Taxes

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendment.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Given all the extraordinary and wonderful things that the right hon. Gentleman is setting out, is it not equally extraordinary that the British people thought you were a shower and needed to get rid of you—and they did? That is why you are on the Opposition Benches and we are over here.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am not sure that the British people were seeking to get rid of me.

[Sir Mel Stride]

I think what the hon. Gentleman said was a gross impertinence, Madam Deputy Speaker. He also referred to you as an absolute “shower”, which is totally unreasonable. I have always been a great admirer of yours, as you know, and always will be. [Hon. Members: “ Name him!”] Name the hon. Gentleman—quite.

We have a Government who are grossly incompetent. As soon as they came into office, what did they do? They talked down the economy. It is no surprise that the British Chambers of Commerce is now saying that the No.1 concern of its members is high taxes, or that the latest survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales once again shows that business confidence is down—and that is for the fourth survey in a row.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, with the Stephen Timms review and other work, are taking those measures forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The Chief Secretary is the third Minister or shadow Minister to refer to a colleague by name. It seems to be a bad afternoon for it.

[Darren Jones]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is because the review is named after the Member, which led to my naming him, but the Timms review will be taking forward that work and coming forward with proposals in due course.

If Conservative Members wish to challenge the fiscal rules, I invite them to do so. Do they instead think it would be wise to let debt balloon year on year, as they did, to pay for the day-to-day costs of Government, ultimately spending more and more on debt interest and less on the priorities of working people? In contrast, our fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they are the foundation for stability and investment.

The first rule is for stability—that day-to-day Government spending should be paid for through tax receipts—which is the sound economic choice and also the fair choice, because it is not right to expect our children and future generations to pay for the services we rely on today. This first rule allowed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, at the Budget last year, to allocate £190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services over the course of this Parliament.

The second fiscal rule has enabled this Government to invest in Britain’s economic renewal while getting public debt on a downward path. This rule has allowed the Chancellor to increase public investment by over £100 billion in the autumn and a further £13 billion this spring—investment to rebuild our transport network, our defence capabilities and our energy security. In short, it is investment to grow our economy, improve living standards and put more money into the pockets of working people in every part of the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Member has set the tone with his speech length. If all Members could stick to around six minutes, everyone will get in. I call Joe Powell.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

The Chancellor said that she would not make any commitments that were not

“fully funded and fully costed”,

but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has just said that he now expects us to wait until the autumn to hear how the Government intend to cover the £6 billion of unfunded commitments that their U-turns have run up in the last month alone. A Government divided. A Government racking up unfunded spending. A Government wrecking the public finances. Why is the Chief Secretary not prepared to explain how they will fund these U-turns? There are surely only two possible answers: either the Treasury has made them without a clue as to how they will be funded, or it knows but is refusing to tell us. Either is completely unacceptable. Can the Chief Secretary set aside the usual blather that we have just heard and tell us whether he knows how these unfunded commitments will be paid for, or are his Government simply refusing to say?

The House will also have noted the inherent contradiction in the Chief Secretary sticking to the line that decisions will be made at a fiscal event in the normal way, when that is precisely what the Government have not done. By losing control of the finances and of their own parliamentary party, the Government have made significant fiscal decisions outside of a fiscal event. The Chancellor said at the Budget that she would not be coming back with more tax rises. Is this still the position? Will the Chief Secretary rule out a wealth tax, along with reconfirming there will be no rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT? The Chancellor said that she would not extend the freeze on tax thresholds because it would hurt working people. Is this still the position? Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the Chancellor will not be adding to her fiscal black hole by scrapping the two-child benefit cap? Can I also ask whether consideration—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Chancellor will know the time limit. I am sure that this will be his last sentence.

[Sir Mel Stride]

It certainly is now, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Ministers are to begin putting their house back in order, that must start right now with full transparency and proper answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

We all know the Government had a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, whether it was the incompetence of covid contracts, the mini-Budget or the botched Brexit deal. But at the same time, last year’s Labour Budget was a Treasury tax grab with no vision for the economy and no regard to the impact on small and medium-sized businesses and key sectors like hospitality and social care. We Liberal Democrats want to see things getting better in this country for our constituents and for the country. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I will ask the Minister a number of questions. When will the Government get serious about growth through a much deeper trading deal with Europe? Will Ministers look at fairer revenue raisers, such as reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks and raising revenue from tech giants and online gaming and gambling companies? Will the Prime Minister make a public statement to calm the markets and avoid four months of speculation about what might be in the next Budget? Will the Government commission an interim Office for Budget Responsibility report now?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The same strictures apply to the Liberal Democrats—one more sentence.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Government confirm that they will not raid capital budgets to fix crumbling hospitals and to pay for day-to-day spending, and will the Minister confirm the date for the autumn Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I do. It is good that my hon. Friend has been able to raise that testimony from the Transport Committee, because it reminds us why the British people were so angry with the Conservative party after 14 years of failed promises, and why this Labour Government will always make sure that we deliver on our promises.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his answers this afternoon.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not have very long left, I am afraid.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stressed the importance of these services in urban areas as well. I will not go through all of them, but we heard lots of really good speeches on both sides of the House and a surprising degree of consensus, which is not always the case. It is interesting to see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington so closely aligned, which is not something I expected.

Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the last Government legislated to protect reasonable access to cash, giving the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash. The Government recognise that the ability to access cash and in-person banking support remains essential for many, particularly in rural areas and for vulnerable people, which is why we have secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that access to face-to-face banking is protected. Over 220 have been agreed, and more than 160 are open.

Banking hubs are a voluntary initiative by banks as part of meeting their access to cash obligations, as legislated for in FSMA. Many Members have asked the Government to demand that Link reviews its assessment procedure, but it is worth reminding colleagues that the process for deciding where hubs are needed is independently determined by Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. The Government are not minded to review the legislation passed by the previous Government.

A number of Members—including the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who mentioned this to me yesterday as well—talked about ATMs’ lack of reliability. I have done a little bit of work on that, and Link assures me that it takes a hard line with its members over the functionality of ATMs. However, I urge Members to raise these issues with me, so that I can raise them with Link. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I will feed back the concerns that Members have raised today about how Link applies its criteria.

I know that this is not necessarily the conclusion to the speech that Members were hoping for, but we think it is important that local communities have access to cash and banking services, which is why our Government are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Ian Lavery to wind up very briefly.

Finance Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: impact assessment of increase in rate—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of Sections 15 to 17 of this Act on—

(a) domestic energy production and investment;

(b) the UK’s energy security;

(c) energy prices, and;

(d) the UK economy.

(2) The assessment must examine the impact of provisions in this Act in comparison with what could have been expected had the energy (oil and gas) profits levy remained unchanged.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of changes to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK’s energy security, energy prices and the UK economy.

New clause 3—Review of impact of tax changes in this Act on households—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in this Act on household finances.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by these changes.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the changes in this Act on the finances of households at a range of different income levels

New clause 4—Review of impact of Act on small and medium sized enterprises—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained within this Act on small and medium sized enterprises.

(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact of the Act on the following matters—

(a) the number of people employed across the UK by small and medium enterprises;

(b) the number of small and medium sized enterprises ceasing to trade; and

(c) the number of new small and medium sized enterprises established.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to conduct an impact assessment of the Act on small and medium enterprises.

New clause 5—Review of the Impact of Tax Changes on Household Finances—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the tax changes introduced by this Act on household finances.

(2) The assessment must evaluate how households across different income levels are affected by these changes.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to assess and publish a report on how the tax changes in this Act impact households at various income levels.

New clause 6—Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.

New clause 7—Pupils with SEND without an Education Health and Care Plan: review of VAT provisions—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in sections 47 to 49 of this Act on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on—

(a) children with special needs who do not have an education health and care plan (EHCP); and

(b) the number of children whose families have applied for an EHCP.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Act on pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an Education Health and Care Plan.

New clause 8—Review of sections 63 and 64—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, review the impact of the measures contained in sections 63 and 64 of this Act.

(2) Each review must consider the impact of the measures on—

(a) Scotch whisky distilleries,

(b) small spirit distilleries,

(c) wine producers and wholesalers,

(d) the hospitality industry, and

(e) those operating in the night-time economy.

(3) Each review must include an estimate of administrative and operational costs for the preceding 12-month period for each of the sectors listed in subsection (2).

(4) Each review must consider the impact of the measures on the retail price for consumers of products subject to alcohol duty.

(5) Each review must also examine the expected effect of the measures on the domestic wine trade.

(6) A report setting out the findings of each review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the measures on the Act on distilleries, wine producers and the hospitality industry.

Government amendments 1 to 17.

Amendment 67, page 53, line 30, leave out clause 47.

This amendment removes Clause 47, which removes the VAT exemption for private school fees.

Amendment 68, page 56, line 13, leave out clause 48.

This amendment removes Clause 48, which introduces anti-forestalling provisions.

Amendment 69, page 56, line 13, leave out clause 49.

This amendment removes Clause 49, which sets out the commencement date.

Government amendments 18 to 66.

[James Wild]

I will speak to new clauses 1 to 3, and amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name. It is 124 days since the Chancellor delivered the first Labour Budget in 14 years—the so-called growth Budget—but it feels like longer. Inflation is up, taxes are up, borrowing is up, unemployment is up and energy bills are up. I could go on, but most tellingly of all, growth is down. The Bank of England has just cut its growth forecast for this year in half, to just 0.75%. Little wonder that business confidence has plummeted, with firms warning of fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices. Instead of backing risk takers and supporting wealth creators, as the Conservatives do, this Finance Bill and the Budget attack enterprise and deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes.

I turn to new clause 1, concerning pensioners. Millions of pensioners were left out in the cold this winter when the Government took away their winter fuel payments. Millions of people in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

I could not agree more. Perhaps we should all take a trip to see the great work being done in Reading, because we have to build a lot more homes. My generation is increasingly finding that working hard and getting a good job is no guarantee of owning a home in the end. That is what this Government are fixing with this Budget.

It is not only the young who are not sharing in growth. Growth has gone to capital over labour, and technological change means that machines can do tasks far more cheaply than humans. More payments to capital mean less for workers. The labour share of GDP has fallen by a sixth since deindustrialisation. Today, across the Atlantic, we see the dangers of Bidenomics—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that it is imperative he speaks to the Finance Bill and the amendments, rather than rehashing a Budget speech.

[Dr Sandher]

This Budget is investing in the future, and indeed changing this country. This is a Budget that is moving forward, but I want to cover the bits covered in the Finance Bill. It is a Budget, a Finance Bill, that is investing in labour-intensive sectors such as early years childcare and the warm homes plan.

[Dr Sandher]

I thank the hon. Member for his help and assistance. The aim is not only to improve pensioner incomes. On one side there is the tax change, and on the other side, the triple lock will ensure that the amount going to those pensioners increases by £400 from April. As Members on both sides of the House would agree, the triple lock has helped pensioners immeasurably.

It is right that I now draw my speech to a close. I thank all hon. Members for their help, and I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Let me voice my support for my hon. Friend’s new clause, which would require the Government to review the impact of alcohol duty increases on key sectors. Scotch whisky is one of Britain’s greatest industries, accounting for 22% of the whole of Britain’s food and drink exports and supporting tens of thousands of jobs. Yet despite repeated assurances from the Government, the industry continues to face sharply rising duty costs. Since the duty on Scotch and other spirits was—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member’s intervention is slightly too long. He is on the list to speak in due course, so perhaps he will make his point about the importance of Scotch whisky then.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the plight of Scotch whisky. My husband is an Ayrshire boy who is certainly doing his bit to keep the Scotch whisky industry going.

Notwithstanding that, it would help if the Government did not pursue these particular duties. Near my constituency —it was in it before the boundary changes—is an importer of fine wines. One of its products is port—not the kind of drink that many people sit and glug as they might do with a cheaper form of alcohol. [Hon. Members: “Speak for yourself!”] For most families around the United Kingdom, port is a drink to buy for an occasion—a birthday, Christmas, a wedding or something of that kind. It is not typically the kind of drink that someone would glug—with the exception of a few people in the House—in such volumes as other alcoholic drinks. None the less, that business will be impacted by these measures. They will affect a huge amount of innovation in the industry, which is a prize to our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It seems to me that by writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tabling parliamentary questions requesting that information, it would be more than possible for her to gain the data she requires and therefore, no doubt, make her case across the House.

New clause 2 refers to the Government’s changes to the oil and gas profits levy. Those crucial changes, which will see an increase in the rate of the levy to 38% from 35% and will raise in total £6 billion to underpin investment in delivering on our missions—getting the NHS back on its feet and supporting growth across the country—are laudable. I would not want to support any amendments that would put those benefits at risk.

New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require the Chancellor to conduct an impact assessment of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises. I am sympathetic to her desire to support small businesses, but I am unpersuaded that her new clause is the best way to do it. All the measures in the Budget had tax information and impact notes for them published with the Budget, and I remind everyone listening that it was a good Budget for small businesses.

As the Federation of Small Businesses said on the day,

“Against a challenging backdrop, today’s Budget shows a clear direction”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We are debating the Finance Bill and the amendments to it, not the Budget.

[Jim Dickson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply intend to illustrate why the changes proposed in the amendments do not help what the Government are attempting to achieve via the Finance Bill. The FSB said that the Budget

“shows a clear direction in business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support at small businesses, rather than big corporates”.

As hon. Members have stated, the Government are supporting SMEs by more than doubling the employment allowance, keeping the small profits rate stable, maintaining the annual investment allowance and freezing the small business rates multiplier. I ask hon. Members not to forget that this is an important piece of legislation underpinning measures announced at the Budget that will help fix the NHS, improve public services, incentivise capital investment and rebuild Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am sure that there are one or two good parts to this Finance Bill, but the hon. Gentleman was elected on a manifesto pledge to increase spending by £11 billion, and that was fully costed, yet this Finance Bill increases spending by £70 billion. I just wonder why he and his hon. Friends did not have the courage to put that before the British people at the election.

Small and medium-sized enterprises and the hard-working entrepreneurs who run them are the backbone of our economy, and they are the victims of this Finance Bill. In constituencies such as Bridgwater, where SMEs are key to local prosperity, the Government have imposed a huge national insurance hike that will make it more expensive to employ people. This rise, which breaks Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise national insurance, will cost SMEs £732 more per year for every employee earning £20,000. This tax on jobs will stifle growth and lead to higher unemployment. The rise in national insurance is especially damaging to those in the healthcare sector, and the proposed amendments will help to assess the damage that that causes. Last week, representatives from the social care—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. In the interests of complete impartiality, I want to make sure that all Members are aware that they have to speak to the amendments as proposed in this Finance Bill, not any other amendments that they might wish had been proposed.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

People in the social care sector in Bridgwater were particularly concerned that the national insurance contributions rise had not been subject to an assessment. Assessing the damage that it and the other tax rises will do is therefore critical to the successful implementation of this Finance Bill.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Marine Spatial Planning: coordination—

“In relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must—

(a) ensure that the decisions are coordinated with the priorities of the Marine Maritime Organisation, and

(b) consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.”

Marine plans guide marine use and regulation for sustainable development, balancing the environment, economy, and society. This new clause ensures the Crown Estate collaborates with DEFRA's Marine Spatial Prioritisation through the MMO, using its expertise to inform decisions, preventing conflicts of interest from its new borrowing and investment powers.

New clause 3—Sustainable development: community benefits—

“(1) Before making any investment decision, the Commissioners must assess—

(a) plans for community benefits for local communities, and

(b) plans for community benefits for coastal communities of offshore activities.

(2) In section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Commissioners must transfer at least 5 per cent of all net profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities to local communities impacted by those activities.’”

This new clause would require the Commissioners to ensure their activities benefit local communities, including coastal communities, and that 5% of any profits would be transferred to local communities.

New clause 4—Devolution of Crown Estate powers to Wales—

“(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 7 (powers of Minister of Works in Regent’s Park) insert—

‘7A Commissioners’ functions in Wales

(1) The Treasury must set out a scheme to transfer all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(2) The existing Welsh functions under subsection (1) are the Commissioners’ functions relating to the part of the Crown Estate that, immediately before the transfer date, consists of—

(a) property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and

(b) rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a date to implement the scheme under subsection (1) to the transfer of functions to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”

This new clause would require the Treasury to devolve Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

New clause 5—Limit on the disposal of assets—

“After section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—

‘3A Limit on the disposal of assets

(1) The Commissioners must inform the Treasury if the disposal of assets of the Crown Estate will be of a value totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets in a single year.

(2) The Treasury must approve of any disposal of assets above the threshold in subsection (1) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified by the Commissioners.’”

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to notify and seek HM Treasury approval for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets.

New clause 6—Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.

Amendment 1, clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury must by regulations limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

Amendment 2, clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) Any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate and the Commissioners must define ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of this Act.

(3C) The definition under subsection (3B) must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

(3D) A ‘climate and nature duty’ means a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”

This amendment would ensure that this act’s Framework Agreement must define “sustainable development”, and that the definition must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In pursuit of the objective under subsection 3A, the Commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities.”

This amendment would require the Commissioners to assess the protections against coastal erosion in areas where landfall is made for offshore projects.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In keeping the impact of their activities under review, the Commissioners must have regard to―

(a) the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets;

(b) regional economic growth; and

(c) ensuring resilience in respect of energy security.”

This new sub-section would require the Crown Estate Commissioners, in reviewing the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development, to have specific regard to the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets, regional economic growth, and resilience in respect of energy security.

[Llinos Medi]

New clause 1 transfers the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of the commencement of the Act. The principle behind it is simple: the people of Wales should control and benefit from their own natural resources. For much of Welsh history, that has not been the case, with resources often exploited for the benefit of others. From copper in Amlwch in Ynys Môn, slate in Gwynedd, steel in Port Talbot and Newport, to the coal across the south-east valleys, the rivers of wealth that flowed from those industries were sucked out of our communities—and those communities have since been ravaged by poverty.

Wales is blessed with natural wealth and brilliant people, yet we are also a nation afflicted with deprivation, following years of extraction. Shocking new figures show that child poverty in Wales is set to reach 34.4% by the end of the decade. That is the legacy of our past, in which wealth generated was not used to benefit the Welsh economy or communities. Today, in 2025, that extractive pattern is being repeated with Wales’s green wealth.

Wales has immense renewable energy potential in our windy seas and long coastlines—we can see that demonstrated in the Morlais project on Ynys Môn—but the seabed, along with thousands of acres of land, is controlled by the Crown Estate. Renewable energy projects using these resources are expanding rapidly and delivering profits. We see that in the value of the Crown Estate, which sky-rocketed from £96 million five years ago to £853 million in 2023. However, all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales are transferred to the Treasury. This green wealth, just like the wealth from coal and other minerals in the past, is being sucked out of our nation. Millions of pounds generated on the Welsh Crown Estate is taken out of Wales each year, away from our communities who have borne the brunt of decades of economic decline.

In 2017, Scotland gained control over the Scottish Crown Estate and ensured that all profit was kept in Scotland. Devolution has generated millions for the Scottish public purse, with funds going directly to deprived communities such as those in the highlands. Why do the Scottish people get the benefit from their own water, wind and sea resources, but the people of Wales cannot? It is simply not credible for the Government to continue to say that devolution is too complicated, too costly and too time-consuming. These are all issues that can be addressed with proper planning and resourcing. Scotland’s Crown Estate was devolved in 2017. It is ludicrous to say that the Welsh Crown Estate cannot be devolved in a similar way. In Scotland, interim measures were put in place to ensure a smooth transition from the point of devolution until the implementation of a long-term framework for managing assets. New clause 1 takes a similar pragmatic approach by introducing a transition period. It worked in Scotland; it can work for Wales, too.

Throughout this whole debate, the Government have still not addressed the principle of control, so I would like the Minister to answer directly: do his Government believe that the people of Wales should have democratic control over their own natural resources? The people of Wales certainly believe so. Polling shows that majority support among the Welsh public for the devolution of the Crown Estate is higher than ever. It is also supported by the Welsh Labour Government. A majority of councils in Wales have passed motions in support of devolution; Wrexham council did so just last week, with the support of its Labour group. More councils will follow suit, and we may very likely have all councils in Wales declaring support for devolution in the near future. There is a mandate from right across Welsh society for devolution. Members of Parliament would do well to remember that they are here to serve and represent the people, and that the people of Wales have clearly made their views known on this matter.

In closing, I return to the principle that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. Do Members of this House believe that the people of Wales should, after centuries of exploitation, finally be given the right to control and benefit from their own natural resources? If they believe in that principle, I urge them to join me in the voting Lobby.

National Insurance Contributions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The regulations contain a provision for us, in case it is needed. The expectation is that it will not be. As I mentioned, a Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the regulations has forecast that the Treasury grant will not be required in 2025-26. The provision in the regulations is a precautionary measure, and is in line with what has happened in previous years. The Government consider it prudent to continue the practice of previous years, and to make provision for the grant in these regulations. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The regulations enable an increase in child benefit and the guardian’s allowance in line with prices. Without these regulations, HMRC would be unable to collect national insurance contributions receipts, and child benefit and guardian’s allowance would be frozen at the 2024-25 levels. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I inform the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I will call him immediately afterwards.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it.

At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way.

I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were.

I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I wish to speak in favour of the Bill and to make a few brief points, both general ones about wider policy and some in relation to my constituency. I wish to cover the issue of the Crown Estate in central London. I shall then move on to the estate’s property around the coastline, and, finally, I shall come on to some of what I hope will be significant wider benefits of the just transition to a green economy.

First, on modernising buildings in central London, it is often forgotten that our built environment is one of the poorest in terms of energy efficiency across the developed world, including in Europe, and that we do need significant investment. We can obviously see that in the building in which we work. Many buildings in central London date from Victorian and Edwardian times, or the 1960s, when building standards were much lower than they are now. Indeed, there is enormous potential precisely because those building standards were lower—I am talking about issues such as solid walls, cavity walls that are not insulated, and existing single glazing or poor quality older double glazing that could be replaced with newer materials. That shows very precisely the potential benefits in carrying out this work.

It is important to remember, however, that this is in the nature of a one-off capital investment in the short term, which will lead to enormous benefits in the medium to longer term. Therefore, this type of measure, which was outlined so ably by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, is exactly what is needed by many large landowners to allow them to have access to the capital that they need to carry out works that will improve building efficiency and therefore lead to energy saving. I welcome that, and it is important to remember the context of the built environment in London and across the country.

Secondly, let me move to the issues of the coastline. It is worth noting that the UK is a leader in offshore wind. We need to recognise the benefits of the past few years, particularly the move to the majority of British energy being generated by low carbon sources, particularly offshore wind. However, there is a need for a new, significant additional step up, which requires the mapping of new areas of seabed, new interconnectors, and new grid connectivity at the coast, because the whole of the grid at the moment is designed around a post-war model of large, coal-fired generation inland, so there is significant need for further investment in coastal locations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) mentioned earlier, some of that is not particularly well mapped, and part of the work that we are seeing allowed today is the ability of the Crown Estates to map much of its property on the coast or on the seabed more accurately, therefore allowing investment as well as supporting and regulating investment as well. I ask the Chief Secretary whether he could outline further detail of aspects of that, in particular the scope for the Bill to allow for and support more investment in interconnectors to other neighbouring countries, as well as more grid connectivity at the coast itself, which can be a bottleneck for renewable energy coming onshore.

Thirdly, I would like to discuss some of the wider benefits of the Bill and ask some further questions. One of the big challenges with the move towards renewable energy is delays in grid connectivity. I have seen that in my own area when I visited a large solar farm next to the M4 motorway, just outside Reading in the seat occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The connection of this large solar array to the grid was delayed by a year because of a lack of capacity among energy companies and wider infrastructure challenges. I hope the Chief Secretary can provide some further detail on how the Bill will allow further acceleration of grid connectivity. I also hope it will add to the wider green energy economy and that the benefits accruing from it could be felt by some smaller onshore schemes.

I certainly ask the Chief Secretary if he could investigate the possibility for it supporting some smaller schemes. For example, in my area there is an innovative scheme to put a low-head hydro generation scheme on the Thames at Caversham. That generates power for several hundred homes. However, there were significant challenges in installing the scheme. Again, grid connectivity, access to capital and other practical issues delayed the project. Up and down the Thames, and other major rivers, there are many examples of sites that could be used for this straightforward, rapidly deployable form of renewable energy. I would appreciate the Minister writing to me if he is unable to comment directly today.

On a related matter, I hope that the Bill will in some way support the wider roll-out of solar on roofs and potentially on canopies over car parks. Both have enormous potential as deployable forms of solar that would have a limited impact on land use, and they may have real benefits through the ease with which they can be accessed. I look forward to getting further detail on those points. I warmly welcome the Bill and thank the Chief Secretary for his words.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

I was half-expecting my hon. Friend to mention Walleys quarry, although I cannot conceive of how he would link it to the Crown Estate Bill. He will agree that the additional revenue raised by the Bill will benefit his constituents as much as mine.

Over the past decade, the Crown Estate has returned £4.1 billion in net revenue profit to the Treasury. Just imagine how much more it could achieve with the freedom that this Bill provides—not just for the country, but for constituencies such as York Outer. This is what smart, forward-thinking legislation looks like: supporting businesses, securing energy and driving growth. I urge Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, wherever they are, to back this Bill and help us deliver a brighter, greener and more prosperous future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild]

With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate.

This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies.

The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate.

A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents.

I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage?

I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners.

That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming?

To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister to wind up.

Christmas Adjournment

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I congratulate the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), on finally getting her voice heard in this Chamber. In addition to the three Front-Bench speakers, we have had 18 Back-Bench speakers, which demonstrates the importance of this type of debate, where Members can raise whatever subjects they choose. They have chosen to talk about their constituencies, their particular causes, their charities and their families. This is a very important aspect of our parliamentary work; it demonstrates to the people out there that we represent how important they are to us.

I would like to correct the record. In my earlier speech, I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) when I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I want to put that on the record straightaway.

Finally, I would like to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Although this is a time when Parliament goes into recess, Members of Parliament will not just be having a holiday; they will be working hard on behalf of their constituents, and our constituents will value the work that we do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I get the opportunity to have the last word. Many Members have mentioned family, and I want to take this opportunity to say merry Christmas to our parliamentary family, making sure we remember our Doorkeepers, the Sergeant at Arms, the Clerks, who keep me in order, and the catering and security people. Godfrey and Margaret got a mention, but I would also like to say—although I may not have been there today—a thank you to Kelly and Jackie in the hairdressers downstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1



Provision of Loans or other Financial Assistance to Ukraine

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Reports on loans or other financial assistance to Ukraine—

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare reports on the operation of assistance provided in accordance with section 1(a),

(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.

(2) Each report must provide details of the amount of—

(a) monies provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine under section 1;

(b) the United Kingdom’s share of the principal loan amount and interest accrued under the scheme; and

(c) receipts of extraordinary profits from the Russian immobilised sovereign assets under the scheme.

(3) Each report must also provide a summary of discussions between His Majesty’s Government and other G7 governments about discussions on any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace the arrangements referred to in section 1(a), including any discussions concerning—

(a) the range of Russian assets to which the arrangements might apply, and

(b) the use of those assets.

(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 6 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Each subsequent report must be laid within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.

(6) The duty under subsection (1) ceases to have effect 12 months after the arrangements referred to in section 1(a) or any subsequent arrangements of the kind referred to in section 1(b) cease to operate.”

This new clause establishes an annual reporting requirement relating to the UK share of loans to Ukraine and receipts from the extraordinary profits from the freezing of Russian state assets and to any G7 discussions to extend the arrangements.