Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention. I absolutely agree that this will make a real difference to those workers who drive for their work. This is a long overdue measure, and I am very happy to put the Bill forward today.

The proposals represent the largest ever increase to the mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. Looking beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of the rates, and will set that out at the Budget.

Recognising the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK, and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles for licences taken out between 1 July 2026—today—and 30 June 2027. That 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 arising from the conflict in the middle east spreading across the economy.

The 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 11p 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 those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, which I will come to shortly. I just note that when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero had the opportunity to really break that link, he backed away from doing so. This measure does so in a limited way, but it does not make the ambitious reforms that could have been made by the Energy Secretary.

The electricity generator levy—[Interruption.] I am sure the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), can intervene if he is allowed. The electricity generator levy was introduced by the previous Government in 2023 as a temporary windfall tax applying to revenue above the benchmark price. It was a short-term response to exceptional circumstances and is due to end in 2028. What do the Government propose? To increase the rate from 45% to 55% and to extend it beyond 2028, with no end date. This is another example of Ministers reaching for higher taxes while offering no certainty in return.

The Government say, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), that the increased rates will support the decoupling of gas prices by incentivising generators into voluntary wholesale contracts for difference, but while the new higher levy applies from today, those new contracts are yet to be seen, the proposed strike price is not known, the likelihood of generators accepting them is therefore unknown and in question, and the value for money for taxpayers is yet to be proven. Will the Energy Secretary still be in post to oversee the reforms? We all sincerely hope he will not be in the Treasury.

In the winding-up speech, will the Minister provide an update on when the consultation on the CfDs will be launched, when the first contracts are set to be awarded, and if that will be through an auction or an allocation round? The Government have said that their intention is to extend the levy beyond 2028, but with no clarity on when it will end. The Government do not know how long they want it to last and have said there will be further legislation on that point. The Exchequer Secretary, in the debate on the resolutions last week, said that this was something “the Government are considering”. That is hardly a robust approach when bringing legislation before the House. Indeed, it seems like a hasty measure to give the Chancellor something to announce.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee previously recommended that for fast-track legislation, sunset clauses should be the default presumption. An amendment to add one is outside the resolutions of this House, but we have tabled a new clause that would require the Government to come forward before the due end date in March 2028 to say whether they think the levy should continue.

There is an absence of any publicly available costings on the measures. That is true for all the measures, yet this House is being asked to approve an indefinite extension. When the levy was first introduced, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that it would raise £2.3 billion a year, but the out-turn in 2024-25 was only £700 million. That matters, because part of the rationale for the higher levy is to generate revenues to support businesses and households. What measures is the Minister proposing in that regard? Surely not the Thorpe Park VAT cut, because that is funded by changes to corporation tax. Can the Minister enlighten us on what other benefits the consumers—my constituents—are getting from the tax?

The levy needs to be seen in the context of the Government promising to reduce energy bills by £300—instead, bills have increased by around that amount. That is what happens when Governments do not have a plan. The Conservatives would cut bills for businesses and consumers through our cheaper energy plan, taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and legacy subsidies, and backing the North sea to get drilling.

The second measure on increasing mileage payments to 55p for 10,000 business miles is something that we support. It is right that those workers, including carers, who are using their own vehicles for work should not be left to absorb the rising cost. The measure is backdated to the start of the financial year. When winding up, can the Minister guarantee that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not pursue anyone for any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise have arisen on payments made before the legislation took effect?

The increase applies only to the first 10,000 miles. When we debated the resolution, the Minister said that the Government considered an increase in the 25p rate, but that it did not represent good value for money. If Ministers accepted that the 45p rate needed to be increased, can the Minister explain how they justify leaving the longer-distance rate untouched at 25p? As has been set out, this is the first increase for some time, which raises the question of how we can avoid such a long period between increases in future. I accept that indexation would be complicated, but what commitments will the Minister make to regularly review increases?

Mileage is an important part of motorists’ costs, but the bigger impact comes from fuel duty. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to scrap both the 15-year freeze and the 5p cut that the Conservatives put in place. It was only after pressure from the Opposition that the Chancellor made a U-turn. However, it was only a partial one, and those costs are going to start hitting from as soon as January. For the logistics sector, which pays £5.4 billion in fuel duty, a 1p increase per litre will increase costs by nearly £83 million. Perhaps the new Chancellor will recognise the folly of that approach and reverse the plans they inherit.

We welcome the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. That duty had been frozen since 2014 until Labour came into office. For a year from today, HGVs will pay just £1, which will be a significant saving for the sector. However, the Government must recognise the full scale of the pressures facing hauliers and accept responsibility for those they have added; the Chancellor did not have to increase business rates, transport taxes and fuel duty.

More than 95% of road haulage firms are small businesses with small margins, so any increase in costs is a challenge. The Government say that the measure will save £600 for a typical lorry, and £900 for the largest vehicles. At peak prices, filling a single HGV costs more than £1,000. Yes, the measure is helpful, but not markedly so.

Taken together, the measures reveal a Government reaching for short-term fixes while avoiding the harder questions. On the generator levy, they are demanding higher taxes without certainty or proper costings—all while displaying a lack of urgency on reforms to decouple energy prices. Mileage allowances are a partial change, and one that leaves high-mileage workers behind. The vehicle excise duty holiday is a temporary relief without a plan for what comes next.

The Conservatives welcome the measures, as far as they go. However, they have not been brought forward by choice; they have been forced by the consequences of the Chancellor’s decisions. Taxes remain at record highs, and are set to go higher, costs continue to rise, and growth has stalled. Against that backdrop, the measures offer very limited relief.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 318 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles)

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That provision may be made increasing the rate of the electricity generator levy to 55%.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Motion on income tax (mileage amounts)—

That—

(1) In the table in each of—

(a) section 230(2) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (approved amount for mileage allowance payments), and

(b) section 94F(2) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (appropriate mileage amount),

for “45p” substitute “55p”.

(2) In consequence of paragraph (1), in section 94F(3) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, for “45p” substitute “55p”.

(3) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

Motion on vehicle excise duty (temporary rates for good vehicles)—

That—

(1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 as follows.

(2) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Act (rates for rigid goods vehicles exceeding 3,500 kgs revenue weight) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or

(3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”;

(b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to rigid goods vehicles mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”.

(3) Paragraph 10 of that Schedule (rates for certain rigid goods vehicles exceeding 11,999 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3), for “to be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “£1.”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (7), for “£654” there were substituted “£1”.

(4) Paragraph 11 of that Schedule (rates for tractive units exceeding 3,500 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which sub-paragraph (1), (2)(b) or (3) of that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “shall be determined in accordance with” to the end there were substituted “and not exceeding 44,000 kgs is £1.”;

(b) where sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to tractive units mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, in that sub-paragraph for “basic goods vehicle rate” there were substituted “£1”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “£1,703” there were substituted “£1”.

(5) Paragraph 11C of that Schedule (rate for certain tractive units exceeding 41,000 kgs but not exceeding 44,000 kgs) has effect in relation to goods vehicles to which that paragraph applies and which are used in the course of a trade as if for “£10” there were substituted “£1”.

(6) Where subsection (2) of section 3 of that Act (6 month licences) applies in relation to a vehicle for which any of paragraphs (2) to (4) has effect, that subsection has effect as if, in paragraph (a), for “£50” there were substituted “£0”.

(7) Article 3(1)(b) of the Vehicle Licences (Duration of First Licences and Rate of Duty) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/1428) has effect in relation to vehicle licences, other than trade licences, taken out in the period beginning with 1 July 2026 and ending with 30 June 2027 for vehicles for which any of paragraphs (2) to (5) has effect as if for “£50” there were substituted “£0”

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses to be responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The measures before the House assist the Government in that objective.

The way that the current energy system works means that households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the gas price is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when high gas prices push electricity prices over the current threshold of £82.61 per megawatt-hour. The Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from 1 July. That will do two things: first, it will ensure that a large proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government, providing a revenue stream so that money is available to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east; and secondly, in the longer term it will support the new voluntary contracts for difference scheme, which was announced in April, by encouraging participation in the scheme.

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 Iran war, the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles, and then 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April. That represents the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles.

It was a privilege recently to meet care workers and the Unison general secretary to hear directly about the difference that this uprating will make to those on the frontline. The general secretary said to me and the Chancellor that this measure is good news for people providing essential public services. It was an honour to meet those who work day in, day out looking after people across the country. I am glad that this measure will have a positive impact on those who do such vital work. Looking ahead, beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of those rates and will set out further steps at the Budget.

The third measure recognises the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs. The Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles, which will save a typical HGV £600 on top of the savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help to prevent cost pressures from the Iran conflict spreading across the economy.

The 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 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.

This Government are taking action to support the economy at a time of global economic uncertainty following the Iran conflict. Our approach of targeting support at those groups who are hardest hit by the conflict will ensure that the measures we take are effective, while protecting the economy from the effects of reckless borrowing that took place under the previous Government.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman says it was for covid, but he forgot to mention Liz Truss.

This Government’s record shows that despite that instability, our plan is working. UK GDP growth in the past two years was the second fastest in the G7. Real household disposable income per person has grown by more than 2% so far in this Parliament, compared with a fall of more than 2% in the last Parliament. Real wages have increased in every single month since this Government took office, with wages rising faster than inflation. These measures will continue that track record and demonstrate that this Government are committed to supporting working people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I do not intend to detain the House for long. I welcome the motion to increase the electricity generator levy, which—alongside the Government’s plans to encourage participation at a competitive price in long-term fixed contracts for low-carbon generators—will weaken the link between electricity and gas prices, with the overall effect of bringing down energy bills for my constituents and consumers across the UK, as well as for British businesses.

I also welcome the long-overdue increase in the approved mileage allowance for workers from 45p per mile to 55p. It is very noticeable that over the 14 years I was in Parliament under a Conservative Government, that rate stayed exactly the same, while the cost of petrol rose by around 33% and the cost of diesel by around 44%. Every single year, those workers were worse off than they had been the year before.

The motion to temporarily reduce vehicle excise duty is also welcome. Right now, HGVs pay about £1,700 on average per vehicle; the motion would change that to £1 this year. Last month, I visited Spectrum Freight in Chesterfield, where we discussed the challenges the industry is facing. It and other businesses in the industry will very much welcome the Government’s sensible approach to supporting the sector at this difficult time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

The electricity generator levy is a windfall tax on UK electricity generation from nuclear, renewable and biomass sources, and it raised £0.7 billion in the last financial year. The EGL is a revenue-based tax that currently applies at a rate of 45% on exceptional generation receipts above a benchmark price of £77.94 per megawatt-hour, with an allowance of £10 million per company. In contrast, the energy profits levy applies to oil and gas production in the UK and the UK continental shelf, and raised £2.9 billion in the last financial year. We support the goal of seeking to fund cost of living support through emergency revenue measures during the gas price shock, but we also note that power wholesale prices are now around £90 per megawatt-hour, compared with a spike of £135 per megawatt-hour and a pre-Iran conflict price of £80 per megawatt-hour. How much is this measure likely to raise, given the move in prices? It feels like the horse may have already bolted, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

We recognise that this measure is a nudge to accelerate the shift of legacy renewable generators away from volatile wholesale prices and towards fixed contracts for difference, using a higher tax rate as leverage. If legacy renewable generators—those on the renewables obligation, not those already under CfDs—sign up to a wholesale contract for difference, they exchange their volatile wholesale revenues for a fixed strike price. That is obviously good news for consumers, who are insulated from future gas price spikes on that portion of generation because the generator is no longer passing through the wholesale prices, and the Government capture any upside via the Low Carbon Contracts Company when wholesale prices rise.

The second motion will increase the mileage allowance. Again, this seems a logical step, and one that we are happy to support. I note that the 45p rate has been frozen since 2011, so it has been 15 years without an adjustment. Over that period, the costs of fuel, insurance, tyres and servicing have all risen materially, so while 55p is a meaningful correction, it is questionable whether it fully catches up with accumulated inflation. This change will have a positive impact overall, not least for people in professions such as care work, who do a lot of driving between appointments. I refer again to the Lib Dem proposal to cut fuel duty by 10%—if the Chancellor took that proposal on board, it would combine with the increase in mileage allowance to make a significant difference in the pockets of people who often have to drive for work. I also note that the cost of this change has not been set out, only that it is

“subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and will be set out at a future fiscal event.”

Personally, I do not think that is good enough. The Treasury team should set out the cost of any change in the tax take, whether positive or negative, when it is proposed.

Finally, the 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for HGVs is a sensible and welcome measure, and we will not oppose it. Our hauliers, such as Chris Hayter in Witney, are critical. They are the backbone of our economy, and I understand that the Minister knows them well. We need to be honest about what this change is and what it is not. Our haulage sector was already in crisis before the conflict in Iran. Insolvency rates in road freight have been running at record levels. Margins were being squeezed by rising insurance costs, driver shortages and the lingering disruption of years of post-Brexit paperwork. The Iran conflict has simply poured fuel—at £1.85 a litre—on to a fire that was already burning.

The VED holiday saves a typical operator about £600 a vehicle. We welcome every penny of that, but against a fuel cost shock that is adding £1 billion a year to the industry’s cost base, it is by the Government’s own figures a quarter of the problem. Many operators will burn through that saving in a matter of weeks at the pump. What the sector needs alongside this is a serious long-term plan on fuel duty RPI indexation, which threatens to push costs higher again next April, on driver recruitment and retention, where the shortage remains acute, and on the transition to cleaner vehicles, where smaller operators have been left without a credible path to decarbonisation. We will support this measure through Parliament because the people driving these lorries deserve the relief now, not after another round of consultations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister to wind up.

High Speed 2: Impact on Communities

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds]

On that point—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady has been incredibly generous in ensuring that everyone can get in, but the debate has to conclude at 7.46 pm. It is her time, but she may wish to consider leaving some time for the Minister.

[David Simmonds]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Does she agree that there is a positive that could come out of this process, and from her trenchant efforts to secure an upgrade to the status of Colne Valley Regional Park? Granting the park a higher degree of planning protection would be a significant win for our constituents and others. Perhaps the Minister might consider putting a little pressure on Government colleagues to secure that positive benefit for future generations to enjoy.

SS Richard Montgomery: Masts

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.

[Kevin McKenna]

Yes, for any community that has strong links to the sea, the stories of the sea run deep in everyone’s veins. As I was about to come on to, there is an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean-looking mermaid who has her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator, threatening Sheerness. People have a sense of pride about that mural and the stories, and it matters to all the communities that surround the area where the Montgomery is laid to rest.

It is important that we ensure that the masts are preserved for the future and, building on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people locally are keen that if these masts are removed, they come to land. The Government, as I say, are removing the masts. We do not know what condition the masts will be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people in Sheppey would love to have one of the masts, at least, returned to the mainland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna]

Absolutely. As I have talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone, “The masts are all ours! We have to have them all.” There are three masts—we can share. I know that it matters to people in Southend; I have had communications from some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and also from people more generally.

There is one extra snag in this project. Currently, the masts are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. There was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. Although for decades the United Kingdom Government have been responsible for ensuring that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which are the United States Government. Although I know that people locally would like the masts, and I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be happy for them to come to Sheppey and to Southend, we will have to ask the United States Government for one of the masts. There are three masts; Southend could have one, Sheppey could have one, and maybe one could go into the ballroom that Donald Trump is building at the moment—they would look great covered in gold leaf. Beyond that, this means that we must engage in a bit of diplomatic discussion with our American allies. It would be a massive testament to our partnership with our American friends during the second world war, and since then through NATO. It is a way of bringing that story to life for people. We could use this to bring us together, as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together. It could reignite—not literally; that would be terrible—the bonds with our American allies.

I have a few questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised by my constituents. A no-fly zone has recently been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. Several constituents would like to know why and what has changed. Are the changes reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the Montgomery’s cargo? People would also like to know what this would involve, and what we need to do to ask the Americans if we can have the masts. Do the Government still believe that the masts should be kept in the United Kingdom? I would also like some general evaluation of the Government’s ideas about a timeline for the removal of the masts and what it would involve.

This is quite a romantic story in its way. Shipwrecks always have a degree of romance to them, and the Montgomery has the added frisson of an incredible amount of explosives, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) said, adds a little bit of fear. The wreck speaks to me about how such stories get embedded in communities, even over a few decades. The people of Sheppey really care. I have a petition running at the moment, and I hope that there is a petition in Southend, too. I encourage anyone to sign my petition so that we can show the strength of feeling and the real desire to finally bring the masts of the Richard Montgomery home to the United Kingdom, home to Sheppey and home to Southend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The most dangerous wreck in Britain—respond to that, Minister!

Middle East: Economic Update

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question, and for his important work on this issue. There are two ways to reduce the number of days in which the gas price sets the electricity price. First is to invest more in home-grown renewables and in nuclear, so that more of the mix is made up of electricity. The second way is to delink gas and electricity prices, first by increasing the electricity generators levy to bring in money but also—this is crucial—by incentivising those companies that are currently getting the market price to go instead on to a contract for difference, which gives greater certainty for families, pensioners and businesses with their bills. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.

The Chancellor should have come here today to explain how she was going to use the £20 million extra that the Treasury is pulling in every single day through higher VAT, a higher energy profits levy and other taxes, to tackle the immediate cost of fuel crisis that is facing families and businesses today. The Chancellor is fundamentally wrong when she says that a knee-jerk response would have put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. We need just to look at what other countries are doing. The Government could have used that £20 million to drive down prices—the price of petrol at the pump, the price of train and bus fares, and the price of home-charging electric vehicles. Slashing those prices could have helped the Chancellor to control inflation and higher interest rates. That is what other countries are doing, and what we Liberal Democrats are calling for.

The Liberal Democrats were the only political party to have in our manifesto a commitment to break the link between gas and electricity prices, so we are glad that 18 months on, the Government have finally listened.

In addition to the measures outlined today, may I ask the Chancellor about two specific things? First, has she spoken to any banks about rolling out low-interest loans for householders who want to do the right thing and adopt energy-saving measures, but are struggling with the up-front costs? Secondly, I met the Competition and Markets Authority on Monday. The CMA and Ofgem both agree that there is a case to answer about the broken energy market and why hospitality and small businesses are being blocked. Will the Chancellor join me in writing to Ofgem and asking it finally to investigate, without any further delay, a broken energy market that is blocking hospitality and small businesses from accessing the best deals?

Spring Forecast

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.

NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?

School Minibus Safety

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.

The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.

Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.

I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.

Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.

Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.

Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.

The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.

In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.

Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.

The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.

I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future.

The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.

In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.

Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of

“People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”,

but does not actually say what that target will be.

To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact.

In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.

To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, who I am told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 8—Review of impact of section 86 on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the measures contained in section 86 on the hospitality sector.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of section 86 on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade, and

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established.

(3) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the impact of the alcohol duty measures in Clause 86 on the hospitality sector, including effects on employment and business viability.

New clause 9—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—

(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and

(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—

(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,

(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and

(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and

(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.

(4) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.

New clause 26—Statements on increasing alcohol duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase to alcohol duty made under section 86 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) the hospitality sector,

(b) pubs,

(c) UK wine, spirit and beer producers,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in alcohol duty.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am pleased to open this session—the sixth and final session in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill—on clause 86, which concerns alcohol duty. This Government’s approach to alcohol duty is one of proportionality. Indeed, we are taking a fair and coherent approach to alcohol taxation as a whole. The measures in the Bill take account of the important contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector, the Government’s commitments to back British businesses, and the need to maintain the health of the public finances.

Clause 86 makes changes to alcohol duty rates from 1 February 2026. Specifically, the clause changes the rates of alcohol duty for all alcoholic products in schedule 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 to reflect the retail prices index.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild]

It feels like we are getting warmed up for scrutinising the 536 pages of the Bill upstairs in the Public Bill Committee shortly. It is good to see that the popularity of the topics we are debating has increased as we move on to alcohol duty, which clause 86 increases in line with the retail prices index from 1 February.

I am proud to confirm that His Majesty’s Opposition are big supporters of beer, wine, spirits and hospitality businesses. As such, we oppose these tax rises. This £26 billion tax-raising Budget piles pressure on households and businesses that are already struggling because of the decisions of the Chancellor. Prices are high, growth is sluggish and now the Chancellor has chosen to impose another duty hike.

Our new clause 26 would therefore require the Chancellor to publish a statement on the impact of increasing alcohol duty on the hospitality sector, on pubs, on UK wine, spirit and beer producers, on jobs and on the public finances. These sectors are already being hammered by this Government’s economic choices. A Government who say that the cost of living is their priority are raising alcohol duty, putting more cost on to people and businesses that keep our rural communities and high streets alive.

Clause 1

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

This is the normal way that inheritance tax assets are taxed. There is not just APR and BPR, and the changes coming in in April; other assets are passed on through inheritance. We are applying the same treatment here; this is the standard way that inheritance tax is set for various assets.

As I was saying, these reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances and funding public services. They reduce the inheritance tax advantages available to some owners of agricultural and business assets, but those assets will still be taxed at a much lower effective rate than most other assets—a £6 million estate owned by a couple, for example, could have an effective tax rate of just 1.2%, which can be paid, interest-free, over 10 years.

Those opposing these reforms in full will be voting for a status quo in which the very largest estates pay a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than the smallest estates—a status quo where the Exchequer sees £219 million in tax relieved from just 117 estates claiming APR, and £558 million in tax relieved from just 158 estates claiming BPR. That is not sustainable, and it is certainly not fair. I therefore commend clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 to the Committee.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

I wish to speak to amendments 3 to 23 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). By now we all know what clause 62 and schedule 12 do: they would restrict agricultural property relief and business property relief to 100% of the first £1 million of qualifying assets and 50% thereafter—though I note that this legislation was written before the recent announcement, which I will obviously come on to. Members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party will fiercely oppose Labour’s family farm tax and family business tax in the Lobby today, just as we have since these policies were announced. We must first face the reality of the sheer number of Labour MPs intent on punishing those who dare to feed us, or who take a risk to build their own business.

Our amendments seek to mitigate at least some of the damage by removing the anti-forestalling measures that have purposely tied the hands of so many farmers and business owners across our country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and many others have pointed out that these measures particularly trap more elderly farmers, who have been robbed of their ability to plan. The Government have said all along that they expect farmers and business owners to alter the ownership structure of their assets. I would be really interested to hear just how the Minister believes that elderly farmers, in particular those in the final few years of their life, should do that.

Before I turn to the other issues, I note that the amendment paper tells its own story: Government amendment after Government amendment, each one a U-turn and a rushed attempt to bury the incompetence, indifference and hostility that this Labour Government have shown to family farms, tenant farmers, rural communities and family businesses. I ask respectfully of the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked earlier, why it has taken the Treasury more than a year to admit that it got this wrong. Why have farmers been forced to leave their fields and bring their tractors to Whitehall, just to be heard?

I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who gave this House five chances before today to vote against these changes. The Government had ample opportunity, but here we are. We know that their partial U-turn will not be enough. The Country Land and Business Association has been very clear that it will only limit the damage.

Many serious questions and concerns remain on the impact of clause 62, but I will highlight just three. First, from the very start the Government’s numbers have been, at best, questionable. The Treasury has disagreed with the CLA and others on how many farmers and businesses will actually be affected. Even after the partial U-turn, HMRC expects 1,100 estates to face larger inheritance tax bills in 2026-27, 185 of which will be claiming APR. Yet the experience of many Members, from speaking to farmers and businesses in our constituencies, and that of several industry bodies is that that figure is massively wide of the mark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Absolutely; the hon. Member makes a point that I am going to come on to later.

Welsh farms are typically smaller than those in England, with 55% being less than 20 hectares, and 66% of Welsh farms are cattle and sheep farms situated on hilly or mountainous terrain, compared with just 12% in England, which also has a much higher concentration of arable farming. This leaves Welsh farms with the lowest average income of the four nations—£18,000 lower than in England. Welsh family farms are also a cultural bastion of the Welsh language, with almost half the people working on Welsh farms speaking Welsh as their first language—more than double the Welsh average.

While the Government’s changes to APR and BPR are likely to disproportionately benefit Welsh farmers, the diverse nature of farming across the four UK nations needs to be considered when making such significant changes. That is why the Welsh Affairs Committee continues to call for the Wales-specific impact assessment of the Government’s changes to inheritance tax that the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) just referenced. It is critical that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. That is why it is important that we close the inheritance tax loophole that allowed wealthy investors to purchase agricultural land as a way of avoiding tax.

Ensuring that the tax burden falls fairly relies on effective data, however. The Welsh Affairs Committee and I remain concerned about the availability and accuracy of the data used to justify the thresholds set for APR and BPR, particularly in regard to Wales. The Government have thus far been unable to provide any estimate of the number of Welsh farms that will be affected by these reforms to inheritance tax. Such data is critical when considering any potential impacts on the Welsh farming sector, given its greater financial precarity and reliance on low-income, family-run livestock farms. We cannot afford to be complacent. I hope that the Government will ensure that they take specific account of the unique cultural, environmental and economic circumstances of farming in Wales when making such significant policy decisions. I wholeheartedly support the changes to the APR and BPR as laid out in the Government’s amendment to schedule 12.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Would you like to intervene?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have no desire to intervene on the hon. Member—“Would the hon. Member like to intervene?”

[Charlie Maynard]

My apologies, Ms Ghani.