continue on the path. Madam Deputy Speaker, that this government has set out to bring down the deficit, to bring down borrowing in a sustainable way over the course of this Parliament in this year, for the first time, in fact, since the 2000, we have a lower deficit than the G7 average, something that the party directly opposite never managed to achieve.

Despite all their talk about wanting to manage the public finances. Well, I won't I won't run through the measures in detail as my as my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary has already done so, I. I will take the chance to respond to the questions asked by opposition spokespeople and on the consultation on the Electricity Generator Levy. I can confirm that that consultation will come before the end of this year. It's being worked at the moment by officials in the in in DESNZ, and we will make sure that we consult on this at the end of the year.

Questions such as auction allocation and details of the way the wholesale contracts for difference will work will, I'm sure, be raised in the consultation or elsewhere in engagement. I've always happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to shadow Exchequer. I think we have time. So given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we have time. So 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 we'll have to have legislation going through. Is the government through. Is the government considering any backdating provision? If a company generator was then wanting to go into one of these wholesale CFDs to have that backdated to deal, because at the moment they don't have the option to go into the wholesale, they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

levy. Minister thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker no. If if a if prices, as they are at the moment, are, I they are at the moment, are, I believe, slightly above the threshold set in the electricity threshold set in the electricity generator levy, those taxes will be will be due now from the 1st of July. Whether or not businesses July. Whether or not businesses make decisions down the line after the consultation, after engagement, after the detail of the wholesale contract for difference policy has been set out by the DESNZ Secretary of State.

The opposition spokesperson also raised acid. The Member for St Albans. The question of how much revenue will be raised by this and other measures, and it is a good tradition, a tradition set in place, in fact, by the conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, that the office for Budget Responsibility set out the costings of policy decisions when they are made. I think that I think that is important. That's something that this government, this Chancellor, has been we've been very keen to protect the independence and the integrity of the OBR, rather than throw it under the bus and cause market turmoil, as Liz Truss did.

And so at the Budget later this year, the OBR will, in the usual way, confirm the costings of the changes announced by the Chancellor and that are included in this Bill. And the shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that the costings that the OBR put out initially on the EGL ended up being very different from the revenue that is pulled in. And that's why it's right that we have an independent forecaster, that even if things materialise differently than they forecast, that we have forecasts that are robust to the information at the robust to the information at the time and can be relied on by all he mentioned.

The other. He questioned whether or not the government have provided sufficient support more broadly, and I would just mention that we have taken the decision to extend the freeze in fuel duty, something that the previous government, when they went into the general election, their plan as set out by the OBR. I've already talked about the OBR was for fuel duty to continue to rise and for the £0.05 cut to unwind. I believe that motorists will be paying a further £0.11 on their fuel duty.

If it wasn't for them making the choice in 2024 to elect a Labour government and not go ahead with the plans that the Conservatives set out. Just a couple more points that have been raised. He mentions indexation and a review. We will, of course, keep the mileage rates under review. The Chancellor announced a few weeks back that we will have a review. We've somewhat pre-empted that with this £0.10 increase, because we wanted to respond to the conflict in the Middle East and the impact on households, but that review is still ongoing and will report if there are further changes to the policy to be made at the Budget.

And then one final point I'd to pick up on from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson who makes a really important point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many care workers and people who drive for work may be working for an employer that doesn't provide a mileage rate. It's not compulsory for in. For employers to set the rate at the HMRC rates, we have increased them from £0.45 per mile to £0.55 per mile up to 10,000. And I hope, and I encourage employers across the country to adopt that higher rate, those that don't or the persist in having a significantly lower rate, as some, I'm aware, do.

It is possible for employees to claim their marginal tax back up to that that amount to either 45 or now £0.55 per mile. So a basic rate taxpayer can get in effect 20% back on it. I have heard and it was it was a pleasure actually to meet in number 11 Downing Street with care workers and members of the unison trade union a couple of weeks ago. I have heard about some some questions raised about whether that process could be made any easier for workers to be able to navigate.

And that's something that I certainly want to look at with my officials. But I this is a complex area of policy, and I would encourage members to. If they do have care workers and others who are driving for their work, who don't have mileage rates provided by their employer, that they can claim the tax back from HMRC. So I hope that responds to many of the points made. Of course, give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister I'm grateful to the Minister. I think he might be coming to a conclusion, so I wouldn't want him to miss the wouldn't want him to miss the opportunity to refer to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the presumption that fast track the presumption that fast track legislation would include include sunset clauses. Could he explain why the government has chosen not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why the government has chosen not to follow that guidance in this case? Minister well, there is a very sensible policy rationale when it comes to the Electricity Generator Levy, which I think is the clause that the hon. Member is referring to, and that is that we want to make sure that the sunset that the ending of the Eagle and the future decisions made on the Eagle are made in light of the decisions that were made, will be made on the wholesale contracts for difference, which, as I've said, are coming forward.

I don't think it would have been the right decision to pick an end date in the future without considering how it interacts with the decisions that the government will make and will be consulting on later this year. When it comes to the detail of the wholesale contracts for difference, I think that's responded to many. If not, I hope all of the points that have been raised by the opposition, and I would, though I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

encouraging members to urge to support this bill. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read a second time, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Order under the business of the House order of today. We now move to Committee of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Taxation, energy and vehicles bill. I remind members that in. Committee members should not Committee members should not address the chair as Deputy Speaker, please use our names when addressing the chair. Madam Chair addressing the chair. Madam Chair and chair, Madam Chairman, are also acceptable. We begin with the question that clause one stand part question that clause one stand part of the Bill with which it will be convenient to consider. All new
15:08
15:08
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, you. like to open this debate, this Committee of the whole House, by reminding the House, though I'm sure members know what's in this bill, by reminding the House of the purpose of this bill, which is to respond to increases in costs for families and businesses in the UK because of the conflict in the Middle East, as we are now in Committee stage, even though we have just proceeded with Second Reading, I will address the clauses of the Bill.

In turn, members will be relieved to know that there are only three clauses, so it shouldn't take too long. I will address the amendments that have been made in my closing speech, which will leave the House. I intend to make so. Clause one, Madam Chair, makes changes to ensure that the electricity generator levy rates will rise from 45% to 55% from today, the 1st of July. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary set out in the UK, the majority of our electricity is generated from renewables.

But this. But that. But despite this, when the crisis in the Middle East pushed up international gas prices, the cost of electricity and so the cost of living rose. Two, because electricity prices are still largely set by the price of gas. So the changes made by this clause will ensure that a greater proportion of any exceptional revenue that many non-gas generators may receive because of the conflict in the Middle East, is available to government to support businesses and households where appropriate.

And as we've already been discussing, the government has also announced back in April that is acting to delink electricity prices from gas prices through new voluntary, long term fixed contracts being offered to existing low carbon generators. As we've discussed, these are known as wholesale contracts for difference and the changes made by clause one, increasing the rate from 45% to 55% will encourage participation at a competitive price. In these W CFDs. Clause two makes changes to increase the generosity of mileage rates for 2020 627.

For employees and self-employed individuals who use their car or van for work, from £0.45 to £0.55 for the first 10,000 miles and £0.25 thereafter, with effect from the 6th of April 2026. Actually, the Exchequer Secretary asked me earlier and I forgot to respond as to why we haven't increased the rates above 10,000. I did. I did respond to that point in the Ways and Means debate last week, but I do think the government has got the balance right here with supporting all drivers.

And, of course, noting that a driver that drives 10,001 miles will benefit or, you know, almost all of their miles will be covered by the higher rates. And it is still open to employers who have employees who drive many more miles to set their own rates if they wish to. And I would just note, Madam Chair, that the Conservative Party have many opportunities to uprate these mileage rates after 2011 when when they did do so. But they demurred from that choice for 13 years in a row, and I'm very glad that to be part of a government that has increased the largest increase that we've seen in a very, very long time, if not ever, the changes made by this clause will provide immediate support for both employees and self-employed, and this is on top of the universal support announced in May, including the freeze on fuel duty, which, yes, will save motorists £0.11 per litre compared to previous plans, or £120 for the average car, or a £250 for the average van.

This clause will represent the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, saving over £120 a year. For a worker doing 6000 business miles. Clause three makes changes to reduce the vehicle excise duty liability for the majority of heavy goods vehicles from to £1 for 12 months for licenses taken out from today until the 30th of June 2027. The changes made by this clause are in recognition of the key role the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and their disproportionate exposure to fuel costs.

Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help prevent cost pressures from the conflict in the Middle East spreading across the economy. The Exchequer Secretary is the shadow. Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that this measure on its own, you know, is a is isn't a silver bullet when it comes to helping the haulage sector. But I do hope that it that it will provide some assistance and does show very clearly that we've reduced this rate down to £1, saving HGV £600 a year, that this is a sector that we do want to support, that we do want to see grow and weather the storm from the conflict, from the Middle East.

And of course, we want to make sure that we can do all we can and to reduce costs within the supply chain, to keep prices in the shops for everyday families as low as possible. The decisions. I should just note the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel G fuel duty will save the average HGV over £2,000. And with that, having taken the committee through the three clauses, I look forward to contributions from other, other other members.
15:14
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
I call shadow Minister James Wild. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'll be speaking primarily to New Clause four and New clause five, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends specifically related to the Electricity Generator Levy and the HGV VED holiday. And I have to say to the Minister, it's quite nice to see a Treasury Bill that is so concise, rather than the hundreds of pages that we see every Finance Bill adding to the complexity and the costs on to businesses.

So I hope that he will take that back to the Treasury when he comes back with the Finance Bill. I think he's also given a commitment to or an ambition to. He likes to scrap taxes, he said. So I hope that we'll see more taxes scrapped. And let's turn to a new one that he's for, one that he's increasing rather rather than introducing. To be fair. So New clause four would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the generator levy to 55% and to report on its findings to Parliament before the 31st of March 2028.

And, 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 an end date to the levy itself 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 is now proposing to raise it further and to extend the regime, but without giving an end date. And in last week's debate, the Exchequer Secretary 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. It has wind up. Earlier, the Minister 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. And if the Treasury believes a measure to be justified, it should welcome a formal review. This amendment matters because investment in energy depends on confidence, predictability and a stable fiscal framework. It would require the implications on consumers and energy security are considered. And 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 for project financing and the UK's attractiveness as a place to build and expand capacity.

The amendment also asks questions about electricity prices and consumer bills, and 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 Minister is that they will be published by the end of the year, and in those circumstances, we shouldn't be asked to accept, on trust that a higher and indefinite levy will have no adverse consequences.

So this amendment is a call for scrutiny, for transparency and for certainty. And the government should have no objection to a review by March 2028 and making a statement on whether they intend for it to continue. Now, doubtless the Minister, 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 amendment that just says there's going to be a review. Otherwise, I'll be urging hon. Members to support our amendment.

Similarly, new clause five 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 30th 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's not a silver bullet, as the Minister has acknowledged, but I equally 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, from fuel costs, business costs and wider economic uncertainty. And 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. So policy like this should therefore be tested properly in the long term benefits properly weighed, and our amendment would do precisely that.

It would also assess the impact on the public finances, on the competitiveness of the freight sector and operating costs for good vehicle operators. If the measures improve supply chain and help firms keep goods moving efficiently across the UK, then the government should demonstrate that if it does not, then the Parliament should know it. And the amendment also asks a 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 root costs on a long term horizon, not on the Treasury's timetable.

And in the face of mounting pressures, the government should assess whether this support continues in the future. And of course, temporary relief is no substitute for a coherent growth strategy, and this amendment would ensure Parliament has the evidence to judge whether the policy is working and whether we should support an extension. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government have brought forward a package of measures that the draw that are motivated by a short term fix rather than the serious plan, an indefinite tax on generators, a limited increase in mileage allowance and temporary relief for HGV operators, they've failed to give the House the clarity it deserves on the fiscal impact.

The Minister referred to the OBR scoring of the original levy rate and they provided that at the time the levy was announced, because we announced it at a Budget. And the problem we've got here is the Chancellor's making announcements outside of a Budget, but then refusing to provide any costing or estimate. Presumably she's had advice from officials before she brought this forward, so why can't she share with us the indicative amounts that she has had to aid our public debate, have failed to give clarity on the duration of the generation levy.

We have to just wait and see, or clarity on the long term support needed for businesses and working people. So I urge hon. Members to support our two modest new clauses.
15:21
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Daisy Cooper. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to new clauses one, two and three. New clause one would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the use of additional receipts arising from the increase in the Electricity Generator Levy from 45% to 55%. New clause two would require the Chancellor to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance. Payment rates set under section two in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment, and new clause three would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the combined impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles.

Madam chair, under new clause one, as I indicated to Ministers at Second Reading, we support what the government is trying to do here, but it is really important for trust in politics that when Ministers stand at the despatch box and say that the intention behind this levy is to use it towards supporting households and businesses with the cost of living, that there is a report to demonstrate to the public that the money does, in fact, go into measures to do just that, rather than disappearing into Treasury coffers.

And therefore I urge Ministers to accept our new clause one, which would provide that transparency to Parliament and the public. On new clause two. Some members of this House will know that I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the extraordinary work carried out by our care workers, the status of our care workers and the salary of our care workers is nowhere near big enough to for the recognition of the extraordinary work that they do. I have spent several hours with a particular care company in my constituency, Abbott's care, working with care workers, and to watch how they work.

They have enormous emotional investment in every single client. They observe their habits, their personalities. They know when somebody when something is slightly sort of out of whack or something isn't quite right, and suddenly their routine can change because there's a there's suddenly an emergency with another client. Sometimes there's something wrong with the medication. They have to make phone calls they haven't expected to do. They are experts on their clients. They are experts on people, but they are not experts on tax.

I was very heartened, Madam Chair, at Second Reading, that the Minister said that employees who do not receive the mileage allowance can claim back an equivalent amount. And I was also heartened to hear the Minister saying that he would be looking into ways to make it easier for care workers. I wonder if I could invite the Minister to outline what those measures might look like, because there are care workers who, quite frankly, we owe so much thanks to them for the work that they do diligent, hard work, making sure that our loved ones can live with care and dignity.

And we should make it as simple as possible. And whether it's requiring care organisations and care providers to send letters to those care workers to tell them what they're able to do, whether it's requiring HMRC to proactively write to them. We must bend over backwards to make sure that care workers can benefit from this particular measure. As I said, Second Reading, it's a measure that we welcome, but we do urge the Minister to think very carefully about, you know, as far as they can go, to make sure that every care worker who can benefit really does understand that this benefit is there for them, and it's made as simple as possible, and that they don't end up in a drawn out dispute with HMRC.

I would urge the Minister to think about a dedicated hotline for care workers, just in case we need one down the line. And finally, Madam Chair, new clause three again just requires a report into this particular measure. These are all transparency measures, and I hope that the government will look favourably upon them. Thank you.
15:25
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
OK. >> Minister. Dan Tomlinson. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank colleagues on the other side of the House for their scrutiny and attention to the measures contained attention to the measures contained in this in this short bill. And yes, I am proud, shadow Exchequer Secretary, that we did remove three taxes, and I'm glad to say that on a temporary basis, at least, there's one tax that's being put down to £1 as a result of the changes that the House is about to vote on in this bill is a privilege to close this brief debate on behalf of the government.

Let me respond to the points raised and turn to each of the amendments put forward by members opposite. Madam Chair, new clause two would require a report to the House of Commons on the approved Mileage Allowance payment system, including the adequacy of the rate for care workers, and the Member for St Albans spoke really powerfully power powerfully about the work that care workers, that she knows that she has the honour of representing do in her constituency. I know, and I think all members will know through personal experience, family members that have either worked in the sector or that have been cared for by those who work in the sector, just how valuable the time and the effort and the care that care workers put in is.

And I'm glad that she's now aware that the care workers can claim back the tax. They can't claim back. The whole amount is not fully equivalent, but they can they can claim back the tax relief, as it were, on the on the amount. And I want to look at whether we can make that process simpler and easier to use. And I'd be happy to provide further updates. If not, if not at the Budget, then before, as we look at that within the department and we have said that our our review as a government of these rates isn't over.

So we came forward with the with the £0.10 increase, but we're continuing the review and we'll update further at the Budget. So I therefore do move that this amendment is rejected. A new clause three would require a report to this House on the impact of haulage costs and consumer prices, including the operating costs for an overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators. The government, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will, I'm sure know, has already published the tax impact and information note, setting out the expected impact of this measure and the costing for it will be subject to scrutiny by the office for Budget Responsibility and will be set out at a future fiscal event.

And so it's the government's view that this amendment is unnecessary. Madam chair, new clause four would require the Treasury to review the impact of the rate rise, including on investment, electricity prices, energy security and to report to Parliament by the 31st of March 2028. The Eagle was carefully designed to avoid disincentivising renewable generation, which means that since its introduction in 2023, it has had no no adverse effect on energy security or new investment. And in fact, we're having record levels of new investment into renewables under this government.

Because it's worth noting in the context of the Eagle that new investments made since 2023 are Published attacks impacting tech, tax information and impact. Note on this measure two, which sets out clearly that the government's view is that this rate rise is also not expected to have an impact on electricity prices or investment in renewable generation going forward. The note also explains the rationale for the new AGL. As we've discussed today, and I will be consistently consistent in reminding the House that the government, of course, keeps all taxes under review, monitors and evaluates tax policy changes on an ongoing basis, and that unless responding to international conflict, in order to be there for households and businesses, tax policies, tax policy decisions are are usually and best made by Chancellors at the Budget in a usual way.

And I just just on the point that the Shadow Exchequer Secretary was making, he seems to be suggesting that the opposition's view is that we shouldn't have gone forward with this change until wholesale contracts for difference were consulted on and sorted on. And so he would he would he would choose opposition, would choose to forego the revenue, the additional revenue that may come in if prices remain higher than the threshold in the coming years. And the government's view is that that isn't the right approach.

But I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way. Happy to clarify. To the Minister, my point was, rather, if you're going to introduce a higher levy rate on the basis of an incentive for people to move into wholesale contracts for difference, it might be as well to have the policy for those wholesale contracts for difference ready.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contracts for difference ready. Well, I thank the Secretary for that. Yes. Well, we are consulting on that policy, as I say, before on that policy, as I say, before the end of the year. And it was the Chancellor's decision, this government's decision, that the better thing to do for the country, for businesses, for households, was to respond to the conflict in the Middle East with pace and with an appropriate level of responsiveness, rather than waiting until the next fiscal event scheduled for the autumn.

Madam chair, turning finally to new clause five. This would require a report to the House of Commons on the impact on the UK public finances, the competitiveness of the UK freight logistics sector, the contribution of the temporary read rate to efficient supply chains and whether the measure remains appropriate beyond the next 12 months. As always, taxes and reliefs will be looked at ahead of the next fiscal event. In the context of the public finances and consistent with the Chancellor's approach, this is a targeted and time limited intervention.

Excuse me. Targeted and time limited intervention in response to the conflict in the Middle East in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods, including food, across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the government will continue to to monitor the situation and will consider further action as and when, as and if it may be necessary. As on other measures, the government has already published the Tax Impact Information Note and the costing for the measure will be subject to scrutiny by the office for Budget Responsibility.

And I would just like to come back. Finally, Madam Chair, the opposition spokesperson talked about this being a short term fix, but I hope he is aware, and I hope he has seen the impact of the long term decisions that this government has made over the course of our time in office, to make sure that we can have higher economic growth, which we've had at higher living standards, which, rather than falling by 2% as they did in the previous parliament, have risen by 2% so far already.

This Parliament, in part because we brought back economic stability and had wages rising faster than inflation in every single month since this government took office, supporting also stability in the economy. That's delivered six interest rate cuts, making sure we increase in capital investment to work with the private sector to get growth up and to invest in our public services and invest in important infrastructure, and doing so in a way, alongside investing in the NHS that's enabled us to manage the public finances well and get borrowing, falling in every year of this forecast and the deficit lower than the G7 average, which is something the previous party never achieved, despite how much they talked about.

They talked a good game on the public finances but were never able to deliver it anyway. I therefore move that this amendment is also rejected. And so for the reasons that I have set out, I urge members to reject the amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition today, and I commend the clauses in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

short and well formed bill to the Committee. The question is that clause one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause one stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I the are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it with the leave of the committee. I will put the question on clauses 2 to 4 stand part together. The question is that part together. The question is that clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary.

No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause two has been selected for a separate decision. I call Daisy Cooper to move new clause two formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Approved mileage allowance payments. Review of rate for care workers. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause two be read a second time. As many two be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Division. Is Is as Is as on Is as on the Is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no Tellers for the ayes will foster Clyde Jones, tellers for the nurse, Lilian Greenwood, Gregor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right, 80. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 80. The noes to the left 281.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 281. The ayes to the right were 80. The nurse to the left were 281. So the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. New clause four has been selected. New clause four has been selected for a separate decision. I call James Wild to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause four. Formally. Electricity generator levy review of rate. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause four be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, no. Division. The The question The question is The question is as as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no Tellers for the ayes. Alicia Kearns, David Reed, tell us for the nurse, Lilian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The ayes to the right. 173. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 173. The noes to the left. 282.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 173. The nurse to the left were 282 the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. New clause five is being selected for a separate decision. I call James Wild to move new clause five formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Goods vehicle excise duty VED

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rates review. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause five be read a second time, as many as are of that opinion say aye. are The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us, for the eyes of this year, Colonel David Reed. Tell us for the nurse, Lilian Greenwood, trigger point.
16:07
16:12
16:13
16:15
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Daisy Cooper. spokesperson, Daisy Cooper. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Liberal Democrats have supported this bill and the three measures in it. We tabled our three amendments at Committee stage, and I was grateful for the assurances that the Minister gave at the despatch box that he would be looking at every single avenue and opportunity to make sure that care workers were aware of the ways in which they could benefit from the particular measures in this bill.

We're happy to to see this bill fast tracked to say we welcome the measures. I believe the Minister did say he would look for opportunities to come back and report to this House, if not at the Budget, then perhaps before, on how that is going. I'm glad that is on the record. I hope that care agencies themselves see that on the record and act on it to inform their staff, but I will put it on the record now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was pleased to hear the Minister say that, and I'll try and hold his feet to the fire to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make sure care workers are aware that they will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefit from this measure. Thank you. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I, I ask that the House votes for this bill at Third Reading. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is that the bill be now read the third time, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number six on Education Minister to move, moved. Motion not moved. Motion number seven on Health and Safety. Minister to.
16:16
16:17
16:18
None Portrait Adjournment: Impact of extended producer responsibility on packaging manufacturers
-

>> You've granted this important debate tonight and that we have so much time to debate it. Packaging extender responsibility, producer responsibility, which I'll now call EPR, is a policy that genuinely has a laudable goal. The move towards a circular economy in which recycling is the norm, waste is minimised and we shift away from environmentally harmful materials like plastic. This is something this house can get behind. Done right, EPR could deliver just that. But the reality of the scheme now being implemented by the Minister is something altogether different.

We are seeing jobs being lost, British businesses losing contracts and investment and increase in overseas carbon intensive glass being imported, and ultimately producers switching from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infinitely recyclable materials to way. Thank you, and I appreciate you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, and I appreciate you giving way so early in your speech. I have to run to a deal, but I did. I agree with all the points she's making. But would she also talk about later in the speech, the impact on the pub trade? It's going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact on the pub trade? It's going to hit the pub trade by about £15 million, which is going to do some industry. Very. Craig.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Craig. I will indeed be talking about the pub industry and can I say thank you to all of the members who have been campaigning so hard on this particular point for the last two years, and he needs to read the speech back. It'll be brilliant. But try and protect our hospitality because, of course, while this debate is not focused upon a single material, I must declare a particular interest in glass. Next month. I will be really proud to attend an event marking the 275th anniversary of the founding of Beatson Clark.

Since the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, Bates and Clark have been manufacturing glass in my Rotherham constituency, providing generations of skilled, well-paid jobs to my constituents throughout world wars, economic decline, depression and indeed renewal. Beets and Clark has endured, helping to drive our regional economy. And Minister, I want Beatson Clark to thrive for another 275 years. But the reality is EPR is placing that future at risk. A plethora of interventions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to go to the sister at the back first. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. In my constituency, I also have a phenomenal glass manufacturer called Nserc. They have three sites across the UK employing over 2000 people. They are unfairly penalised people. They are unfairly penalised by this tax because the tax is about weight. And as the hon. Lady about weight. And as the hon. Lady has already pointed out, it's encouraging manufacturers of things like tonic to switch to aluminium and plastic, which are infinitely less recyclable than glass. And not only that, they are now competing against imports from countries like Turkey, where not only are you facing the increased carbon emissions from actually shipping over the glass, but the glass is less pure and therefore is not as recyclable.

I would ask that the Minister urgently looks at this tax I've already asked before and brings in a very quickly a 75% reduction, whilst the Minister considers the overall implications

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this tax. Thank you. Sarah Champion. Thank you very much. And I thank the hon. Lady, and I will hope to amplify the points that she makes further on in the speech, because glass is not just another packaging glass is not just another packaging material, it is infinitely recyclable. Why?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recyclable. Why? I wanted to give the hon. Lady a chance to get back to the swing of things point. She's talking about a business, Madam Deputy Speaker, that's valuable in her constituency, the pub and brewery sector in Woking represents £100 million to our local economy. That's 1800 jobs. Sadly, those numbers used to be higher but are small. Brewery Thurston's had to close. EPR was one of the several reasons that it hit that hit them. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that we do need a change from the government on EPR, as well as wider support for the sector?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my hon. Friend from Woking and this one measure on EPR. Trying to level measure on EPR. Trying to level that playing field is the one thing that hopefully the Minister can give us comfort on today, but our give us comfort on today, but our hospitality industry is really suffering and I worry more suffering and I worry more generally, where are the places of community that are left in our in our towns and cities and villages? And if we're not protecting the And if we're not protecting the ones that we have, the few that we have, it's going to be a very dark future moving forwards.

Let me get back to glass. Do you want to. Sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very generous giving when he's making an excellent speech. All of our constituents, I think, All of our constituents, I think, would say that the cost of food right now is the number one issue. right now is the number one issue. And household budgets are very, very tight. Does she agree this is very tight. Does she agree this is a bad time to be implementing this tax? Whatever the merits of it may tax? Whatever the merits of it may or may not be, the Bank of England estimate that this will add 0.5% to food price inflation, and that food prices could rise by 7% over the course of the next 12 months.

So households on very tight incomes are going to be squeezed as a result of this. Wouldn't it be better either to cancel this or at the very least, not to implement it at a tough time like this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said to the House when I started, I think the principles of this scheme are laudable. Where I this scheme are laudable. Where I get frustrated is that it is disincentivizing using renewable disincentivizing using renewable materials, which in the long term is much cheaper, and instead it's driving businesses to plastic, driving businesses to plastic, which have a very real cost on our environment as well as on our pockets. So anything the Minister pockets. So anything the Minister can do to try and mitigate that risk, I think, is something that she needs to do.

But doing it in a fair and equitable way is absolutely the the opportunity that hopefully this debate will grant her. Because glass supports a circular economy, it underpins supply chains across food, drink and indeed pharmaceuticals. We all support the principle underpinning EPR that those placing packaging on the market should pay towards its collection. But as members have already said, the weight based fee structure the government has chosen to utilise disproportionately penalises glass, making glass significantly more expensive per unit than lighter, less sustainable alternatives like plastic, of course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I declare securing this debate, and I declare an interest as a chair of the All parliamentary Group for Packaging and Circular Economy. Like her, I've engaged extensively with I've engaged extensively with manufacturers across the supply chain, and they support EPR in principle, but raise concerns about principle, but raise concerns about its implementation. Businesses need predictability, transparency and confidence, and the current plan for annual adjustments to the for annual adjustments to the recyclability assessment methodology does provide concerns about the long term capital need to reinvest.

I wonder if she would agree that it would be helpful if the government would commit to periodic rather than annual mythology, mythological changes and a comprehensive post-implementation review covering manufacturing, employment, investment and material inflation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with the points he makes and the methodology throughout, and I will come on to it in my speech has been flawed, if it in my speech has been flawed, if not straight wrong. In some cases, I would much rather the research I would much rather the research that he's talking about methodology. It was done years in advance rather It was done years in advance rather than on the hoof, as seems to be happening now, because what the government seems to be suggesting is that they were retrospectively is that they were retrospectively look at what's happening and make adjustments.

But unfortunately for a business with their bottom line, you can't retrospectively charge people for something the government chooses to modify. Let me have one inescapable fact, Madam Deputy Speaker. Glass is heavier than plastic. It simply is. And by the government choosing to base these on weight rather than on units which it could have done, the government is pushing businesses towards switching to a cheaper, less recyclable and much more environmentally harmful packaging, the industry has been told by Defra that the modulation of fees will save glass, but let's be honest, this is too little too late.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why not get the scheme right at the beginning rather than trying to modify it later on? I'm not your friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not your friend. Give way. I will give way. I, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And one of the largest giving way. And one of the largest employers in my constituency constituency is Bostik, who are famous for Blu-tack, but also they famous for Blu-tack, but also they produce quite a lot of adhesives used in the DIY and the home repair sector. One of the issues they've sector. One of the issues they've got with this scheme, and actually they agree they don't oppose the scheme in and of itself.

However, although 95% of their products go to site and are used by professionals, they are will be charged EPR and 100% of their product because they cannot trace every single item. So they support the Builders Merchants Federation argument that commercial and industrial packaging should remain outside full cost recovery. Because trade packaging waste is already covered through merchant distribution. So my hon. Friend agree with me that this is something the government could consider in the implementation stages, as you say, right at the beginning of the process.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend makes a point that I wasn't aware of. I haven't been I've been in contact with loads of different industries, but loads of different industries, but not that particular one. And and it seems as though it's the same sort of double payment that hospitality of double payment that hospitality is facing. So absolutely, that needs to be addressed. Businesses have also been told that they need have also been told that they need to move towards reuse systems, which I'm sure both of these points that we're raising will be mentioned by the Minister in her response.

Whilst it's true that glass is the perfect material to reuse, it's not within the power of the glass manufacturing sector to force producers to move, to use reusable bottles, wide scale reuse systems in the UK, let's be honest, will take a significant buy in from the whole supply chain and take at least a decade to become a reality. By which point. Let me also be honest we won't have a glass manufacturing sector within the UK to supply the glass reuse packaging.

The signal the government is giving to the businesses now is clear. Switch away from glass. Right now the result? We're seeing an evident and accelerated shift away from UK made glass towards both cheaper

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imports. Now accounting for. I'm really surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker 14% of the market. We should give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should give. Way and increasingly towards plastic. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and also for the tireless campaigning that she's done on this issue. We're joined done on this issue. We're joined today by GMB glass makers in the public gallery, and I declare an interest as GMB member and who are interest as GMB member and who are at risk if this goes ahead in this current form of losing their jobs, will she recognise the human impact that could come if we don't see a change in policy and pay tribute to those workers within the sector and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the GMB for their campaigning on this? I absolutely support my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely support my hon. Friend and GMB and Beats and Clark have been fantastic on this, as have other unions, and we should have other unions, and we should never forget the human impact of these debates that we have in here. We talk about numbers and percentages, import tariffs. We forget that it's the actual people making these products that are suffering the most and have that suffering the most and have that uncertainty around them. A survey conducted by British Glass found that nearly half of businesses say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that They have already switched away from glass or plan to do so due to from glass or plan to do so due to EPR fees. Once these decisions are made, and once investment is committed to new packaging forms, committed to new packaging forms, they're really unlikely to be reversed. Glass manufacturing is not easily replaced. Furnaces represent long term capital investment, often hundreds of millions of pounds. Decisions about millions of pounds. Decisions about whether to rebuild or reinvest are already being delayed or cancelled.

Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the UK that is already being lost because when production shifts overseas, when capacity is lost, it's almost impossible to rebuild. I'm not talking about short term disruption. I'm talking about permanent industrial decline. If left unchecked, this policy will not just reshape the packaging market. It will hollow out an entire industry. And with that decline, as my hon. Friend said, comes something even more serious job losses. We already know that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for for for giving way. In my constituency, for giving way. In my constituency, we have three breweries, Verdant at Caltech and Saint Ives Brewery, Caltech and Saint Ives Brewery, based in Hayle. Does she agree with me that when it comes to these these breweries, they're not just these breweries, they're not just about producing excellent products, which they all do in my case, but actually it's those communities actually it's those communities that grow up around those breweries.

And does she agree with me that there is a risk that there is real social damage if we're not being able to support those small breweries in the way that we should?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there's a risk with this, this proposal that that's what that'll be, what happens. Sarah Champion. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Champion. That's absolutely my concern. And people don't talk about the supply chain and the impact on the supply chain. So the numbers that I've got is we already know that 350 jobs, more than 5% of the direct workforce than 5% of the direct workforce have been lost. But we don't know about in the supply chains and in the associated businesses, because the associated businesses, because these are not abstract numbers. These are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs concentrated in his like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium.

Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I've been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups and let me name tag them, including UK hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associations, All Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit trade association GMB unite. AB InBev, the APPG beer Group, the APPG Packaging and Circular Economy Packaging Federation, Teva, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass and Camra and Madam Deputy Speaker.

Their concerns are strikingly similar. Familiar because EPR is not just affecting glass across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency and upwards of 1700 across the UK. They produce a range of fibre based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products. These are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. Yet like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being heavier than their plastic equivalents.

This distortion is even greater for fibre based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appears to be substantial errors in the methodology used for defra's EPR fees. Based for for fibre based packaging. By way of an example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FVC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. So how can the cost to local authorities be so radically different? Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads.

Costs for managing FPC should be similar to those of paper and board, yet are widely disproportionate. Industry groups believe this results from Defra seeming to have used data from another wholly distinct type of FPC beverage cartons, and it's and it's in its FPC fee calculation. Minister. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR core objective. The Alliance for Fibre based Packaging has already reported evidence that long standing shifts away from plastic towards. More sustainable alternatives are slowing and in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some cases, reversing altogether. I will, of course, give way. I thank you for being so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for being so generous with her time. The point she's making now, I remember her making at her Westminster Hall making at her Westminster Hall debate on EPR back in May 2025. Last year, I made a similar point Last year, I made a similar point in my Westminster Hall debate on beer tax and draught duty, where we also talked about EPR. Does the hon. also talked about EPR. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it is really disappointing that it's been a year on and the government differ

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in particular, have not listened to our concerns. Sarah Champion. I think it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Infinitely more than disappointing, but I will follow the hon. Member's parliamentary the hon. Member's parliamentary language. It's hugely frustrating and colleagues here are raising the and colleagues here are raising the real human costs of that. It something needs to change. And what I don't want to change is that we I don't want to change is that we lose our hospitality and we lose our renewable packaging industry. Because hospitality businesses have faced similar unfathomable logic from Defra. EPR fees are meant to offset the cost to local authorities of handling and waste recycling hospitality businesses.

Waste is not collected through public collections, but through commercial waste removal contracts. Yet perversely, the annual burden to British pubs for EPR fees has been estimated by the British Beer and Pub Association at £50 million. Hospitality businesses are, in effect, being told to pay for the same thing twice. Defra has long been aware of this anomaly. I thank my hon. Friend for his debate on it, but nothing has been done to address it. Packaging EPR fees will disproportionately affect generic medicines where high volume, low margin products risk becoming commercially unviable, increasing the likelihood of supply disruption.

Medicine withdrawal from the UK and higher costs to the NHS. Medicine manufacturers have minimal flexibility to redesign packaging because primary packaging is tightly regulated by the MHRA. The government's one size fits all approach is revealed again when we consider social enterprises. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with Belwo, which supplies water to the parliamentary catering team. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is on our despatch box right now. Below, denotes donates 100% of its net profits to WaterAid, supporting clean water, sanitation and hygiene programmes around the world.

But while charities are rightly exempt from EPR fees, no such exemption exists for social enterprises. They are treated exactly the same as for profit companies. The result for Belwo is £1.1 million of EPR costs over the next two years, money that would otherwise be donated to WaterAid. The EPR system adds complexity and uncertainty for businesses. Baseline fees were not finalised until very shortly before liability for EPR was due to begin. Fee modulation remains unclear and the system allows for retrospective fee calculation, potentially creating exposure to unplanned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

costs late in the financial cycle. Of course. I thank. The hon. Member for giving way, and I just wanted to pick up on her point about the complexity of the scheme, as well as the additional cost on small businesses. I've got cost on small businesses. I've got a fantastic vineyard in my North Cornwall constituency called Camel Valley, and they've talked about spreadsheets, almost matrix like spreadsheets, almost matrix like branded non-branded, etc. so complicated for businesses to understand. So does she agree with understand.

So does she agree with me as well as this punitive cost on our fantastic local breweries and vineyards and other things she's described? It's the complexity of the scheme which is really holding back so many amazing businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the points the hon. Member is making, points the hon. Member is making, because I agree with the polluter pays principle. I believe that that's at the heart of this. But that's at the heart of this. But the people that are paying are our workers, our hospitality businesses, the the poorest people in the world. That would have been getting £1 million. They're the people that are paying, not the polluters. are paying, not the polluters. Because what this bill, sorry, this policy is perversely doing, is driving business to plastic, which surely is the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do.

Because with all of this in mind, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this is a poorly designed, poorly implemented policy that will, and indeed is having severe negative impact upon British businesses. Yet despite these concerns, Defra have argued that EPR will in fact create jobs. But when we look at that claim more closely, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. These figures are not based on official calculations, and critically, the jobs that are being referenced are not comparable to those being lost.

They are more likely to be lower skilled, lower paid roles in waste management, often at entirely different locations. These mythical jobs will not deliver the same economic value. They will not support exports, and they will not provide the same level of regional resilience. Minister, I must be very clear with you. You cannot replace high skilled manufacturing jobs with lower value roles and then claim an economic net gain. That's not growth. That is managed decline. EPR is also adding significant inflationary pressure pressures that will be reflected in consumer prices.

Producers expect to pass on the vast majority of EPR costs, often over 95%, to the end user. The upshot of this is that EPR will not represent a boon to the public purse. No, this failed policy will cost the UK economy and that cost will be substantial. I have raised these issues time and time again. As I know members in this chamber and members are not able to be in this chamber right now, have raised. I've met with Secretaries of State Ministers.

I've met with civil servants, I've written. I've led debates. I've asked questions, all to no avail. Minister, this situation demands urgent action now, not a review in a year's time. Not minor adjustments, but immediate intervention to sort out this deeply flawed policy. The glass industry has been clear in its ask a targeted, time limited reduction in the glass EPR fees of at least 75%. This is not about abandoning the policy. It's not about a U-turn. It's about fixing it.

The Minister has the opportunity today to stabilise demand, prevent further switching away from glass, protect jobs and investment, and buy time to properly assess the real world impacts of her policy. Crucially, it would allow the government to realign the policy with its own original environmental and economic objectives. More broadly, the government must make sure EPR protects UK jobs and investment that incentives towards less sustainable products are removed, that fees reflect real world costs, and that businesses have the clarity they need to plan and invest for the future.

Across the various sectors that have raised their concerns about EPR. And there are many sectors that have raised their concerns about EPR. Support investment and regional growth at risk. Minister, if we continue to get this wrong, the consequences will not be measured in tonnes or targets. They will be measured in job losses, lost industries and lost opportunities for the communities like mine that need them most. I urge the Minister today at the despatch box to put this scheme back on track.
16:43
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
Gareth Snell. >> Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I will be brief because I know there is something else happening this evening that other people want to engage in. I'm not people want to engage in. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but apparently it's quite popular. I just wanted to reiterate two points. just wanted to reiterate two points. I congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The glass industry I know, and she's rehearsed some of the arguments around the round, particularly for producers for beer, and I have had similar correspondence from various agencies about the perversity of a weight based system that precludes the use of a infinitely, infinitely usable product over and over again, and moving manufacturers towards plastic and thinner aluminium products because it's cheaper.

I'm sure, I'm sure the Minister will have comments on that. I want to do. Just talk about two things, particularly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I declare an interest. I'm the vice chair of the all party parliamentary group on Packaging and Circular Economy under my friend the hon. Member from Redditch. Excellent chairmanship and I think it is quite clear that this is a good policy and a good system that has had some unintended consequences, and actually trying to iron some of them out for the benefit and in my constituency.

Madam Speaker, I have one of the premier food, Mr. Kipling factories, and I know they have done a considerable amount of work reformulating their plastic so that it can be recycled from red trays to plastic trays. They've looked at how they can use their cardboard better. They've looked at how they can use the plastic film that is actually really important for their for for the freshness of their products, but is obviously a product they're trying to phase out. But the cost of looking at some of the newer systems, particularly those that are too small for registration around biodegradable or organic films, it means that actually there is an incentive for them to stick with the plastic manufacturing, which is which is a challenge for them.

The other thing I wanted to briefly touch on, Madam Deputy Speaker, is actually the ceramics industry. And of course, no debate in this place is is complete without ceramics. And I say in jest, because actually, one of the things that the ceramics sector is dependent upon, particularly in the giftware sector, is buying a product that is often shipped around the country. Most of those organisations will have a turnover, which means that their products and their packaging is registerable under the scheme, if you go online and buy a product from the European Union, something that is of a of appreciable aesthetics, but of a much lower quality, and that is brought into the UK, then the price differential because of the cost that there is for the packaging that that ceramic is shipped in, becomes a disincentive for the UK purchaser to buy a British product.

And there are certain products like ceramics like glass. If you are shipping these things, you need to be absolutely certain that the packaging is sufficiently robust to deal with the fragility of the product that is being shipped. So there are there aren't that many alternatives. I know that some of the sector have looked at how you can do this with cardboard, but the cardboard is a move away from polystyrene, and the polystyrene is cheaper by weight. Therefore they stick with the product. That is actually something more damaging to the environment.

And then finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know the House will want to go and watch, I believe it's association football. That there's also the issue around those innovative small packaging firms that are looking at new material. I know the Minister is scheduled to meet or may have already met Walsall from Staffordshire. It's a it's an organisation that is using wool as a packaging product. It is entirely reusable and once you get the packaging to your house, you put it into your garden and the birds take it away to make nests.

They use it for all sorts of lovely things. You can put it around your garden and use it as a, as a, as a thermal insulator. In the winter it is completely regenerable, but they're so small that it was rated red until recently. Which means actually, no one really knows what's going on with the arrangements for the costings, and so they end up not knowing what the cost they're going to have to build into their business model because of what costs they might get later on.

And that for a small business that's trying to do something really ethical, real or value to the local economy in Staffordshire, but also move away from something that's much more damaging products, I'm not sure what to do. And so I do wonder when the Minister responds, whether she could just touch on how we are going to better in with some of those new manufacturers who are producing new materials, like wool, that have a real place in the future of our packaging industry and will create jobs in places like Staffordshire so that they have an opportunity to grow and, and take away some of those damaging plastics that we want.

And if she could reflect upon the points around how we make sure that the EPR weightings for those good consumable things we want British public to buy, such as ceramics, are not disproportionately outpriced by foreign competitors because of our own packaging rules in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd be very grateful. Minister. Thank you very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to serve and to speak in the House on this issue today. Can I begin by thanking my hon. Friend, the Member for Rotherham, for securing this debate, and for all securing this debate, and for all hon. Members on all sides who have spoken. You are all they are all very powerful advocates for the glass industry, for the fibre based composites industry, for the ceramics industry, for the wine industry in Cornwall and of course, the beer and pub industry that we're all hoping we will all be able to go and enjoy shortly.

Let me begin by declaring my interest as a member, also of the GMB trade union, and let me begin also by recognising the challenging context in which the glass industry operates. This comes from a range of global pressures. The international increases in energy costs, the volatile commodity prices, growing international competition and substantial investment to decarbonise and energy intensive manufacturing
16:49
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
process. That said, I also recognize and acknowledge their recognize and acknowledge their concerns about extended producer responsibility for packaging PEPR, which is an internationally which is an internationally recognised model used in more than 30 countries to transform recycling services. PEPR shifts the cost of managing packaging waste from managing packaging waste from taxpayers, which is us, onto who put The polluter pays principle action. Its introduction into this country is the biggest change to recycling policy in 25 years.

It's actually a policy that was formulated under the previous conservative government, and the hon. Gentleman for Newman is no longer in his place, but he. It was his government that first began developing this policy in back in 2018, 2019, and he had the chance to vote against it in because there was a debate on the floor of this House, in this very chamber in which he did not register his objections in that debate. So he was either absent, or perhaps he was chatting to his new friends in a different party, but he did not register his objection at that point last year, since it's been brought in, the money raised from packaging producers and retailers goes directly to councils to fund the introduction of recycling that is the new food waste collections.

It's not the food waste collection. Simply recycling is part of that. But the new recycling collections that we have. And last year PEPR raised over £1.4 billion for local authorities to deliver better recycling services for people in every nation of the UK. Because our goal is to get from 45% recycling, which is where we have stagnated over the last decade to 65% recycled by 2035. That is an important goal, and the food waste collections is part of the simpler recycling reforms.

It is not paid for through this, but it is a really important part of taking the methane out of our bins. Let me come to gas fees. Year 1PPR fees last year only, as she rightly says, took account of the weight and volume of materials. This reflected the cost to local authorities of collecting and disposing of the materials. Following on from her excellent Westminster Hall debate last year, we have worked at pace and from this year, year two, I'm pleased to tell hon.

Friends that we are bringing in lower fees for more recyclable packaging. Our latest data shows that over 93% of glass will receive a green discount for recyclable. That means let me finish my point and then I will give way. Producers are harder to recycle. Red materials such as crisp packets will pay a premium, so the system is designed to reward the right choices, the incentives to make the right choices will increase because in years three and four red materials, the more complex forms of packaging will pay even higher fee rates compared to more recyclable green materials like glass.

And the forecasts forecasts that I have seen expect the glass sector to pay a decreasing share of p e PR costs in years two and three, and then in year four. This will fall even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further as the penalty for red packaging will reach double the way. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Is the Minister able to tell us, is it the 75% discount that glass is asking for, or does she know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is asking for, or does she know what percentage the falling rates are going to be? Please. Again, we have got a complex

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, we have got a complex system. I would very much like to stand here and give her the the stand here and give her the the amounts per tonne. That is not possible until all packaging producers have reported their data, and that is going to be in the autumn. And then we will issue the invoices. So it is much as I would like to give her comfort, what I can say is the proportion the glass sector will pay will fall year on year.

So, and actually, we have been listening very carefully to the glass industry on this issue. PAC UK, the scheme administrator, and Defra officials meet the glass sector and British Glass regularly. PAC UK ran a workshop including British Glass just this week on how we can drive the use of more recyclable materials and of course, everything that Pac UK does is subject to four nation agreement. So there is also that we had a meeting this morning with the devolved governments talking through some of these issues.

So Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who all face very different challenges. The challenges of collecting in inner city London are not comparable to the challenges of collecting waste in the Outer Hebrides. So, you know, it's a it's a it's a complex model from the recycling and collections point of view as well. But back to glass PAC UK and Defra officials are visiting Ardglass later this month. The visit was due to take place in June, but was rescheduled at Ards request.

PAC UK have also visited Nserc in Northern Ireland last month, and I have spoken to the hon. Lady about the issue around the reduction in energy fees, energy fees not applying in Northern Ireland. Another well, we could talk about Brexit but perhaps won't intrude on that private pain. Can I also say that since we debated glass fees last year, Defra officials have visited five of the six major glass manufacturers in the UK to hear from them directly, and that includes Beatson Clark.

We are acting on their concerns and of course we do actually have investment in the glass industry in this country as we have a new glass electric glass factory in Varela in Leeds. I would like to just make a little bit of progress, if I may, because it's four minutes to to kick off. So I would like to make some progress. And she may find that I answer her questions. PAC UK has today published improved guidance on how recyclability will be assessed and rewarded.

The glass section was developed in close collaboration with the glass industry, and we've already received positive feedback. I do hear what the hon. Gentleman for Stoke on Trent Central says about wool. Whenever I've seen wool used as a coolant, it tends to come in a plastic packaging for hygiene reasons, so you can certainly open it up and then compost it. But there is a there is a there is a film usually around it. And so under the recycling assessment methodology that that would incur higher fees.

So I think there's a thing about recycling, for designing for recyclability, that all of this is meant to incentivise. And I was due to meet with one of the wool insulation providers this week, but sadly it was, I was not able to meet with her. She was on her way down. But I believe that she met with officials. But I will check in on that later. I am very keen that we work because it's a particularly important thing for the British wool industry, which where the wool prices are at such rock bottom prices, I can tell hon.

Friends and colleagues, we're planning to launch a call for evidence this year to gather industry views to inform how we continue to reward the right choices. And on the question of a post-implementation review, it will be published. It will be conducted in the normal way, three years after the regulations came in. So that is slated for December 2028. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Minister. It's very reassuring that you're going to have this consultation. Would it not have been much better to have not have been much better to have had the consultation before the scheme was implemented? And the Minister mentions my constituency business of Beatson? Clark. That meeting only happened because I urge the previous Secretary of urge the previous Secretary of State and the Minister for that to happen, and I assume that the other examples that she's given, where examples that she's given, where meetings have or haven't taken place have been at the insistence of the MPs.

So why was that work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not done before this scheme was rolled out? Well, I can't speak for what happened under the previous administration, but what I can tell her is that this scheme was her is that this scheme was announced in 2018. It was there was a consultation which happened in 2019, and there was a consultation. Again, I haven't got the I can't Again, I haven't got the I can't find the exact part of my pack where. So there was a full impact assessment of PR published in October 2020 for setting out the expected overall costs to businesses.

At that stage, it wasn't possible to assess impacts on specific sectors or regions, as fees and modulation had not been finalised. This has been a huge infrastructure project change. It's been a huge system change. Environment agency acting as the regulator holds the database of everyone who is a packaging producer. We can see elsewhere in the waste and packaging sector large issues around avoidance, free riding and issues on that. And so we had to go through a massive piece of work with our regulator to make sure that everyone who is putting packaging on is, is, is meeting their obligations.

But it was, it was, it was there was a public consultation in 2019, 2021 and consultation on draft regulations in 2023. There was consultation with British Glass on the decision to use volume in the apportionment of kerbside recycling collection costs in July 2024, prior to the release of the initial set of illustrative base fees. I think what may have happened, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that there was perhaps a misunderstanding that, given that this had all been thought about and discussed and talked about for 5 or 6 years, it was never going to happen.

So perhaps and perhaps for the to be fair to the smaller companies, they were unaware of their obligations or perhaps not obligated at that time. And then as they've grown, they've been brought into the de minimis thresholds. Let me talk a little bit more about what government is doing to support the wider glass businesses with their electricity costs, which I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I could, because I do genuinely thank the Minister for being generous with her time and on the idea of a post-implementation review. Is there any way of looking at the way in which businesses have to spend time to interact with the to spend time to interact with the scheme? Because the brewery in Stoke on Trent, Titanic could. Beer, by the way, told me that it's very by the way, told me that it's very good. Beer told me that it took three weeks and one employees time three weeks and one employees time just to complete the assessment for the first year's fees.

Now I'm sure that isn't by design, but as part of the review, is the department looking at how to make the interaction with the scheme easier for those small businesses that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't have that capacity? He makes an excellent point, and it's something that I have been very insistent with officials on. This is a complex scheme. The more complexity that we add into it, the complexity that we add into it, the more time it will take. So, you know, there's a trade off here and there's a there's a set of there's a there's a set of difficulties because we can do carve outs for X and Y sector, but then it creates more complexity in then it creates more complexity in terms of recycling assessment methodology calculations for other parts of the packaging industry.

So I do think, you know, we've got to beware of making perfection the enemy of the good. And can I also let him know that Pac UK CEO Jeremy Blake met with the CEO on Tuesday yesterday, on Tuesday this week. So I thought I thought that had happened. But I'm glad to get the note that tells me it's true. Beyond this, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are supporting the glass businesses with their electricity costs through the British industry. Supercharger glass businesses now receive 90% compensation for electricity network charges.

This brings their total reduction in electricity bills to an average of between 65 and £87 per megawatt hour. We're also supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with lower tax rates for their properties. The trade on the issue around cheaper imports coming from overseas as well. The Trade Remedies Authority's independent anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into cheaper glass imports from China and in particular Turkey are ongoing. So that's not my department. This is another government department, but that is is ongoing on dual use.

We are working closely with industry to address this challenge. Packaging disposed of in either business or household waste streams. We know how important this is to stakeholders across different sectors including pubs, hospitality, medical, packaging and construction. Indeed, I met with the paint industry at A, B and Q in my Coventry East constituency because of course they will always have a tin or plastic container for paint, and they will always have a coating in the middle of it. So it will never be it will never attract green fees.

But of course, what we want to do is to keep that paint recycled, reused, repurposed. And there was some excellent work that they were doing with the charity neighbourly to ensure that that paint is has a second life. And of course, we see paint. People don't know what to do with it. Builders finish off apart and then down into the drain it goes, adding to the diffuse water pollution that we are experiencing across our sewer network. So this is a tricky issue, but we need a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced.

There's no good just saying. Oh, everyone decides that they they all, all their stuff goes to the pubs and then suddenly we're left with a massive shortfall in the fees. So it has to be verifiable. We're testing solutions, including for hospitality, and we're building on international best practice, looking in particular at the Austrian model, I held a round table with industry last year to look at solutions for the dual use challenge. It is difficult, but I do hope for a solution on this issue soon that does not add undue complexity to the scheme, or make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it impossible for the regulator to verify. OK. I'm sorry to detain the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to detain the House. I'm not sure if I'll try has been scored yet or not, but I'm sure somebody will find out the point. somebody will find out the point. The Minister mentioned the supercharger scheme and she mentioned that the impact for glass manufacturers. Now the supercharger manufacturers. Now the supercharger scheme I know is not her department, but it's only for Frontier Industries. So is she able to say Industries. So is she able to say whether or not glass bottle manufacturers that go into hospitality sector benefit from that? Because my understanding was they don't because they're not considered one of the glass fibers or the industrial glass needed for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the frontier industries. I'm looking to my officials in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm looking to my officials in the box, and I think it's probably safest if I write to him on that issue. Let me tell him the House issue. Let me tell him the House about the year one shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in fees fees. There was a shortfall in fees this year, as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages, producers to submit their tonnages, and then their tonnages reduced, because obviously they looked at their figures and they reduced their tonnages.

So we listened to industry on that. We took pressure despite the regulations, saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall. Defra my department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to make sure that we don't have a repeat of that early successes we're hearing about EPPEP are bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people.

In Tameside, the Metropolitan Council there are investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should be of benefit to the industry in terms of the supply of high quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire Council is investing £5 million over two years purchasing a new three compartment glass collection vehicle. I think that's vehicles, but it says vehicle here and upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination and improving the quality of glass recycling, which we know really matters to the glass

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industry. I will give way. To thank the Minister for giving way and being generous with her way and being generous with her time. I'm sure she can probably understand why my myself Asahi, understand why my myself Asahi, based in Woking, the hon. Lady for Rotherham and others are not satisfied with her answers today. satisfied with her answers today. I've heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet with me and the MP for Rotherham and other MPs and more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact, to work out a way forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think he must have been distracted perhaps, but when I mentioned the issue about me mentioned the issue about me holding a round table with all of these industries on this very issue, these industries on this very issue, but I'm happy to meet with colleagues from around the House on these issues. And I explained in the point that perhaps he missed that. It is tricky because it has to be regulatable. So we have to make sure that the regulator can verify what would happen.

And of course, when you it's it's a very complex Macroeconometric model. And so as soon as you reduce fees in one area, they go up in another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

area. So that's, that's the, the bottom line on all of this. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I might have been giving way. I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes. I don't know why I am remember hearing the Minister said she has held a round table. I do remember it was last year and I'm quite keen, keen for her to meet quite keen, keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation. What happens next? Hence my request, Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

next? Hence my request, Minister. Well, I can tell him that, as you know, obviously I don't sit there and do the maths with people. These suggestions and potential solutions have to be modelled. They have to be worked through, and we're working at pace to assess whether any targeted short term measures could be introduced through the forthcoming Pepper amending Statutory Instrument to partially address the dual use packaging issue. So we're also so we're working on a short term solution, but we're also working on a longer term solution, which is this Austrian model that I mentioned.

Again, he may have been distracted by the whistle. Can I just also say just it's what's also happened. Councils across the country are rebranding and upgrading their glass recycling points to make it easier for households to use glass recycling facilities to reduce that contamination that we know is so important in glass making. And we've had a £5.3 million investment in that over a couple of years. So these these these changes are happening on the ground reuse.

Let me conclude by just talking a little bit about reuse. We know that reuse isn't a short term fix. As my hon. Friend has said, it was once the norm when we were all growing. Well, perhaps not everybody, but when a lot of us were growing up. And it can be again, in some ways, the future. Madam Deputy Speaker, looks like the past. Let's hope we. That's not the case for the England game. PEPR creates a powerful financial incentive for glass producers to move to reuse.

Running a. Reuse schemes means producers avoid most PPR fee obligations and glass, as we have heard, is a durable, tried and tested technology. While it does require upfront investment and system change, it's. It shifts costs away from single use production and disposal. It improves supply chain resilience and reduces costs over time. Reuse is already operating at scale internationally, particularly for glass. Reusing a glass bottle just five times can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by more than one third.

The more times they are reused, the greater the benefits will be. But as we have heard today, this is not just about the environment, it is also about jobs, communities and the long term health of British industry. Industry estimates that these reforms will create 25,000 jobs and underpin ten billions of pounds of investment in new sorting and processing facilities. These reforms will drive that improvement in our recycling rate and crucially, they will also reduce our carbon emissions. Let me conclude by saying that glass matters, industry matters and glass workers matter.

This is a government that backs businesses and workers. We back the transition to a circular economy that makes the country stronger, cleaner and more resilient. And let me conclude by saying change is coming to EPR and reassure that all hon. Members, that we want to have a predictable, well set out framework within which business can confidently operate, and householders can confidently know that what they put in their recycling streams is going to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a second and hopefully third and fourth life. Thank you. OK. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion say aye. the ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page