Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

House of Commons, 1 July 2026.

Rachel Blake (Labour/Co-operative, Cities of London and Westminster)

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 things more expensive for those who drive for work, including care workers. 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 on the lights or boiling the kettle has also become more costly for families across the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in May, the Government are keenly aware of the costs that the conflict in the middle east will impose on British people. The Government have 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 being responsive to a changing world; and to being responsible, in the national interest.

Some legacy renewable energy generators stand to benefit from the disparity when higher gas prices determine the price of electricity. Without any new costs or risks, those generators receive extraordinary revenues. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when electricity prices are over £82.61 per MWh, but the Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July.

The 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 the Government. That will provide a vital revenue stream, so that money is available to the Government to support businesses and families with the impact of the conflict in the middle east. In the longer term, the increase in the EGL rate will also encourage participation in the new voluntary contract for difference scheme, announced in April—part of a broader package of measures that break the link between electricity and gas prices. Importantly, new investment is excluded from the levy. This ensures that the measure is targeted solely at legacy windfall returns, and does not deter future clean energy development.

In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees who use their own vehicle for work, and for the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the conflict in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years. It was 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 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. This is fantastic news for my constituents, my farmers and my businesses. Does she welcome the statement from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, which said that increasing the rates of approved mileage allowance payments is absolutely the right thing to do right now?

Rachel Blake (Labour/Co-operative, Cities of London and Westminster)

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.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Sussex Weald)

I call the shadow Minister.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I know that this legislation is fast-tracked, but the Minister did rattle through very rapidly. I will seek to follow her lead as best I can.

It is a pleasure to debate the Bill on Second Reading and its measures on increasing the electricity generator levy, increasing the mileage allowance and introducing the 12-month HGV vehicle excise duty holiday. We are broadly supportive of the measures. However, we must consider the wider context in which we are debating them. The energy price cap has today increased by 13%, inflation is well above target, economic inactivity is rising, we have high borrowing costs, taxes are at record levels and are set to go higher, and, sadly, growth is non-existent. Those things cannot all be blamed on the conflict in the middle east, so it is little wonder that this zombie Government are under pressure to show that they have a plan for energy costs, business costs and the strain on ordinary family finances.

Given the title of the Bill, people might expect ambitious measures in it to deliver cheaper energy for consumers and businesses, make our economy more competitive, and unwind the bills, levies and targets that are increasing costs, but there are not. Instead, this is a small package of measures with no serious plan to ease the burden.

Noah Law (Labour, St Austell and Newquay)

The shadow Minister speaks of the need for ambition, but does he not agree that there is little that is more ambitious than breaking the link between the cost of gas and electricity, which so many of our constituents have called on us to do in recent months?

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Sussex Weald)

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.]

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

We Liberal Democrats support all three measures in the Bill. We recognise that the electricity generator levy is intended to encourage legacy renewable generators to move away from volatile wholesale electricity prices and on to contracts for difference.

As the only party to put in its manifesto a commitment to decoupling gas and electricity, the Liberal Democrats support the Government’s objective. If it succeeds, consumers will benefit from greater protection against future gas price shocks and the volatility that we have seen in recent years. However, if the measure does not achieve that behavioural change, and instead primarily generates additional revenue, I believe that Parliament and the public deserve clarity on how that money will be used. As the Bill progresses through the House, I hope Ministers will say how they intend to report to Parliament the amount of money the levy raises, and how they intend to spend it.

We have consistently argued for an emergency transport package to help Britain keep moving, emergency home insulation schemes, and low-interest loans to support households to adopt energy security measures—something I proposed last autumn that 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.

The change to income tax mileage allowance payments is another measure that Liberal Democrats are pleased to support. However, Ministers will be aware that there are many carers who drive their own cars, often hundreds of miles a week, who do not benefit from mileage allowances. Again, I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House, Ministers will say what measures will be taken to ensure that all of our valued and professional care workers can benefit.

The 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for HGVs is a sensible measure and one that we welcome, but we must also recognise the unprecedented pressures facing the haulage sector. As international instability continues, and global energy markets remain uncertain, we urge Ministers to remain vigilant and responsive to the impact that those pressures are having on households and businesses, as well as industry and haulage.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

Today’s debate is progressing rapidly—so rapidly, in fact, that I am yet to turn to the speech in my folder. It is a privilege to close this rapid debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank Members for their contributions, as well as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for opening the Government’s arguments. She was right to point out that the conflict in the middle east has imposed additional costs on the British people, which is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been careful throughout the conflict—from the beginning, when other parties took a different approach—to tread carefully, be cautious and not rush to entangle ourselves in a foreign conflict, risking national security and potentially further harming our economic security.

The measures we are considering are an example of how the Government have responded in a proactive and positive way to the impact of the conflict in the middle east on households, families and businesses. Reasonable people can disagree about how the Government could have best responded to the conflict as it played out. It is this Government’s judgment that we have taken the right approach to ensure that we support those families and businesses that most need it. We have been there for them with the changes in this Bill and others—either already passed or making their way through the House via instruments of some form—such as continuing the freeze in fuel duty.

We wanted to ensure that our response was proportionate and targeted so that we could continue on the path that this Government have set out to bring down the deficit and bring down borrowing sustainably over the course of this Parliament. This year, for the first time since the 2000s, we have a lower deficit than the G7 average—something that the Conservatives never managed to achieve, despite all their talk about wanting to manage the public finances well.

I will not run through the measures in detail, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already done so. Instead, I will take the chance to respond to the questions asked by Opposition spokespeople.

I can confirm that the consultation on the electricity generator levy will come before the end of this year. It is being worked on at the moment by officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We will ensure 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 am sure, be raised in the consultation or elsewhere in engagement.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Given that the levy kicks in from today and the Minister said that the consultation will be published before the end of the year, six months henceforth, and then legislation will have to go through, are the Government considering any backdating provision? If a company generator wanted to go into one of these wholesale CfDs, doing so would allow it to have that backdated; at the moment, it would not have the option to go into the wholesale and will just be hit with the higher levy.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

No. If prices are slightly above the threshold set in the electricity generator levy, as they are at the moment, I believe, those taxes will be due now, from 1 July, whether or not businesses make decisions down the line after the consultation, after engagement and after the detail of the wholesale contract for difference policy has been set out by the DESNZ Secretary of State.

Both the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked how much revenue will be raised by this and other measures. It is a good tradition—a tradition set in place, in fact, by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—that the Office for Budget Responsibility set out the costings of policy decisions when they are made. That is important. This Government and this Chancellor have been keen to protect the independence and integrity of the OBR, rather than throwing it under the bus and causing market turmoil, as Liz Truss did. At the Budget later this year, the OBR will, in the usual way, confirm the costings of the changes announced by the Chancellor and included in the Bill.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that the costings the OBR put out initially on the EGL ended up being very different from the revenue that it has pulled in. That is why it is right that we have an independent forecaster, so that even if things materialise differently than was forecast, we have forecasts that are robust to the information at the time and can be relied on by all.

The hon. Gentleman questions whether the Government have provided sufficient support more broadly. I would just mention that we have taken the decision to extend the fuel duty freeze. Going into the general election, the previous Government’s plan, as set out by the OBR, which we have already talked about, was for fuel duty to continue to rise and for the 5p cut to unwind. I believe that motorists would be paying a further 11p of fuel duty if it was not for their choice in 2024 to elect a Labour Government and not go ahead with the plans that the Conservatives set out.

A couple more points have been raised. The shadow Minister mentions a review of indexation. We will, of course, keep the mileage rates under review. The Chancellor announced a few weeks back that we will have a review. We have somewhat pre-empted that with this 10p 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 further changes are to be made to the policy at the Budget.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made the important point that many care workers and people who drive for work may be working for an employer who does not provide a mileage rate. It is not compulsory for employers to set the rate at the HMRC rates. We have increased rates from 45p per mile to 55p per mile up to 10,000 miles, and I encourage employers across the country to adopt that higher rate.

For employees who work for an employer who does not do so or who persists in having a significantly lower rate, as I am aware that some do, it is possible to claim back marginal tax up to that amount, so 55p per mile now. A basic rate taxpayer can in effect get 20% back on that. It was a pleasure to meet care workers and members of Unison, the trade union, a couple of weeks ago at No. 11 Downing Street. Some questions were raised about whether that process could be made any easier for workers to navigate, and that is something I certainly want to look at with my officials. This is a complex area of policy. I encourage Members to inform care workers and others who drive for work and who do not have mileage rates provided by their employer that they can claim the tax back from HMRC.

I hope that responds to many of the points made.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I think the Minister might be coming to a conclusion, and I would not want him to miss the opportunity to refer to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the presumption that fast-tracked legislation should include sunset clauses. Could he explain why the Government have chosen not to follow that guidance in this case?

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

There is a very sensible policy rationale when it comes to the electricity generator levy, which I think is the clause the hon. Member is referring to. We want to ensure that the ending of the EGL and the future decisions made on it are made in the light of the decisions that will be made on the wholesale contracts for difference, which, as I have said, are coming forward. It would not have been the right decision to pick a future end date without considering how it would interact with the decisions that the Government will make and will be consulting on later this year on the detail of the wholesale contracts for difference.

I hope that that has responded to many, if not all, of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. I encourage Members to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Clause 1 - Increase in rate of electricity generator levy

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

New clause 2—Approved mileage allowance payments: review of rate for care workers—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a review of the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the rate of 55 pence per mile adequately reflects the costs incurred by paid care workers when travelling between the homes of those for whom they provide care;

(b) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who are required to transport specialist equipment, medication or mobility aids in connection with their caring responsibilities;

(c) the merits of setting a higher approved rate for paid care workers who make three or more separate care visits in a single day; and

(d) the interaction between mileage reimbursement practices in the social care sector and the effective hourly rate received by paid care workers relative to the National Living Wage.

(3) In preparing the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult—

(a) representatives of paid care workers;

(b) representatives of employers in the social care sector; and

(4) In this section "care worker" means a person employed to provide personal care to individuals in their own homes, whether employed directly or through a domiciliary care agency.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under section 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment.

New clause 3—Vehicle excise duty: assessment of impact on haulage costs and consumer prices—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles provided for under section 3.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an estimate of the reduction in annual operating costs for a typical goods vehicle operator resulting from the reduced VED rate set under section 3;

(b) an assessment of the extent to which the temporary reduction in VED affects the overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators, including that arising from fuel duty; and

(c) an assessment of the adequacy of the temporary reduction in VED as a measure to reduce haulage costs and consumer prices.

(3) In preparing the assessment under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult representatives of the haulage industry.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the combined impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles.

New clause 4—Electricity Generator Levy: review of rate—

“(1) The Treasury must review the impact of the increase in the Electricity Generator Levy rate to 55% under section 1.

(2) The report must, in particular, assess—

(a) the impact of that rate on investment in energy generation;

(b) the effects of that rate on electricity prices, including consumer bills;

(d) whether the Levy should continue to be charged at a rate of 55%.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay the report containing the findings of the review before Parliament before 31 March 2028.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the Electricity Generator Levy rate to 55% and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028.

New clause 5—Goods vehicle excise duty (VED) rates: review—

(1) The Treasury must review the impact of the temporary vehicle excise duty (VED) rates for goods vehicles provided for under section 3.

(2) The report must, in particular, assess—

(a) the impact of the temporary VED rates on—

(i) UK public finances, and

(ii) the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector;

(b) the effects of the temporary VED rates on operating costs for goods vehicle operators;

(d) whether it remains appropriate for the temporary VED rates on goods vehicles to continue.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review before Parliament before 30 June 2027.

This new clause would require the Treasury to review the impact of temporary vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles and to report to Parliament by 30 June 2027.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

I will open this debate in Committee of the whole House by reminding the House—though I am sure Members know what is in this Bill—of the purpose of the Bill, which is to respond to increases in costs for families and businesses in the UK because of the conflict in the middle east. Even though we have just completed Second Reading, as we are now in Committee, I will address the clauses of the Bill in turn—Members will be relieved to know that there are only four clauses, so it should not take too long. I will address the amendments that have been tabled in my closing speech, which, with the leave of the House, I intend to make.

Clause 1 makes changes to ensure that the electricity generator levy rate will rise from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out, in the UK the majority of our electricity is generated from renewables. Despite that, when the crisis in the middle east pushed up international gas prices, the cost of electricity, and so the cost of living, rose too, because electricity prices are still largely set by the price of gas. 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.

As we have discussed, the Government also announced back in April that we are acting to de-link electricity prices from gas prices through new voluntary long-term fixed contracts being offered to existing low-carbon generators. As we have discussed, these are known as wholesale contracts for difference, and the changes made by clause 1, increasing the rate from 45% to 55%, will encourage participation at a competitive price in these WCfDs.

Clause 2 makes changes to increase the generosity of mileage rates for 2026-27 for employees and self-employed individuals who use their car or van for work from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026. I forgot to respond to the shadow Exchequer Secretary asking me earlier why we have not increased the rates above 10,000 miles. I did respond to that point in the Ways and Means debate last week and think the Government have got the balance right here. We are supporting all drivers, noting that of course for a driver who drives 10,001 miles, almost all of their miles will be covered by the higher rates, and it is still open to employers with employees who drive many more miles to set their own rates if they wish. I would just note that the Conservative party had many opportunities to uprate these mileage rates after 2011, when they did do so, but they demurred from that choice for 13 years in a row, and I am very glad to be part of a Government who have introduced the largest increase in a very long time, if not ever.

The changes made by clause 2 will provide immediate support for both employees and the self-employed, and this is on top of the universal support announced in May, including the freeze on fuel duty, which will save motorists 11p per litre compared to previous plans, or £120 for the average car, or £250 for the average van. This clause represents 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 6,000 business miles.

Clause 3 reduces the vehicle excise duty liability for the majority of heavy goods vehicles to £1 for 12 months for licences taken out from today until 30 June 2027. The changes made by this clause are in recognition of the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its 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 from spreading across the economy. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that this measure on its own is not a silver bullet in helping the haulage sector, but I hope that it will provide some assistance, and it does show very clearly by our reducing this rate down to £1, saving HGVs £600 a year, that this is a sector that we do want to support and see grow and weather the storm from the conflicts in the middle east. We also want to do all we can to reduce costs in the supply chain, to keep prices in the shops for everyday families as low as possible. The decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save the average HGV over £2,000.

With that, having taken the Committee through the three clauses, I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I call the shadow Minister.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I will be speaking primarily to new clauses 4 and 5 tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, specifically related to the electricity generator levy and the HGV vehicle excise duty holiday.

I have to say to the Exchequer Secretary that it is quite nice to see a Treasury Bill that is so concise, rather than the hundreds of pages that we see in every Finance Bill, adding complexity and costs for businesses. I hope that he will take that point back to the Treasury when he returns with the next Finance Bill. I think he has also given a commitment, or expressed an ambition: he said he likes to scrap taxes, so I hope that we will see more taxes scrapped. Now we turn to one that he is increasing, rather than introducing.

3.15 pm

New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of increasing the generator levy to 55% and to report on its findings to Parliament before 31 March 2028. Importantly, the review should also consider whether the levy should continue to be charged at a rate of 55%. Due to the resolutions passed by the House, it is not possible to seek to amend the Bill to put a levy end date on the face of the Bill, so this is a modest amendment, but it is an important one because it goes to the heart of whether this Government have thought through the consequences of their approach.

The levy was originally introduced as a temporary windfall tax, designed to capture exceptional receipts in extraordinary market conditions. The Government are now proposing to raise it further and to extend the regime, but without setting out an end date. In last week’s debate, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:

“we have not made a definitive announcement on whether that rate will last a short period or will go on into the future, but we will update in due course”.—[Official Report, 24 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 397.]

In his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary said he wanted to consider how the impact of the wholesale contracts for difference might impact on the levy. I gently suggest that a joined-up policy might have considered those two things before bringing forward one of them, because that is not a sound way to make energy or other policy.

If the Treasury believes the measure to be justified, it should welcome a formal review. This new clause matters because investment in energy depends on confidence, predictability and a stable fiscal framework. It would require that implications for consumers and energy security are considered. If the Government are going to increase the tax burden on generators, they must be prepared to show what that means for future investment decisions, project financing, and the UK’s attractiveness as a place to build and expand capacity. The new clause also asks questions about electricity prices and consumer bills.

Ministers have suggested that this measure and the policy may help to reshape the market—to decouple gas and electricity prices—but the measures designed to do that have not been published. All we know from the Exchequer Secretary is that they will be published by the end of the year. In those circumstances, we should not be asked to accept on trust that a higher and indefinite levy will have no adverse consequences. This new clause is a call for scrutiny, for transparency and for certainty, and the Government should have no objection to a review by March 2028 and a statement on whether they intend for the levy to continue.

Doubtless the Exchequer Secretary, who is consistently consistent, will say that all measures are always kept under review by the Treasury. If so, I look forward to him accepting the new clause, which simply says that there will be a review; otherwise, I will urge other hon. Members to support it.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the temporary VED rates for goods vehicles and to provide a report to Parliament. This report must consider whether it remains appropriate for the temporary excise duty rates on goods vehicles to continue, and it should be produced before 30 June 2027. It would force Ministers to explain whether this short-term relief is delivering and whether an extension might be appropriate.

The temporary holiday is welcome, but it is limited; it is not a silver bullet, as the Exchequer Secretary has acknowledged. Equally, I acknowledge that it is a good measure and the right starting point, because the freight and logistics sector is under immense pressure from rising operating costs, fuel costs, business costs and wider economic uncertainty; more than 95% of those road haulage firms are small and medium-sized enterprises operating on margins as low as 2%, and the sector simply cannot absorb repeated shocks.

A policy like this should therefore be tested properly, and the long-term benefits properly weighed. New clause 5 would do precisely that. It would also assess the impact on the public finances, the competitiveness of the freight sector and operating costs for goods vehicle operators. If the Government’s measure improves supply chains and helps firms keep goods moving efficiently across the UK, then they should demonstrate that. If it does not, Parliament should know that too.

The new clause also asks the sensible question of whether this temporary reduction should continue. Businesses need certainty, not a series of one-year sticking plasters. Haulage firms plan investment, staffing, maintenance and route costs on a long-term horizon, not on the Treasury’s timetable. In the face of mounting pressures, the Government should assess whether this support needs to be continued in the future.

Temporary relief is no substitute for a coherent growth strategy. New clause 5 would ensure that Parliament has the evidence to judge whether the policy is working and whether we should support an extension.

The Government have brought forward a package of measures that are more of a short-term fix than a serious plan. That package includes an indefinite tax on electricity generators, a limited increase in mileage allowance, and only temporary relief for HGV operators. They have failed to give the House the clarity that it deserves about the fiscal impact of the measures. The Exchequer Secretary referred to the OBR scoring of the original levy rate. That scoring was provided at the time that the levy was announced because we announced it at a Budget. The problem we have is that this Chancellor makes announcements outside of a Budget, and then refuses to provide any costings or estimates. Presumably she had advice from officials before she brought the measure forward, so why can she not share with us the indicative amounts in order to aid our debate?

The Government also failed to give clarity on the duration of the electricity generator levy—we are supposed to just wait and see—and on the long-term support needed for businesses and working people. I urge hon. Members to support our two modest new clauses.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to 3. New clause 1 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 2 would require the Chancellor to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under clause 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. New clause 3 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.

As I indicated on Second Reading, we support what the Government are trying to do with these measures. However, it is really important for trust in politics that when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the intention is to use the levy to supporting households and businesses with the cost of living, there is a report to demonstrate to the public that the money does, in fact, go towards measures that do just that, rather than the money disappearing into Treasury coffers. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to accept new clause 1, which would provide transparency to Parliament and the public.

Let me turn to new clause 2. Some Members will know that I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the extraordinary work carried out by our care workers. The salary of our care workers, and the status they are given, is nowhere near big enough to recognise the extraordinary work that they do. I have spent several hours with Abbots Care in my constituency, watching how their care workers work. They have an enormous emotional investment in every single client; they observe their habits and personality, and they know when something is slightly out of whack or not quite right. A care worker’s routine can suddenly change if there an emergency with another client. There may be something wrong with the client’s medication and they have to make phone calls that they had not expected to make. They are experts on their client and on people, but they are not experts on tax.

I was very heartened that the Exchequer Secretary said on Second Reading that employees who do not receive the mileage allowance can claim back an equivalent amount. I was also heartened to hear him say that he would look into ways to make it easier for care workers. Could he outline what those measures might look like? We owe care workers so much thanks for the work that they do. It is diligent, hard work to make sure that our loved ones are cared for and can live with dignity. We should make the system as simple as possible for them. It might be a case of care organisations and providers sending letters to care workers to tell them what they are entitled to, or it might be a case of requiring HMRC to proactively write to them, but we must bend over backwards to make sure that care workers can benefit from this particular measure.

As I said on Second Reading, we welcome the measure, but we urge Ministers to think very carefully and to go as far as they can to make sure that every care worker who is entitled to this benefit understands that it is there for them. It must be made as simple as possible for care workers, and we must make it clear that it will not end up in a drawn-out dispute with HMRC; I urge the Exchequer Secretary to think about a dedicated hotline for care workers, in case we need one down the line. Finally, new clause 3 requires a report on this particular measure.

Our three new clauses are all transparency measures, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on them.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for their scrutiny and attention to the measures contained in this short Bill. I am proud that, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary said, we removed three taxes, and I am glad to say that, on a temporary basis at least, one tax is being put down to £1 as a result of the legislative changes that the House is about to vote on. It is a privilege to close this brief debate on behalf of the Government.

Let me turn to each amendment. New clause 2 would require a report to the House of Commons on the approved mileage allowance payments system, including the adequacy of the rate for care workers. The hon. Member for St Albans spoke powerfully about the work done by care workers in her constituency, who she has the honour of representing. I think that all Members will know—from personal experience of family members who have either worked in the sector or been cared for by those who work in the sector—just how valuable care workers’ time, effort and care is.

I am glad that the hon. Lady is now aware that care workers can claim back the tax. They cannot claim back the whole amount—it is not fully equivalent—but they can claim back the tax relief, as it were, on the amount. I want to look at whether we can make that process simpler and easier to use. As the Department does so, I would be happy to provide further updates—if not at the Budget, then beforehand. We have said that the Government’s review of the rates is not over. We came forward with the 10p increase, and we are continuing the review and will update the House further at the Budget. I therefore urge Members to reject this new clause.

New clause 3 would require a report to the House on the impact of haulage costs and consumer prices, including the operating costs for and overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators. As I am sure the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note setting out the expected impact of the measure. The costing for it will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and set out at a future fiscal event. It is therefore the Government’s view that the new clause is unnecessary.

New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the EGL rate rise, including on investment, electricity prices and energy security, and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028. The EGL was carefully designed to avoid disincentivising renewable generation, which means that since its introduction in 2023 it has had no adverse effect on energy security or new investment; in fact, we are having record levels of new investment in renewables under this Government. It is worth noting that new investments made since 2023 are exempt from the EGL and will continue to be so.

The Government have published a tax information and impact note on this measure, too, which sets out clearly that the Government’s view is that this rate rise is 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 EGL, which we have discussed. I will be consistent in reminding the Committee that, of course, the Government keep all taxes under review and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis, and that, unless responding to international conflict, in order to be there for households and businesses, tax policy decisions are usually best made by Chancellors at the Budget in the usual way.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary seemed to suggest that the Opposition’s view is that we should not have introduced this change until wholesale contracts for difference have been consulted on and sorted out. The Opposition would choose to forgo the additional revenue that may come in if prices remain higher than the threshold in the coming years; the Government’s view is that that is not the right approach.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am happy to clarify that for the Minister. My point was rather that if the Government are to introduce a higher levy rate on the basis that it will incentivise people to move into wholesale contracts for difference, it might be as well to have the policy for those wholesale contracts for difference ready.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for that. As I said, we are consulting on that policy before the end of the year. It was the Chancellor’s and this Government’s decision that the better thing to do for the country—for businesses and for households—was to respond to the conflict in the middle east with pace and appropriate responsiveness rather than waiting until the next fiscal event, which is scheduled for the autumn.

I turn to new clause 5, which would require a report to the House of Commons on the impact of the measure on UK public finances, the competitiveness of the UK freight and logistics sector and the contribution of the temporary VED 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. Consistent with the Chancellor’s approach, this is a 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 monitor the situation and consider further action as and if that may be necessary. As on other measures, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note, and the costing for the measure will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Finally, the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked of this measure as a short-term fix. I hope he is aware of and has seen the impact of the long-term decisions that the Government have made over our time in office to ensure that we can have higher economic growth, as we have had, and higher living standards—rather than their falling by 2%, as they did in the previous Parliament, they have already risen so far by 2% in this Parliament—in part because we have brought back economic stability and had wages rising faster than inflation in every single month since we took office. That has supported stability in the economy which has delivered six interest rate cuts. We have made sure that we are increasing capital investment and that we work with the private sector to get growth up and to invest in our public services and important infrastructure. We have done that in a way, along with investing in our NHS, that has enabled us to manage the public finances well and get borrowing falling in every year of this forecast, with the deficit lower than the G7 average, which the previous Conservative Government never achieved, despite how much they talked about it. They talked a good game on the public finances, but they were never able to deliver that. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

For the reasons that I have set out, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition. I commend the clauses in this short and well-formed Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Approved mileage allowance payments: review of rate for care workers

New Clause 4 - Electricity Generator Levy: Review of Rate

New Clause 5 - Goods vehicle excise duty (VED) rates: review

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful for the discussion that we have had today on a Bill that responds directly to the pressures placed on people and businesses across the UK by the conflict in the middle east. In respect of energy, rising gas prices have driven up electricity prices, and non-gas generators stand to benefit significantly as a result. The electricity generator levy ensures that a share of this exceptional revenue is redirected to the public, and we are increasing that share by raising the rate of the levy from 45% to 55%. As for fuel costs, we are uprating mileage rates for the first time in 15 years, providing relief for millions. We are also introducing a 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for the majority of heavy goods vehicles, supporting those who drive for work and the transport of goods across the UK. Those three measures are the right measures at the right time, and I commend the Bill to the House.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

This has indeed been fast-tracked legislation, at 90 minutes—no need for extra time here. [Laughter.] There is more.

The Government have sought to move rapidly to impose a higher levy on generators, but the measures designed to decouple electricity and gas prices have not been given the same priority. Motorists using their cars for work will welcome the increased mileage rates, but those driving more than 10,000 miles a year will be puzzled that those rates remain unchanged. Reducing the costs on those who keep goods moving around our country will make a difference, but that has to be seen as only part of the ledger and set against higher employment and higher taxes.

I congratulate the Minister on so ably shepherding the Bill through this afternoon. I am sure that he will have many more Bills to take through as the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, but this may well be the last piece of legislation to be granted Royal Assent before the Prime Minister shuffles off the stage. For this Bill and this Prime Minister, they think it’s all over—it is now.

Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)

We Liberal Democrats support the Bill and the three measures in it. We tabled our three new clauses in Committee, and I was grateful that the Minister gave assurances from the Dispatch Box that he would look at every single opportunity to ensure that care workers are aware of the ways in which they can benefit from these measures. We are happy to see the Bill fast-tracked, but I believe the Minister said that he would look for opportunities to come back and report to this House—if not at the Budget, perhaps before—on how that is going. I am glad that is on the record. I hope that care agencies see that on the record and act on it to inform their staff, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that. I will try to hold his feet to the fire so that we do everything we can to ensure that care workers are aware that they will benefit from this measure.

Dan Tomlinson (Labour, Chipping Barnet)

I ask that the House gives the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.