Finance Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, not wholly surprisingly, I will speak to the impact that this Bill, and the Budget which preceded it, will have on investment in sport and physical activity. I regard this as part of the creative industries of which the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, spoke so eloquently in her maiden speech, not least because the creativity part of sport is the original creation of the sport itself.

From my experience as a former Minister for Sport and chair of the British Olympic Association for the London 2012 Games, I warmly welcome confirmation from the Government that an extra £9 million a year will support athletes ahead of the LA Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is an increase of 10% on the current settlement, which now means a total investment of £344 million over the cycle. This is welcome news, but not surprisingly, I do not believe it goes far enough, because some proposals in the Bill could wipe out the benefits I have just mentioned. The first is the decision set out in Clause 47 to apply VAT to the independent schools sector. The cost savings urged by government on independent schools to pay for the heavy tax increases, set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, are predicted to have a serious impact on the dual use of their excellent sports facilities by local communities. There is also the loss of sports scholarships and bursaries, which will impact opportunities for talented young people from a wide range of backgrounds.

To demonstrate the scale of this support, I drew the attention of the House yesterday to the 14 athletes on Team GB who came from Millfield School and participated in the Paris Olympics. Thirteen of those 14 came through its means-tested financial support mechanism. Those athletes brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal—four gold, three silver and one bronze—yet now, sadly, support of this scale across the independent sector is under threat. At the Paris Olympics in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools, yet just 7% of our pupils go to these schools. This demonstrates again how, through sports bursaries and scholarships, the independent sector has become a cornerstone of the sporting success of which we are so proud and yet is now at risk.

Sadly, the loss of sporting opportunity in the independent sector is not made up by investment in the maintained sector nor in the wider public sector, although Clause 79, referring to the soft drinks industry levy, may help, despite my noble friend Lady Coffey’s strictures. In that context, I ask the Minister to confirm that the increased revenues from the SDIL will, as now, be ring-fenced to fund the PE and sports premium for primary schools. That would be very important, and I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm that when he comes to wind up.

The harsh reality is that we are losing public sector sports and recreation facilities at an alarming rate. This is not a party-political point: 710 local football pitches have been sold since 2010 and ukactive estimates that 400 gyms, pools and leisure centres have already been lost, with a further 2,400 at risk without support. In 2021, Swim England estimated that 1,868 of the 4,336 public pools in England could be forced to close by 2030. State schools continue to sell off their playing fields. As a result, Britain’s prohibitively high levels of childhood obesity are rising and low physical activity levels cost our economy £7.4 billion a year. Surely we can all agree that it is vital we protect the places where local communities can be active.

The top of the sports pyramid continues to do well and is supported by the Budget. Our best continue to perform brilliantly across the world, but the heart and base of the pyramid are fracturing. We have old and out-of-date sports facilities; we have poor participation rates; we face growing levels of obesity. We are becoming a second-tier nation with poor and ageing sports facilities, while failing to support our sport and recreation policies.

I believe that the Government recognise the challenge and, for my part, there should be all-party support for Ministers if it is openly addressed. In the meantime, despite the Bill’s and the Budget’s focus on revitalising the NHS and other public services, there remains a notable absence of the role that sport, recreation and physical activity can play in tackling the nation’s key policy priorities—and that needs to be addressed.

Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on introducing this Bill and for the many decades that he has eloquently, and with no less a degree of commitment, sought to represent the people of Wales and serve their best interests. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I know this as someone who was educated in Wales and was, for the past three years, chair of Haberdashers’ Monmouth School and a long-standing president of Welsh Rowing.

I should also declare my interest in Wales as set out in the register. I chair Amey, which has worked hard to ensure the successful electrification of the Core Valley Lines radiating out of Cardiff. I also chair Acteon, which is a subsea service company that has an active global interest in offshore wind, providing seabed-to-surface sustainable energy solutions for offshore wind.

My view is that, to maximise economic growth in Wales and generate employment in sustainable energy technologies, now would not be the best time to pursue this Bill. I emphasise “at this time”, because I would favour the Government entering into discussions with Wales in due course. I hope they will make it clear that any discussions on devolving the Crown Estate to Wales must not conflict with their priority in the five-year plan to increase the proportion of the UK’s energy generated from renewables to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2030.

Investors look for stability. Growth is generated and new jobs are created only if there are two foundations in place: a stable policy framework and strong financial support with backing from government. The establishment of Great British Energy is under way and understood by investors. The publicly owned clean power company will work with the private sector to encourage greater investment in renewable energy, including offshore wind, which is so important to Wales. Similarly, the Crown Estate Bill underlines the Government’s commitment to support the development of offshore wind projects in seabed areas held by the Crown Estate. Time is of the essence to meet these targets and we need to increase grid capacity now to achieve the rapid expansion of offshore wind energy.

One major hurdle to these ambitious goals would be a minimum of three years of uncertainty; this would happen if we passed the Bill in this Session, for that is how long it took in Scotland. As we know, the process for Scotland was very complex and destabilising for investors. There were significant hurdles to overcome and they all took time: the legal and constitutional challenges; clarifying which functions could be devolved; and ensuring compliance with existing laws, which proved intricate. Assessing how revenues from Crown Estate assets would be managed and distributed in Scotland took a long time. Determining the value of Crown Estate assets and how they would be managed after the transfer was a significant challenge. Engaging with all the stakeholders, including local communities, businesses and environmental groups, was crucial and challenging, as differing interests had to be balanced in the management of assets. The Scottish Government then had to build the capacity to manage the new functions effectively, which involved training new staff and developing new management frameworks. Finally, but self-evident from the debate, the transfer was politically sensitive, with differing views among the political parties on how Crown Estate functions should be managed and by whom. All of that added to the time involved and the complexity of the process.

Further, there is a significant difference in this Bill. It is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the legislation be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament and the Senedd. This additional level of approval will take yet more time, and the Delegated Powers Committee brought to our attention in its report that it did not consider scrutiny of the power by the Senedd appropriate.

It is not that I do not favour entering into discussions in due course, but it should not be at a time when it is so important to encourage investors to come into Wales. All this means that there would be less clarity for those investors today. More troublingly, even if the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, put into the Act that it would come into effect three years after it passed, there would be investor uncertainty, which would be damaging. These years of uncertainty would be an inevitable consequence of a move to devolve the Welsh Crown Estate and would need to be factored into investors’ assessments. I fear that they would steer investors away from Welsh waters to other parts of the UK, to the detriment of research and development jobs in Wales, employment opportunities in Wales, which I passionately believe in, and the Welsh ecosystem of business associated with developing wind farms offshore, particularly now when there is so much attention on offshore floating wind opportunities, on which decisions are to be made over the next three years.

I am not arguing that the policy, long advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and echoed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, should not be considered in future. It should be, but not at this critical time for the net-zero policy of this Government. I fully understand the political will to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales, but the arguments are currently outweighed by the potential risks to the UK energy market and investor confidence in Wales. Let us grasp the very real opportunities together and work for the success of Wales in the offshore wind energy market. I have never been more optimistic about the potential for Wales. Sadly, if it is introduced now, I see this Bill only damaging that prospect. Its time will come, but not now.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—words that I never thought I would hear myself speak. I was unable to attend the Second Reading but my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle did attend. After the previous day in Committee, I was approached by four different Conservative Peers who complained that a Green had not spoken on that day. One of those Peers was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has consistently, over the 11 years I have been here, complained that Greens speak too much. I hope to hear him express his gratitude today to hear a Green speak.

I support the amendment because, although I am highly suspicious of Conservatives and their environmental credentials, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely genuine in his care for salmon—and I support that completely. This is a very sensible amendment, and I cannot see any reason for the Labour Government not to accept it, so I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why they will not.

These issues of environmental impact and animal welfare standards should be an overarching staple of any check on any Bill or policy that the Labour Government bring forward. I am afraid that these days I have my doubts about the Labour Government’s environmental credentials. We have seen some horrific decisions already in the first 100 days, or three months, so I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will accept this quite simple but, I think, very necessary amendment.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I too rise in support of the very modest amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Woe betide any Government who fail to accept an amendment tabled by four such eminent Peers as the movers of this amendment. I hope that the Government will recognise that this very modest amendment is worthy of significant support.

I say that it is modest because internationally, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, salmon farms are banned in multiple countries—not only the countries that he has mentioned but Denmark and Australia, to name two more. The practices that have led to these bans differ. Some are concerned that, with thousands of fish in each pen, salmon farms can act as a breeding ground for diseases and pests, which is undoubtedly the case, particularly with sea lice. Almost half the salmon in Scottish salmon farms are said to be infested with the common salmon louse. The consequences of that were made very clear by my noble friend in his opening speech.

There is another reason. In Argentina the main concern was that a provincial government voted to ban intensive salmon fishing after campaigners successfully argued that it would wreak environmental havoc, close down local fishing fleets and threaten the nature tourism established there.