James Wild
MP for North West Norfolk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Minister failed to respond to any of the questions asked by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), so I will try again: some companies have expressed an interest in the business, so what discussions is the Minister, or his colleagues, having with potential buyers?”
“Passengers on the Fen line from King’s Lynn are suffering repeated cancellations and an unacceptably poor level of service. Now that the Government control both the track and the trains, will the Transport Secretary intervene and demand a robust action plan to sort out this poor performance?”
“The Hunstanton coastguard rescue officers I have met responded to 150 emergency shouts last year, and the small payment helped them to perform this role for locals and visitors alike.”
“Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley spoke about the offensive nature of those letters and their dreadful impact on victims—telling them that in September the first wave of criminals will be released. Others will not yet have been informed.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Lady Chief Justice appeared before parliamentary Committees to tell MPs that she could have more sitting days if only the Government would produce, I think, about £20 million of funding—a fairly minimal amount in the scheme of the £1.3 trillion that the Government spend every year—rather than go…”
“It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), whose incredibly powerful speech gave voice to the victims and the impact that the horrific abuse has had on them. He has led on this issue consistently in this House, and his words should carry incredible weight.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for James Wild, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 12.
“Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue. In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out. Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments.”
“My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.”
“This settlement is supposed to deliver fair funding; that is what the formula says on the tin, but it fails the Ronseal test. Norfolk’s core spending power in the first year of the settlement is lower than the national average, and the largest increases in core spending power are going to urban authorities. This simply fails to recognise the needs of large rural counties such as Norfolk. The County Councils Network’s assessment is that rural counties and unitaries face the highest pressures, collectively amounting to £7 billion of costs by 2028-29.”
“Indeed. I am sure that if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, she will elaborate on that. Here is my point. Perhaps the kernel of the unfairness is the lack of recognition of remoteness and its impact beyond the adjustment for adult social care. It has been removed from most of the formulae—”
“It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said: “Maintaining…allocations of the recovery grant does not look like a principled decision”. I think that says it all. The policy is designed to shove all funding to Labour councils. Let us be clear: this is about shifting resources away from rural areas and into unitaries.”
“I ask the Minister, who is not currently in her place—I hope the Whip on the Front Bench will make a note of my question—why Ministers rejected the evidence that Norfolk and other rural authorities submitted about the additional costs that they face and the importance of remoteness. After remoteness, there is the recovery grant, which is supposed to be a one-off formula intended to give local authorities the funding they need. The formula was meant to be replaced, but the Government have decided to continue it for the next three years. However, there is no funding for Norfolk county council, despite the allocation, and the additional element of the final settlement, supposedly being targeted at upper-tier authorities—only Labour upper-tier authorities, it seems.”
“I will not give way; lots of people want to speak. This is a serious cost pressure on rural authorities that the Government have chosen to ignore. Of course, this has been compounded by the removal of the rural services delivery grant in 2025—the loss of funding that had been put in place specifically to acknowledge the high cost of rural service delivery. That was a political choice made by a very political Secretary of State. People in Norfolk can see in plain sight how this Government view rural areas, in the light of the farm tax, the lowering of the bus funding that the previous Government had put in place, and the scrapping of road and rail schemes in our area.”
“Not only have our elections been scrapped, but my constituents—and those in Suffolk—were due to benefit from an annual investment fund of £37.4 million a year, which the Government have now cut for Norfolk. We will lose out on £48 million in the next two years. Why? Because of decisions taken by these Ministers. It is another sign that this Government neglect the people of Norfolk. I welcome the announcements on SEND deficits, but it is clear overall that this is not a fair funding settlement. There is an over-reliance on council tax increases for my constituents, there is no recognition of the true costs that rural authorities pay, and ministerial decisions will lock in inequalities for years to come. The Government should think again.”
“Additional support was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has been continued by this Government, but they are not uprating it with inflation to take account of the high energy costs that IDBs pay. We do not know if that support will continue in future years. If it does not, will the Minister commit to working with the local and district authority groups that have been set up precisely to find an equitable solution? Of course, Norfolk is losing out further still because of the Labour Government’s decision to cancel the Norfolk and Suffolk mayoral election and the county council election—two political choices with which I fundamentally disagree.”
“I agree. The figures simply bear that out. As a result of the settlement, council taxpayers in Norfolk—it is probably the same for my hon. Friend’s constituents—will bear the brunt through much higher council tax. Maximum council tax increases are assumed for the full three years of the settlement. Let me touch on internal drainage boards, which are responsible for managing water levels and reducing flood risk. They play a vital national role in protecting key areas, including the prime agricultural land that is so important for our food security; yet the cost of IDBs falls on council taxpayers. In the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 40% of council tax goes towards IDB levies—costs that other local authorities do not face. Funding should reflect the nationally important role of IDBs.”
“Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—”
“Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?”
“The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?”
“Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family. As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting.”
“Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully. Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.”
“I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important. Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement. Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit.”
“I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.”
“I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary?”
“I will not, given the time available. A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals.”
“In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.”
“That takes us back to one of this Committee’s themes, which is about how raising taxes to a certain level drives people into the black market, and about where the sweet spot is for raising revenue without driving illegal behaviour. We will come on to the enforcement powers in some detail shortly, so I will not get into them now. This measure will play a useful role in regulating a growing sector, but the Government need to strike a balance between discouraging youth vaping, supporting smokers to quit and maintaining a workable, enforceable tax regime that does not cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised, and particularly the point about zero-nicotine vapes being treated in the same way as nicotine vapes.”
“What exactly will they be doing? Why is the figure seemingly so high in comparison with the take? Some consultation respondents have questioned whether the new duty will actually shift behaviour. If producers simply absorb the cost, as tobacco firms once did, prices may barely change, which will undermine the public health rationale behind the policy. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? Will the duty rate remain under review if outcomes fall short of the expected impact? We can also look at the experiences of other countries such as Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% when a similar duty was introduced—not because consumers quit, but because purchases moved to the black market or unregulated online sellers.”
“The Government’s own impact note shows that HMRC expects to spend £140 million just to deliver this measure, of which £20 million will be spent on IT systems, while the other £120 million will be for staffing and compliance costs. I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether the headline figure includes the £32 million contract that HMRC is currently advertising to deliver the vaping duty supply contract for five years. As Border Force will also receive up to £10 million to prepare, delivering the new duty will cost about £150 million, all in. That is a pretty significant sum, so we need to be sure that it will provide proper value for money. Can the Minister give a little more clarity and break down the costs, particularly the £120 million on staffing and compliance? How many people will that involve bringing into HMRC?”
“The Government have since opted for a flat-rate duty rather than the three-tiered structure originally proposed, which would have varied the rate according to nicotine strength. Having read the responses to the consultation, I know that that decision clearly reflects the bulk of the evidence provided and will create a system that is simpler to administer. As the Exchequer Secretary might say, that is evidence of consultation working and the Government listening, which we are becoming very used to. The tax will raise significant amounts: £400 million in 2027-28 and £465 million in 2028-29, with revenue then increasing further. When introducing a new tax, implementation matters.”
“The Opposition will not oppose the clauses, but we do want to probe the Government’s thinking. Vaping has become increasingly common across the UK. According to the Government’s own tax information and impact note, approximately 5 million people in the UK vape. For the first time, according to the Office for National Statistics, more over-16s in Great Britain are using vapes or e-cigarettes than are smoking cigarettes: 5.4 million adults vape, compared with 4.9 million who still smoke. The duty was first announced by the then Conservative Government in the spring Budget of March 2024. Alongside the announcement, a consultation was launched on how the duty should work in practice.”
“That raises an interesting public health question about the rationale for taxing zero-nicotine liquids in the same way as addictive nicotine-containing liquids. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concern that by adopting this taxation approach we might be discouraging people from switching to less harmful or nicotine-free alternatives. Clause 114 defines when a product is regarded as produced for duty purposes, not just when liquids are mixed but when they are packaged, labelled or marketed as suitable for vapes. Clause 115 leaves it to future regulations to set out when duty becomes payable and who is liable. Clause 116, the final clause in this group, gives HMRC new powers to control vaping products before duty has been paid.”
“Good morning, Sir Roger and members of the Committee. As the Minister says, clauses 112 to 116 will introduce the UK’s excise duty on vaping products and set out the legal and administrative framework for its operation. Clause 112 will establish the new vaping products duty, setting a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. Clause 113 sets out what counts as a vaping product; the definition is drawn deliberately widely to encompass any liquid that contains nicotine and the solvents used with it, and even liquids without nicotine if they are intended for vaporisation. That means that the apparently popular zero-nicotine shortfills used by smokers who are trying to quit or taper down will be taxed, too. I am advised that shortfills will be the hardest hit by the new duty; Vape 360 reports a 203% price increase.”
“That makes sense in principle—it limits the opportunity for diversion or counterfeiting—but the practical implementation will matter greatly. Subsection (5) grants HMRC wide powers to restrict transfers, to define what counts as a fixed place and to cap the number of stamps issued to a business. If the system becomes too bureaucratic or opaque, small UK producers could find themselves struggling in the market while larger incumbents consolidate their position. The Minister referred to the logic behind clause 120 and the concept of a UK representative for overseas businesses that lack a domestic base. Clearly, there needs to be someone within UK jurisdiction who can be held responsible for compliance and any penalties that may be applied.”
“Clause 118 will give HMRC the authority to issue and manage the duty stamps and to charge administrative fees. It also allows a third-party issuer to be appointed, as I referred to in my comments on the previous group of clauses. I hope that the Minister can confirm how those fees will be set. Will HMRC consult on the level of those fees? What safeguards will exist to ensure that the fees are proportionate and transparent so that businesses do not find themselves paying unpredictable charges that bear little relation to the cost of the compliance regime? Clause 119 will establish who can hold and use duty stamps: only approved stamp holders may do so, and they must operate from a fixed location within the United Kingdom.”
“Clearly, when used properly, such tools can be an effective enforcement system. They allow officers, retailers and consumers alike to verify legitimacy at a glance, building confidence in compliant businesses and exposing those who seek to cheat the system and the taxpayer. We should be clear, however, about the scale of the challenge that could be created for smaller manufacturers and importers. In implementing this approach, we should ensure that the practical burden of stamping, activating, tracking and reporting, alongside new IT infrastructure, is proportionate for the many businesses that may not previously have had to operate at such a level of compliance. We cannot allow a regime that is intended to fight the black market to end up driving responsible producers to consider joining it.”
“It defines when a vaping product is considered to be stamped, and it sets out that the duty stamp, whether affixed to the product or to its retail packaging, must comply with regulations made under the Bill. Importantly, the clause will enable each stamp to be digitally linked to the product that it marks, and will allow HMRC to collect specified information about those goods, marrying the physical and digital trails of compliance. That is a positive step, and I am pleased that the Government have adopted at least some of the approach for which the Opposition argued during the passage of last year’s Finance Bill when we considered the introduction of the duty stamp regime. In essence, these measures will bring to the vaping market a track and trace model that is similar to what already exists in the alcohol and tobacco sectors.”
“Clauses 117 to 120 will introduce the new vaping duty stamp scheme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to move forward with a duty stamps regime for vaping products: it is, after all, a measure that can help our enforcement agencies and responsible businesses alike to distinguish legitimate duty-paid products from those that are illegitimate and being traded illicitly and illegally. We know that there is a substantial illicit market for vapes across the country; without a credible system of verification and traceability, it will continue to undercut legitimate producers, harm public health and cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue, so we need to address it. Clause 117 will establish the legal framework for the duty stamps system.”
“The intention is clear: to encourage tight control of duty stamps, treating them almost as cash equivalents, and to discourage casual or insecure handling that might enable diversion or counterfeiting, which is welcome. Clause 124 introduces a broad, catch-all civil penalty for failure to comply with the vaping products duty regime using section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 as its legal framework. That is intended to ensure that HMRC can act where non-compliance occurs, but no specific penalty is written into the legislation, reinforcing the need for accurate record keeping and full compliance with operational rules. I can see why a general power may be convenient for HMRC, but for smaller businesses it could increase the risk of innocent mistakes attracting financial penalties.”
“It provides a strong financial penalty and a disincentive for retailers and wholesalers to stock unstamped products, and it complements the criminal provisions that follow later in this part of the Bill. Clause 123 creates penalties for approved stamp holders who lose stamps or fail to use, return or destroy them within 12 months of issue, unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss. In those circumstances, the penalty is set at five times the monetary value of duty per lost stamp, equating to £11 per stamp when the scheme goes live. That comes alongside the existing Finance Act 1994 penalties for altering or misusing stamps.”
“Will they simply be destroyed? It would be helpful to get clarification on that point. Crucially, what safeguards will ensure that forfeiture powers are used proportionately, and that any minor administrative mistakes by otherwise compliant firms do not result in legitimate products being seized and destroyed at the first opportunity? Clause 122 introduces a civil penalty regime for those who sell, offer for sale or deal in unstamped vaping products packaged for retail sale. The penalties set out are banded according to scale and repeat behaviour, rising to a maximum of £10,000 for 500 or more units, with escalating amounts for repeated contraventions within a rolling two-year period.”
“Other forfeiture triggers are linked to the wider civil and criminal offences contained elsewhere in this part of the Bill, which I am sure we will come on to. These powers are designed to allow both HMRC and local enforcement bodies to remove illicit or suspect products and counterfeit stamps from circulation. That is clearly an important deterrent against the black market in vaping products. Can the Minister assess the risk of the 12-month rule on unused stamps, and the broad definition of invalid stamps, inadvertently capturing legitimate business activity? For example, operators may over-order stamps as a contingency or make administrative errors. How will the Government ensure that, in those circumstances, genuine stock is not caught up and lost alongside contraband products? Once forfeited, what will happen to those goods?”
“I rise to speak to clauses 121 to 125, which set out the framework on forfeiture and civil penalties for the new vaping duty regime. As the Minister said, this is a very important part of the new regime, given the impact that illicit vapes could have. Clause 121 establishes a general liability to forfeiture for three categories of non-compliant goods, namely: an unstamped vaping product that should bear a duty stamp, any invalid duty stamp along with the product that it is attached to, or any unused duty stamp not affixed or returned within 12 months of issue. In plain terms, it gives HMRC the power to seize non-compliant vaping products. An invalid stamp is defined broadly, and includes any stamp that has been altered, forged or voided by HMRC.”
“I think particularly of the power to shut down a premises for 12 months; we must ensure that that is effective, and that people are prevented from seeking to get around it by pretending to sell the business or list a new owner of the business. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have raised.”
“In some cases, all the stock on the premises—the Minister made this point—may be forfeited if HMRC believes that it is used in a business connected with the offence. That could be a welcome measure, but we need to have some clarity about how unnecessarily broad powers could potentially be used. Will there be a clear route for traders to challenge such forfeiture of legitimate products where they consider that they have inadvertently breached the rules? Taken together, the clauses introduce serious new powers, which is why it has been worth spending a few moments considering them and how they will actually be used.”
“Of course, in the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government are effectively legislating to abolish sentences of up to 12 months, with a presumption that those will become suspended sentences. That is still a penalty, but it will mean that people are in the community rather than in jail serving their punishment, as they should be. The reality is that most people breaking this law are unlikely to actually go to prison; they may simply get a fine. Will the sentencing guidance make clear distinctions between organised criminality and smaller-scale offenders? The final clause in the group, clause 130, deals with the issue of forfeiture. It goes beyond the general rules in clause 121 by allowing all unstuck stamps or unstamped products linked to offences under clauses 126 to 128 to be seized.”
“We may effectively see fake transfers of ownership to try to get around it, so it is important that HMRC and trading standards have robust systems in place. Clause 129 sets out the penalty framework. On summary conviction, in England and Wales the maximum is the general magistrates limit—imprisonment, a fine or both; in Scotland, the maximum is 12 months and a statutory fine; and in Northern Ireland, it is six months and a statutory fine. So there is a little discrepancy there. On conviction on indictment, the maximum is two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. That clearly allows for flexibility to distinguish between serious organised criminal offending and smaller scale non-compliance with the law.”
“There are many examples in constituencies across the country of illegal vapes being sold, and the communities near them suffer the impact of those criminal enterprises. We support action to deter such enterprises, but we are also familiar with examples in which trading standards, HMRC or others go in and seize the illegal vapes—the police may be involved as well—and in a matter of hours, that same premises will reopen, selling more illegal vapes. It is great to have a power to shut down such premises, but how will it be enforced? Will the resources be in place to do that? Will there be clear criteria on when the powers will be used, and how a change of ownership of a premises could affect a ban?”
“We need some clarity from the Minister on how responsibility in those cases would be apportioned, and we must again ensure that enforcement authorities are operating with clear guidance. Clause 128 will enable courts, when convicting under clause 127, to make an order prohibiting the use of premises for the sale of vaping products for up to 12 months, and will create a further offence for managers who breach such an order. The power is of course intended to shut down problem premises that are repeatedly used for illicit trading. That is a tool that local authorities and trading standards officers—and, I suspect, Members of this place and our constituents—will very much welcome.”
“Member for Maidenhead, if an 18-year-old is in charge of the premises such that they are unlocking on the day and will be locking up, are they the person, the individual, who could get the fine for dealing in the product, even though they may have had no role whatever in securing the stock and are simply there, getting their minimum wage payment to look after the shop? I would be grateful if the Minister could unpack what subsection (4) means in that sense. It is right that deliberate participation in the illicit vape trade is met with serious, fierce sanctions. We must also make sure that any junior staff who are wholly innocent—who do not know anything about the matter and could not reasonably have been expected to—are not prosecuted for the actions of others.”
“Underlying that, there is presumably some assumption about the level of abuse of this system, so it would be interesting to have a flavour of that, given that all of us will be familiar with vape shops and associated issues from our constituencies. Clause 127 creates criminal offences for possessing, transporting, displaying, selling or otherwise dealing in unstamped vaping products. It also criminalises managers of premises who “cause or permit” the sale of unstamped goods. Under the definition in subsection (4), a manager of premises “is a person who…is entitled to control their use…is entrusted with their management, or…is in charge of them.” To pick up the example raised by the hon.”
“Clause 126 creates new criminal offences relating to the possession and transfer of unstuck duty stamps . In plain terms, it becomes an offence for anyone who is not an approved stamp holder to possess a duty stamp that has not been affixed to a vaping product, or to transfer such a stamp to someone else. As the Minister says, the Bill allows a defence where the person did not know or have reason to suspect that they were handling an unstuck stamp, and carves out sensible exemptions, such as transfers between UK representatives and overseas principals, or during commercial delivery and returns. I would be interested to know what assessment the Treasury has made of the level of abuse that it expects under this regime. HMRC and trading standards are being given a budget for enforcement.”
“We do not oppose any of these clauses, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether there will be formal consultation, particularly where Acts of Parliament will be changed by regulations. That is something every member of the Committee should expect.”
“Clause 136 simply implements consequential amendments so that vaping products are recognised across the existing excise framework. Clause 137 deals with the definitions that determine which products fall within scope—clearly, they need to be kept up to date. Finally, clause 138 sets the commencement and transitional arrangements. As we have discussed, businesses are expected to register from 1 April, with liability beginning from October. That is an ambitious timetable, but I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the interim guidance is available on gov.uk. I was not aware of that, so I will look it up later this evening, as she suggested.”