Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

David Chadwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I begin by extending my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly in the Lords on the Bill over the past seven months. I note in particular the way in which full transparency was offered and delivered by Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to requests for clarification and evidence. I hope that we can replicate such co-operation as the Bill passes through this House.

The objectives of the Bill are to broaden the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate and to strengthen its corporate governance, in order to help accelerate, among other things, the delivery of new renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. We are generally supportive of the Bill and would welcome further scrutiny on issues such as the cap on borrowing; accountability in the relationship with Great British Energy; managing the conflicts between competing interests and values of our seabed and coastline, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); community benefit; devolution in Wales; and our climate and nature duty. I will proceed to elucidate those issues.

In the UK, we are off track in meeting our climate targets, following previous years when the Conservatives have dithered and rowed back on pledges. We need to increase investment in renewable energy in order to strengthen our energy security and to help families keep warm and lower their energy bills, particularly during this cost of living crisis. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses have been left exposed to skyrocketing bills. For far too long we have been reliant on autocrats such as Putin to meet our energy needs.

The Crown Estate oversees 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 km of coastline and a seabed area larger than the combined land mass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the owner and steward of the seabed, the Crown Estate leases plots to offshore wind developers and other infrastructure projects, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset and in the potential for securing our world-leading position on floating offshore wind development.

For many years, however, the Crown Estate has been constrained in its ability to borrow through the Treasury, forcing it—as we understand it—to resort to selling off assets in order to fund its investments for the future. The changes proposed in the Bill, in partnership with Great British Energy, hold the potential to unlock investment in vital infrastructure across supply chains, ports and green energy sectors, and to accelerate progress by unblocking the huge delays in the delivery of new green energy, which is desperately needed following the slow progress made under the previous Government.

It is reassuring to hear that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, assurances were given that there would be a borrowing cap of 20% of the loan-to-value ratio. We look forward to seeing that reflected in the updated framework agreement as we go into Committee. On the day the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, the Government announced the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments. Despite the significance of that relationship between the two, the original Bill did not provide clarification on or accountability in how it would work.

Clause 4, which was introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensures important transparency through annual reports on activities within that relationship. However, we also share Energy UK’s concerns about how that relationship will work, particularly in relation to other private sector investment. We support its calls for annual schedules for offshore wind leasing that identify locations and target capacities. Such a road map would help developers and suppliers to plan investments, including necessary port upgrades, and would align with the offshore wind industrial growth plan.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this legislation should have set out a framework for devolving the Crown Estate in Wales, as is the case in Scotland?

[Pippa Heylings]

Indeed, I read the report of the debate in the Lords, and there was a passionate request for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Administration and for the benefits to be felt by Welsh communities. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.

Another crucial area that has been mentioned is the mapping of the seabed around our coastline. The Crown Estate has already begun that work with award-winning geospatial techniques. That key contribution to spatial planning for our coastal and marine areas needs to balance economic development with environmental responsibility. For years, the Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks. Although the Government have committed to a land use framework, we remain far behind on marine spatial planning. We have heard today, in response to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, about the conflict of interest in the Crown Estate leading on determining priorities in our coastal and marine areas. It is on that point that we seek assurances.

Statutory bodies such as the Maritime Management Organisation are responsible for prioritising and managing competing interests and values between users of our coastline, including in fishing, as has been mentioned, and in tourism, amenity use and shipping. All those things need to be managed, and that can be done through marine spatial management. We caution against the Crown Estate becoming the leader by default because it is the owner and steward of the seabed and has the capacity for mapping. We know that it is undertaking liaison work with fisheries, and that is good, but the MMO is the statutory body for managing those competing interests, and we seek assurances that that will be clarified in Committee.

Raising the issue of devolution to Wales brings me to the key point of community benefits. We need to know how communities will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and renewable projects facilitated by this Bill. Local communities must not feel that this energy transformation is being done to them, but that it is empowering them to participate and benefit from it. While the new borrowing powers will enable investment in offshore wind, they will also facilitate property development across the 185,000 acres of the Crown Estate, so the Bill must do more to ensure that those developments do not ride roughshod over community concerns regarding planning, infrastructure and environmental standards, both on land and at sea. People must have a say in the decisions that affect them and, where infrastructure is concerned, they should also receive the benefits where appropriate.

I was really pleased to see the inclusion of amendment 10, championed by Baroness Hayman. That amendment requires the commissioners to

“review the impact of their activities”

on sustainable development. As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for climate and nature duties to be a requirement of all public bodies. As Baroness Hayman wisely said,

“What matters is the endgame and the results… What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1425.]

During the debate in the Lords, an undertaking was given that the framework agreement would be updated to include a definition of the meaning of sustainable development as regards the Crown Estate, with explicit reference to part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008—the targets for 2050—as well as section 56 of that Act, and to sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 regarding nature recovery. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the framework agreement to reassure us that this definition of sustainable development has been included.

This Bill presents a trident of opportunity. It can enhance energy security, reduce household bills and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, the need to devolve to Wales, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

David Chadwick Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come to growth, which is the sixth point on my very exciting list, but I will just say that this Budget will see growth increase in the short term and stay broadly unchanged over the forecast period, and the OBR says that the increased public sector investment that we are making will lead to a small but significant increase in growth in the long run. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that we need economic growth in this country.

It is important that we provide the revenue to fund our public services. I will not repeat the convincing and powerful arguments made by Labour Members about the broken nature of our public services. In Chipping Barnet, policing is really struggling, and 100,000 people in the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust area are waiting to be seen by our local hospital. We need to provide funding in a sustainable way.

The third point on my exciting list of reasons to vote with the Government tonight is that these changes provide stability. We all know that we need economic stability—it is the foundation of the economic growth that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) just made an important intervention on. I believe that the Chancellor and the Treasury team made the right decision, even though it was difficult, to raise revenues to fund our public services and put our public finances on an even keel once again. This change means that over the coming years, we will get to a place where, for the first time in a very long time, day-to-day spending will be matched by the tax revenues that are coming in. I think all Members of the House will agree that that is important, but I know that Labour Members prioritise that stability, which has been lacking for too long.

Fourthly, these changes cut taxes for the smallest businesses—a quarter of a million businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made clear. Again, I am interested to know whether Opposition Members support or oppose the cut in taxes for the smallest businesses that this Budget provides.

Fifthly, we have prioritised sound public finances, which is a big change from recent years. The mini-Budget that was passed by Liz Truss contributed to pushing up interest rates in our economy, making things more difficult for families in my constituency and across the country. It also added not £6 billion, or even £16 billion, but £60 billion to Government borrowing costs each year—Members can see those numbers in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report. That and other failures to manage our public finances over the past 14 years have driven up our public debt from £1 trillion, as it was in 2010, to £2.8 trillion, which I believe was the latest estimate from the Office for National Statistics. If we support additional spending on our public services, it is vital that we also make the right decision to raise revenue that will cover that increase in public spending, so that we can have the sound public finances that the public want from this Government.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Can the hon. Member explain why his Government are choosing to raise taxes on GPs’ surgeries, which did not crash the economy or the public finances, rather than opting to raise the revenue from the big banks, as the Liberal Democrats suggest?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have made changes to a whole range of taxes in the Budget, and it is important to note that the scale of revenue that the Liberal Democrat party is talking about would not cover the additional funding that we are providing—£20 billion for our health services and additional funding for a whole range of public services. I understand that in the coming weeks, the Health Secretary will come forward with more details on many of the vital services that Members have mentioned today. I must put on record that I very much enjoyed meeting GPs in my constituency over recent weeks. They raised a whole range of issues with me, including the big challenges they have faced over the past 14 years in getting the support and funding that they need. I hope and trust that in the coming weeks and months, this Government will put that right.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East will enjoy my final point. My sixth reason for voting for this Bill, rather than for the mistaken and erroneous amendments that have been tabled, is that the changes we have put forward in this Budget, including on national insurance, will pave the way for higher growth and higher living standards. As in all good speeches, this last point brings together some of the other points made—so this may not have been just a boring list. Through ensuring economic stability and funding our public services properly, we will make sure that people get the health services that they need, so that they are not struggling with ill health that drives them to economic inactivity and pushes them away from the jobs market. We will make sure that people feel secure on their streets, and that businesses feel safe, rather than struggling with shoplifting, which has become all too rife. Those are the changes that this Budget and the measures in this Bill provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I have to start by disappointing the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), in that I rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). I will speak about my deep concerns about the proposed national insurance changes because of the real-world impact they will have businesses, GP surgeries, community organisations and vital care services in my constituency of Lewes. While I recognise the fiscal pressures, which have been mentioned by a lot of Members, I ask that we fully consider how these changes will affect those working tirelessly to keep our communities vibrant, secure and healthy.

GP surgeries are the frontline of the NHS. A local GP practice in my constituency has been in touch with me just today to describe its shock at discovering that it will be paying at least £60,000 more a year under these changes. GP practices provide vital healthcare services to our local population and in doing so are under ever-increasing pressures. Yet under the new proposals, GP practices are treated as if they are private businesses capable of absorbing significant cost increases. The reality is, of course, quite different. Every additional £1 spent on national insurance is £1 that is not spent on patient care, staffing or critical medical equipment. For practices already operating under immense strain, this extra burden could be the tipping point that pushes them towards unsustainable financial territory. When cutbacks occur, it is our communities that will lose vital healthcare access, and the NHS, which is already stretched, will be left struggling even more.

We must also acknowledge that our social care providers, including hospices such as St Peter and St James hospice, which looks after my constituents so well—I visited it recently—are caught between rising wages, fixed local authority fees and higher national insurance. They cannot pass on these costs without threatening their very viability. If care providers close or scale back, the most vulnerable in our community will suffer, and so will our healthcare system as hospital stays lengthen and A&E attendances rise. In other words, it will drive up costs for the NHS, making the system less efficient and less humane. It is particularly galling that NHS employers are set to be compensated for the changes while there is no equivalent commitment for the social care sector. Separating social care reform from NHS support will not only hurt vulnerable people today, but make it impossible to achieve strategic priorities for the health service tomorrow.

We must also consider community organisations. Take the Sussex Community Development Association in my constituency. It is a local organisation that reinvests every penny of surplus into essential services such as youth work, emergency food provision and childcare for deprived communities in my constituency. It is already contending with increased wage costs, and it now faces an estimated additional £70,000 per year due to the national insurance rise. Because of its size, it does not qualify for allowances that might soften the blow. This facility was invested in to deliver Sure Start services under a previous Labour Government, and it is now considering cuts to essential services thanks to this one. It now faces a desperate scramble for funding at a time when its services have never been more crucial.

The rise, coupled with the increases to the national living wage and the minimum wage, will hit the early education and childcare sector particularly hard. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for childcare and early education, I must make the Committee aware of how dire the situation is. An average nursery will face additional staffing costs of nearly £40,000 a year due to the increases. That is because staffing costs account for 75% of nurseries’ running costs, compared with just 30% for the average restaurant. If Government funding rates do not cover the gap, parents will face higher fees, potentially leaving them to reduce their working hours or to leave the workforce altogether.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that private nurseries delivering Government-funded hours may not be eligible for employment allowance. That means that they may not receive the intended financial support from the Government. The sector is already facing recruitment challenges, with 29,000 new staff needed by September 2025 to deliver the promised 30 hours of funded childcare. The national insurance changes could lead to recruitment freezes, reduced staff training and even nursery closures. That is the precise opposite of what this Government claim they want to see for working parents and carers. That would have a detrimental effect on families and the economy, hindering economic growth, and it could seriously impact the Government’s commendable aim of having half a million more children hitting early learning goals by 2030.

Finally, let us not forget that even successful local businesses are feeling the strain. Rathfinny, a renowned Sussex wine producer in my constituency that has invested in our local economy and environment, faces a significantly higher national insurance bill. It may be forced to slow its growth, reduce investment or even curb local employment opportunities, undermining the prosperity that benefits us all. This Government talk about economic growth, as Government Members have done today, but this tax increase will inhibit the ability of many British businesses to expand and flourish.

If introduced without nuance, these national insurance changes risk delivering a series of damaging shocks to my community and places across the country. I urge the Government and the Minister to reconsider, to review the thresholds, to consider exemptions for sectors that cannot pass on costs and to ensure that our GP practices, childcare providers, community organisations and valued local employers are not left shouldering burdens they cannot bear. I implore the Government to recognise the unintended consequences and to commit to measures that will preserve local jobs, sustain our community services and uphold the quality of care we offer our vulnerable citizens. I hope that the Government will do more to ensure that this tax increase does not harm the very communities and services we have pledged to serve and protect.

[David Chadwick]

The Liberal Democrats agree that the country’s finances are in a mess thanks to the previous Conservative Government. However, we do not agree that increasing national insurance is the way to address the problem, as doing so will undermine efforts to improve public services across the United Kingdom. For example, last month Care Forum Wales issued a stark warning that the rise in national insurance could cause a collapse in the social care system in Wales, creating a £150 million funding gap. Social care in Wales is already on its knees. Over the past four years, 40 Welsh care homes have closed. If yet more are forced out of business due to increased costs, we will have even fewer social care spaces available. We know that the scenes of ambulances left queueing for hours outside our hospitals are the result of them being unable to discharge patients due to shortcomings in social care.

It is not just care homes that are affected, but primary care too. Our GPs, dentists and pharmacies will suffer from this tax rise. A local GP practice in my constituency told me that it will have to cut one day of practice nurse time and one day of GP time from April 2025. That is a direct result of the projected £30,000 increase in its national insurance bill, alongside an overall lack of funding for GPs. A second surgery is projected to have an increase in its NI bill greater than £100,000 in April 2025. Both are clear that without an exemption for health and social care providers, the NHS in Wales could face collapse. It already has the worst outcomes of any nation across the United Kingdom.

Charities and local authorities will suffer too from this decision. In my constituency, the chief executive officer of Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations has stated that the national insurance increase will

“place considerable financial pressure on voluntary sector organisations, many of whom are crucial partners in delivering essential services.”

That is the reality of the decision taken by the Government to use such a blunt tool to try to fix the nation’s finances. Many of my constituents are asking why Labour has chosen to go after the small businesses, charities, and health and social care providers rather than target the big banks, the oil and gas giants, or the social media giants. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision to raise income in this manner and to make exemptions for the health and social care sectors as well as for charities.

[Sammy Wilson]

The outcome of the debate is of course inevitable: we know that when we go through the Lobby, we will be smashed by the overwhelming strength on the Government side, not because their arguments are strong but because of the parliamentary arithmetic. I suspect that even the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who indicated in her speech that this measure will hit especially labour-intensive services that employ low-paid people and are vital to the smooth running of the economy, will walk through the Lobby with the Government. Some people might say, “Is that not just the politics of despair?” It is important that the arguments made are at least challenged, despite the fact that, because of the parliamentary arithmetic, it may not come to anything.

I do not actually have a political point to score here, because the DUP will never be the alternative Government in this place—though the country is the worse for it. I therefore hope that all the predictions made here today and by independent bodies that have looked at the impact of the Budget are wrong. I hope that we do not find that small employers have to go out of business, that recruitment goes down, that the real wages of those who are employed—especially at the lower end of the wage spectrum—are cut, and that the services that are so vital to the health service are impacted on. I hope that all those things do not happen. I hope that economic growth is not impacted by it, but all the economic evidence, the economic logic and the forecasts made indicate that the arguments made against this measure by Opposition Members are correct.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

David Chadwick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

To misquote Brian Clough, I would not say that my constituency is the most beautiful in the country, but it is certainly in the top one. We have generations of farmers to thank for that beauty—those who protected the land and nurtured nature long before the Peak District was designated Britain’s first national park. If I thought for one second that these changes to agricultural property relief threatened future generations of farmers in my constituency, I would not vote for them, but I do not.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Last month, I spent a very enjoyable afternoon scoring the senior young farmers at Radnor young farmers club. These are really admirable young people who spend their afternoons and evenings looking after youngsters, often those as young as 10, and trying to encourage them into farming. Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the message that this change sends to our young farmers?

[Jon Pearce]

No. The message from this Government is that we are committed to farming, and to making it profitable and sustainable. That has to be the message that we send out to those young farmers.

There is no doubt that farmers in my constituency have been struggling terribly for the past 14 years, working seven days a week, 12 hours a day, for very little reward. The last Government promised them the earth, but left them in the sheep dip. After all the Brexit promises, what they got was the Leader of the Opposition selling them out in trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. Boris Johnson promised farmers that subsidies would stay at 100%, but then the Government phased out the basic farm payment. The Opposition’s incompetence saw farmers miss out on £358 million that could have been in their back pockets when they desperately needed it, and then came Liz Truss. Her mini-Budget and all those unfunded tax cuts—a point that I will return to—crashed the economy, causing interest rates to rise and driving many farmers to the brink. Over 12,000 farmers and agricultural businesses were lost under the last Government, so we will not take any lectures from the Opposition about the farming industry.