Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend sums up very well the links between some of the issues that we are discussing today and wider economic growth, which, as Members will know, is the Government’s principal mission.

Any hope that I might have had of reciting the names of the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate is fast evaporating. What I will say, on our 350 banking hubs in the course of this Parliament, is that it is important to note that that is a floor rather than a ceiling, so it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed. More than 270 hubs have already been announced, and more than 210 are now open. In Wales specifically, 17 banking hubs have been announced and 12 of them are already open.

Banking hubs do not just provide assisted cash services through post office staff and allow customers to withdraw and deposit cash. They also of course, as Members will know, provide community bankers from customers’ banks, offering customers the opportunity to speak to someone face to face about their banking needs, as they would in a traditional bank branch. I was in the banking hub in Warwick just last week and was able to meet community bankers and customers who were coming in. I saw at first hand the important benefit that having someone there whom people were able to engage with brought to those who were coming in.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that these hubs offer that wider range of banking services, and I draw her attention to the plight of community bank account holders, who often need to have access to a service that currently is available only in a bank branch, but could be provided in a banking hub in the future.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers.

I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy.

The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Business Rates

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, we will continue to work with pubs, because we do value them. I want to be clear, however, that we value all of the businesses on the high street. We value our hospitality businesses, our retail businesses and those that work in leisure and soft play, which I believe was mentioned earlier. All the different businesses that provide life and vibrancy on our high streets are important. I have set out the particular challenges of the rateable value methodology for pubs and the big challenges they have faced over the last 14 years, with 7,000 closing, but we want to make sure we continue to do all we can to support high streets in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Dozens of small businesses across Ceredigion and north Pembrokeshire will have listened to the Minister’s statement with interest. Could he please reassure me that the consequential funding that he has confirmed will go to Welsh Government will be determined and communicated in time—by 1 April—to allow the Welsh Government to allocate additional support to those small businesses?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am sure that the consequentials and their implications will be set out as soon as is practically possible.

Clause 1

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on schedule 12. I greatly welcome the Government’s changes to the proposed agricultural property relief and business property relief thresholds. As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am proud of the work that my Committee has undertaken on reviewing the Welsh farming industry and the report with clear recommendations that we produced before the Budget. I also thank the Treasury for its swift response to our report as well as the changes that it has made to the thresholds. These changes show that the Government are listening not just to farmers but to the Welsh Affairs Committee and Welsh Labour MPs.

The new higher thresholds are a win for Welsh farmers. Raising the allowance for 100% relief from £1 million to £2.5 million will ensure that the changes to inheritance tax are properly targeted at the wealthiest estates while ensuring that smaller-scale family farms remain protected. Couples will now be able to pass on £5 million-worth of agriculture or business assets between them, tax free. This additional relief will have a particularly significant impact in Wales, given its specific context, which is very different from England. This was a key finding of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I commend the hon. Member on her leadership of the Welsh Affairs Committee. She rightly said that the Committee did stellar work on reviewing the potential impact of the proposals on agriculture in Wales. Further to her point about the unique nature and structure of the agriculture industry in Wales, does she agree that, regardless of the changes that the Treasury has introduced, it would do well to undertake a specific Wales-wide impact assessment of these changes?

[Ruth Jones]

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

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

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

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

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the disastrous trade deals that happened under the previous Government, and I thank him for giving me the chance to mention the trade deals that we have implemented, which seek to support businesses across the country to access more markets. I hope that, with our continued engagement with the European Union, we can continue to do that closer to home, too.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Does the Treasury subscribe to the general commitment that the Government have made to ensure that all policymaking considers the impact of decisions on rural areas? If it does subscribe to that rural-proofing commitment, will the Minister elaborate on how he will ensure that it is abided by in future so that rural communities, such as those in Ceredigion Preseli, are not subjected to yet another ordeal such as we have just endured?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I can reassure the hon. Member that I and Ministers will continue to think through the impacts on rural communities—and all communities—when we come forward with changes to tax or other policies. It is because we have done that that we came forward with the change we announced just before Christmas, and we will be making that change in the Finance Bill in the coming weeks.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I have now spoken in most of the Finance Bill debates since I was first elected to represent the people of Ceredigion in 2017, and subsequently, since last year, I now also represent the good people of Preseli, in north Pembrokeshire. In advance of all Finance Bill debates I make the effort to consult widely with my communities, in particular with the small businesses that form such an important part of the economy in my constituency. In all the years that I have served as a Member of Parliament, never has the sense of fear, the lack of confidence and the uncertainty been so palpable when I have met businesses in my constituency.

If I reflect briefly on the structure of the economy of the constituency, it is perhaps no surprise that they should be so worried about the measures in this Budget. As of March this year, there were some 5,500 businesses registered in Ceredigion Preseli—that number may well be slightly lower by next March—and 81% of them are classified as small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, which makes Ceredigion Preseli the small business capital of Wales. It is a rural and coastal constituency, so the industries of agriculture and hospitality are key pillars of our economy. Indeed, 35% of all businesses are classified as being in the agricultural, forestry or fishing sector.

Much has already been said in the debate about the changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief, and the concerns that these changes have caused for small businesses and small family farms across the United Kingdom. We have heard other Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), eloquently speak on this matter. As he mentioned, we have already seen how these proposals have changed the way in which our small businesses, particularly farm businesses, operate. Some 55% of small businesses and 49% of farm businesses have already cancelled proposed investment projects in anticipation of the changes. Family Business UK estimates that in my constituency these changes alone will lead to the loss of some 250 jobs and deliver a £13 million hit to my constituency’s gross value added.

There is a real danger with these changes that the Government will deliver incredibly long-lasting harm to small businesses across the country, especially in rural areas. It is particularly disappointing that the Government have refused to pause, at least, these changes so that they can properly understand the impact that they will have on rural areas. Many figures and statistics have been bandied about in the many debates that we have had in the past months about the prevailing facts of these changes, but the Government have not undertaken a full impact assessment, as follows most policy decisions that they take.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because we both represent rural constituencies—he in Wales and me in Lincolnshire. Our constituencies are very different in their rural aspect, but both are affected equally badly by the family farm tax. Many of my farms may be larger than his, but their income is still quite marginal. So many of us representing rural areas cannot understand why the Government have not been prepared to compromise, listen to the NFU and, if necessary, take more resources from the big estates but preserve our family farms.

[Ben Lake]

I very much agree with the right hon. Member. That is a point of real bemusement and confusion for many of my constituents.

The Government have not looked for or sought compromise or engaged with the alternative proposals presented by the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales. Some consensus is to be found, if only the Government would budge and were willing to compromise ever so slightly, so that they can achieve the objectives they so eloquently pointed out are the intention of the policy without sacrificing hundreds if not thousands of family farms and businesses across rural Britain, particularly in my constituency.

That probably underlines a growing sense that I have had. Although my constituency is only 170-odd miles from Westminster and Whitehall, where many of these decisions are dreamt up and subsequently implemented on us, we may as well live on the moon, such is the disconnect between the policies that are sometimes made here and the impact that they have on the ground. There is a lack of effort to try to understand why so many businesses and people in my communities are so fearful about the impact that these proposals will have on their lives.

Let me add that some 15% of all jobs in my constituency are in hospitality. There was a missed opportunity in this Budget for the Government to look again at the VAT for hospitality. That would have done a world of good and given much-needed confidence to an industry and sector that are suffering dreadfully at the moment with the cumulative impact of different price increases as well as new taxes. A VAT cut on hospitality would have been very much welcome.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is not only the VAT; the proposed hike in alcohol duty is yet another blow to pubs and breweries in my constituency. They include the Three Hills in Bartlow, which is reeling from a business rate increase of 123% as a result of the business rate valuation changes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor is failing to protect our pubs and breweries with these measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake]

I very much agree; that takes me neatly to my next point.

The Government have failed in their Budget to acknowledge the many increasing and cumulative pressures on hospitality and pub businesses in particular. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) referred to significant increases in the rateable value of a pub in her constituency, and I have also been contacted in recent days by hospitality businesses, such as a pub that has just been informed of a 131% increase in its rateable value.

The pub is now waiting to understand what exactly that means for its business rates bill, but the fear that it will find itself having to pay a great deal more in the coming years than it previously did is very much well-founded. That is on top of the higher employment costs generated by this Government’s decisions on employer’s national insurance and all the other inflationary costs in terms of energy and goods.

The Valuation Office Agency will come under HMRC from next April, if I have understood things correctly. I very much hope that the Government and HMRC will avail themselves of the opportunity to ensure greater consistency and clarity—and, dare I say, transparency—in the way that the VOA works and these valuations are calculated. It is a very technical, complicated and murky way of addressing and calculating business rates.

There is such a discrepancy in Wales that I must finish my remarks by bringing it to the attention of the House. The town council of Aberystwyth has done a lot of work in recent months on trying to find out why so many retail premises on the high street have been vacated and are empty. Time after time, businesses say that the business rates are just too high, so it did some research and found that on average, a business paying the zone A rates levied on retail properties in Aberystwyth town centre would expect to pay £525 per square metre.

The town council then looked at other towns and cities in Wales and found that a retail business on St Mary Street in Cardiff would be paying £460 per square metre for zone A rates, and a premises on the Kingsway in Swansea would be paying £180 per square metre. One does not need to be an expert on Wales to understand that as wonderful as Aberystwyth is, it is not quite the same sort of hotspot as St Mary Street in Cardiff, or Swansea for that matter. If the Government and HMRC will be taking ownership of, and responsibility for, the VOA from next April, I very much hope that one of the first things they will do is look at some of those inconsistencies. At the moment, as I say, some of these decisions are so disconnected from reality that we might as well be living on the moon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to say that the £7.5 billion of additional revenue from closing the tax gap is a huge boost to the public finances, which enables us responsibly to fund public services and deliver key priorities. Those priorities include free breakfast clubs at all primary schools in England. The first 750 of them are beginning this month via our early adopters scheme, which is worth £450 to parents and carers. To go further the Government will bring forward their comprehensive child poverty strategy as soon as possible.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

What steps are the Government taking to address the concerns of overseas companies that are evading VAT and online sales by fraudulently registering UK addresses?

[James Murray]

At the spring statement the hon. Gentleman will have seen the Government set out progress on measures in the autumn Budget to tackle a range of sources of tax avoidance and the tax gap. That includes prosecuting more fraudsters, introducing a new HMRC reward scheme for informants, tackling phoenixism and tackling the offshore non-compliance tax gap.

Finance Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady makes her point succinctly. I hope that the Minister has heard her comments about the impact. Her concerns are certainly my concerns—indeed, the concerns of all Members on the Opposition Benches. She referred to the review of the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. I understand that new clause 4 will not be pressed to a vote, but if it were, it is another that my party would support.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there seems to be a disconnect between some of the statements made by the Government about the impact, or lack of impact, of the measures on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fact that, week after week, small businesses and family businesses tell us, as constituency MPs, that they will have to reconsider much of their investment and recruitment plans for the coming year as a result of the measures in the Bill?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is what my small and medium-sized enterprises tell me—and, I believe, everyone else on the Opposition Benches—about that.

Ultimately, whenever the national insurance contributions are passed on to businesses, they will pass it on again to the customers—the wee man and the wee woman. They are the people that the Labour party—the party of conscience—says that it represents, but it will penalise them.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Ben Lake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Henry Tufnell]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I sometimes feel, though, that the ideas of her party are slightly for the birds. The idea of devolution—where is their plan? There is no plan. What are the practicalities?

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I thank my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The plan is quite simple: we could look at what is happening at this very moment in Scotland.

[Henry Tufnell]

The issue, though, is the practicalities. Is the hon. Gentleman going to draw an artificial line in the Celtic sea? What about the issue of consenting? What would that do for the leasing rounds, when certainty of investment for the private sector is so critical at this stage?

Furthermore, other Government agencies and Departments have to take account of this economic vision. In its latest contract for difference round, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero set a criterion of achieving shorter supply chains, in order to ensure that manufacturing facilities, installation firms and ports are located in areas of deprivation. It also adheres to science-based targets, which are goals that businesses set to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with obligations under international treaties, so that we can reach net zero by 2050.

The national wealth fund has an overall goal of increasing investment in resilient and sustainable infrastructure to support the UK’s net zero transition, and to contribute to improved local economic opportunity and productivity. In partnering with the private sector and local government, the national wealth fund has two clear strategic objectives: to tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth.

Great British Energy facilitates, encourages and participates in the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and measures for ensuring the security of energy supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

[Ben Lake]

I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government— his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales?

[James Wild]

We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.

The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?

Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.

New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?

In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.

We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.

Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:

“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.

There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.

If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.

The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and provided further detail about their amendments or concerns.

I start by making it clear that the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind an amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward. That was evidenced in the changes made by this House to ensure appropriate protections for our seabed. As a result of changes made to the Bill, the Crown Estate will now be required to seek the approval of the Treasury for any permanent disposal of the seabed. I thank the Opposition for a constructive debate on that matter. Alongside that, further changes made in the other place have helped to strengthen the Bill, including changes to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland; a reporting requirement in respect of activities with Great British Energy; and a requirement relating to sustainable development. In that spirit, I have considered the amendments that are before us.

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for tabling new clause 1, under which, within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed the transfer of responsibility for management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to ensure that no person in Crown employment has their employment adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for tabling new clause 4, to which her colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), also spoke. It would require the Treasury to set out a scheme for transferring all Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and rights in relation to the Welsh zone. As I set out in Committee, the Government believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form.

New clause 4 would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales—an entity that, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables. It would also risk disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-system approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Those reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the time it takes for generation projects to connect to the grid.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his concerns about devolving the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government—he listed a number of them. Am I right in saying that he believes that the devolution of powers from the Crown Estate to Scotland has fragmented the market, and is in some way to the disbenefit of people in Scotland?

[James Murray]

The matter that we are considering today, through the two new clauses that I have mentioned, is the proposal by Opposition parties for devolution to Wales. We are not analysing what may have happened in Scotland, historically; we are looking at the proposals put to us in those new clauses, which I am addressing.

To be clear, the cumulative impact of the changes that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is suggesting in her new clause would likely be to significantly delay the pathway to net zero.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Dewhirst]

rose—

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

rose—

[James Murray]

I will respond fully to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) first. As I was saying before he intervened, the data from HMRC, to which other Members have referred, shows that 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates. It is a similar picture for business property relief, more than 50% of which is claimed by just 4% of estates—that equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Given the wider pressures on the public finances, we do not believe that that is fair or sustainable, and we felt it was appropriate to reform how the reliefs operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. In understanding how the reliefs are reformed, the important point is to focus our conclusions on the data on claims. In understanding how many estates are likely to be affected by the changes, the data that matters is the data on claims. That is why the information that I was setting out around where the bulk of the relief currently goes is based on claims data. In a moment I will come to some other statistics that were referred to in the debate.

[Ben Lake]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but let us consider those who will still have generous protection from inheritance tax under the reformed system that we have announced. I point the right hon. Gentleman towards the fact that the reliefs in the reformed system, when taken together with the spousal exemptions and the nil-rate bands, will mean that, depending on people’s individual circumstances, up to £3 million can be passed on by a couple to their children or grandchildren, free of any inheritance tax.

[Ben Lake]

There has been much debate about the discrepancies between the estimate of the Treasury, which states that some 500 farms will be affected every year, and the estimates from the NFU, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, the CAAV, the AHDB—I could name a few more. Is the Minister not concerned, and should it not give the Government pause for thought, that the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers has estimated that in Wales alone the proposals will make an extra 200 family farms subject to an inheritance tax liability? If we are to believe the Government’s estimates, that would constitute 40% of the UK total.

[James Murray]

I am about to come to some of the statistics to which the hon. Gentleman and others referred. I do not have much time, so I will make a little progress before answering some of those questions.

On the point of how the nil-rate band and spousal exemption allowances work together, anything beyond the nil-rate band, the spousal transfers and the 100% full relief will receive unlimited 50% relief, and heirs can spread any payments due over 10 years, interest free. That is a benefit not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.

Growing the UK Economy

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Well, I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House today to inform us of those interesting statistics—I am sure Opposition Members are listening closely. He is right: behind the support for the plans for Heathrow coming forward is not only that we think that we are losing investment and jobs to other countries, but that we are offshoring the emissions of goods being brought in from around the world via other places before they come the UK by other means. That is why we think this plan is good for the country but can also be in line with our net zero commitments. As I say, those details will be set out further in due course.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

It was heartening to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the importance of inclusive growth in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and that regional growth will be hardwired into the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s infrastructure plans. However, he will be aware that such promises have previously been made to areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, but remain unfulfilled. Will the Chief Secretary therefore explain what investment the people of mid and west Wales can expect to see under his Government’s plans?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his campaigning on behalf of his constituents. As I am sure he will have seen, the Government recently announced hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment for skills in the green economy in his side of Wales, in Pembrokeshire, where there is enormous potential both for onshore and offshore wind development, and training people to be able to build those bits of infrastructure. That was the first of what I am sure will be many announcements to benefit his constituents.