Sovereign Grant

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The background to this motion dates from 1760, when the agreement was reached with George III to surrender the Crown Estate revenues to the taxpayer in return for Government support, but it was not until the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 that financial support was delivered through the sovereign grant. The purpose of the Act was to bring together a patchwork of funding streams and arrangements into a more transparent system with greater accountability to taxpayers.

The motion that the Minister has moved proposes three important changes: it sets the baseline for the sovereign grant for next year, it updates the percentage and, finally, it creates a mechanism to allow the Treasury to set the grant in future years in certain circumstances, which includes potentially reducing the amount in the sovereign grant. Given that the grant funds the duties of the monarch and the royal household, we support this approach and the motion.

It is worth reflecting that in an era when many institutions struggle to find public support and respect, the monarchy continues to play a unique role in our lives. Whether it is representing Britain overseas, supporting charitable organisations, strengthening diplomatic relationships or bringing communities together at moments of celebration or national reflection, the royal family performs an indispensable public service. We saw that in the response following the death of the late Queen and in the support that His Majesty the King has had as he has taken on the responsibilities of the Crown. I should note that His Majesty is a constituent when he is resident at Sandringham in my constituency—[Hon. Members: “He can’t vote!”] He cannot vote. Although Sandringham is a private residence, it hosts official events that are covered by the grant.

The value of the royal family is not simply symbolic. Independent analysis has shown the substantial soft power and economic benefits flowing from the institution, whether it is trade, tourism, cultural influence or the prestige associated with royal warrants, which many firms in our constituencies are fortunate to benefit from. The grant enables those benefits to be realised.

For this financial year, the sovereign grant stands at £137.9 million, with £97 million of that in core funding and £40 million as the final payment for the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. When many construction projects—I could mention a number—seem to miss their budget and targets, it is right to acknowledge the National Audit Office’s finding that the 10-year programme has managed to remain in budget, despite challenges, by making trade-offs, actively managing risk and learning lessons. Despite the completion of the reservicing programme, without these proposed changes the funding would remain at the £137.9 million level in 2027, which clearly could not be justified. That is what lies behind the resetting of the baseline to £99.9 million, with the reference percentage raised to 20.5% for the period through to 2031-32.

At first glance, that looks like a significant reduction from the current level, but it comes after the completion of the 10-year programme, and core funding has actually increased to £97.6 million this year, from around £52 million in 2024-25. According to the House of Commons Library, if it had simply increased with inflation from 2016, it would now be £59.4 million. We have to ask what lies behind that growth. The jump from £52 million to £72 million in 2025-26 was largely driven by property maintenance, higher payroll and other spending, alongside a top-up to the reserve sovereign grant after a period of largely flat grants. More than half the total grant was allocated to the preservation of the occupied royal houses, which must be right.

The further rise to £97.6 million appears to mainly relate to royal travel, digital services, housekeeping and hospitality, although I would welcome the Minister shedding some more clarity on where the remaining costs come from. As we move forward, there is a considerable backlog of maintenance at the occupied royal palaces, a need to modernise ageing systems, to improve cyber security and to invest in more energy-efficient infrastructure. I am grateful to the royal household and the Keeper of the Privy Purse for the constructive conversations I have had with him on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition regarding the settlement, which does two things: preserve the historic national buildings and run a modern, secure, fit-for-purpose operation.

I have a few points that I would like the Minister to clarify. First, ahead of Second Reading, when we will be able to get far more into the detail than we can this evening, will he commit to writing to me with a breakdown of the planned expenditure behind the new £99.9 million figure? For example, why is payroll expected to rise by £7 million between 2026-27 and 2031-32? Core property maintenance rises by 25%. The case for addressing maintenance, particularly in stateroom areas, is clear. Is he confident that the broader programme reflects value for money? Can he confirm that any capital expenditure above £6 million, such as replacing the boilers at Windsor, would require Treasury approval of a business case?

Encouragingly, income supplementing the grant is forecast to increase by a quarter over the period. How confident is the Minister in those projections? It is important that there is a focus on efficiency. What external benchmarking of the royal household cost base has there been? Which comparator organisations were used, and what specific efficiencies have resulted or are planned as a result?

The reserve, as I have mentioned, fell with the impact of covid and now stands at £21 million. Is there a formal target reserve level that the household is managing toward for resilience purposes, distinct from the statutory 50% reduction trigger threshold? If so, over what timeframe is that expected to be reached?

The motion provides for the reference percentage used to calculate the grant rising from 12% to 20.5%, as the Government have set out. That is described as being calibrated to the household’s expected costs for that five-year period. What specific cost forecast underpins that rate? Has it been independently tested or benchmarked, or is it effectively set simply by reference to the household’s own submitted budget? For those who may be concerned that this settlement is too generous, the reality is that there will be a real-terms reduction as the grant remains flat in cash terms over the period.

One of the significant parts of this motion, which we will scrutinise carefully in the legislation, is a mechanism to allow the sovereign grant to decrease when circumstances warrant it. This reforms a long-standing feature of the existing system, the “golden ratchet” provision in section 6 of the 2011 Act, under which funding cannot decrease in cash terms. The Government’s briefing note on the King’s Speech tells us that the proposed change means that

“the Grant can be reduced from one year to the next, preventing inappropriately high funding”.

Of course it is important for all taxpayer funding to represent value for money, but can the Minister elaborate on the rationale for that, given that the settlement is expected to be flat cash over the period? In what circumstances would a reduction be considered appropriate, and what role would Parliament have in scrutinising any such decision?

We support the motion and the resetting of the sovereign grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace works. It is important that we establish a sustainable funding framework for the years ahead. However, there are important questions that I have raised about the increases in the last year ahead of the setting of this new baseline, and in what circumstances the Government may look to reduce the funding. Those questions are asked in the spirit of supporting both the institution of the monarchy and the principle of responsible stewardship of public money.

Direction of Government

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think I can go all that way from the Dispatch Box today, but I understand the point my hon. Friend makes. A council tax system based on 1991 valuations is not going to deliver fairness across the country. The first steps at reform were taken in last year’s Budget. We need to proceed with consensus on this issue, if we can. I understand what he is saying, but the more wholesale reform might have to wait for another day.

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

At the weekend, the Prime Minister stepped in to ensure that his No. 10 North railway service continued, so in that spirit of problem solving, will he use his office to ensure that rapid action is taken to restore a reliable service from King’s Lynn to King’s Cross for my North West Norfolk constituents, who had 380 trains cancelled in July and 280 in August?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said to the Transport Secretary, and she agrees, that the performance of the railways over the summer we have just had has been nowhere near good enough. On a very hot day, passengers on a train from Edinburgh to London had no working toilets on the entire train, and coming back from Cornwall and Devon, the train that I was on was abandoned at Taunton—I think we have all had those kinds of experiences. The railways need to improve and public ownership of them needs to drive that improvement. I will be convening a rail summit soon to discuss the summer just gone—I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me with details of the service he mentioned—because we need to see significant improvement on our railways.

Government Procurement Strategy

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised this issue and we have met to discuss it. She is championing this important matter that addresses an inequity that is felt by many workers. The Cabinet Office is working on this point. At the moment, our view is that mandation is not the right way forward and that we can work with industry to try to roll this out. Equalities law already offers protections and should ensure that such PPE is delivered, but I accept that that is not always happening—my hon. Friend has made that case incredibly powerfully—and I am keen to keep working with her, the GMB and others on this issue.

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

Some £400 billion was spent on public procurement last year, so I would like to ask the Minister a question that I asked his predecessor over a year ago, which she was unable to answer then: what is the Government’s precise savings target from that budget?

[Chris Ward]

What an excellent question! I am afraid that I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the answer—[Interruption.] None of the measures in the announcement that I have made require additional Treasury funding—they are within existing budgets—but the point that he makes is a good one, so I will come back to him, if that is okay.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

Yes, I agree. As I have said, we expect to be able to start publishing this material as soon as possible after the recess. We will do that as quickly as we can. The hon. Lady’s broader point about public confidence is essential. It is why I tried to emphasise in the debate last week—as heated as it occasionally got—that we want to comply, and to get to the bottom of this. There is no one on the Government Benches who does not want to get to the bottom of the lies that Mandelson told and the problems that led to. It is about broader public confidence and trust. We need to demonstrate that this House is not reflected by the acts of Mandelson et al., and that this House is instead about doing public good and public service. The publication of the material is an important part of getting to that.

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

The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?

[Chris Ward]

I think the hon. Member is referring to severance pay. I think the Foreign Office is providing an update on that. I am afraid it is not a question that I can provide an answer to.

Lord Mandelson

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.

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

In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:

“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.

The permanent under-secretary replied:

“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—

I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing so much investment in his constituency. The Office for the Impact Economy will be working with philanthropists and social investors, as well as corporate givers and others, to support programmes led by the Government, such as Pride in Place and other public investments, to deliver a better bang for our buck and the renewal of communities across the country, including in Bletchley. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to deliver on that promise of change.

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

The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?

[Darren Jones]

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice receives the hon. Gentleman’s question, which he can maybe raise again in Justice questions when they come round.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution today and on many previous occasions. The essence of his point is absolutely right. I do regret the tone of some of these debates in recent weeks; some of it has been entirely unnecessary, when we should have been coming together as a House to look at what we can do to ensure that the activity that we allegedly saw here is not able to happen again. That has always been my approach throughout, and it will continue to be my approach as we move forward.

The point my hon. Friend made about the recommendations in the report are absolutely right, and I think it vindicates the basic argument that the Government have sought to bring forward. I say that with humility, because we will want to look carefully at the detail of all the findings and all the recommendations. We will do that over the next number of weeks, and we will take on board lessons where they need to be learned.

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

The report says that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, apparently had very “limited” engagement about the case. In contrast, one of his predecessors, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, with whom I worked in the Ministry of Defence, said he

“would have expected to be involved intimately in the provision of the Government evidence”.

Why was Jonathan Powell—and Lord Hermer, for that matter, who is described in the report as being “not proactive”—so passive on a matter of national security and alleged spying on Members of this House?

[Dan Jarvis]

I honestly do not believe that that is a fair and reasonable characterisation of the role played by the National Security Adviser. The National Security Adviser is an extremely experienced and dedicated public servant, who is dedicating his life to keeping our country safe. The hon. Member, because he is a very well-informed and assured Member of this House, will understand that specific restrictions were placed on the deputy National Security Adviser about what he could do and what he could say. Both the deputy National Security Adviser and the National Security Adviser acted with integrity throughout this process, and I know that the House will be grateful to them for it.

Ministerial Code

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has set out already in extensive detail to the House the background to the appointment of David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State also responded comprehensively to the recent report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. She acknowledged the findings of the report, accepted responsibility for an unknowing breach related to previous donations and explained that she will ensure that lessons are learned from this process. As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser, who responded with the conclusion that his disclosures are an “important demonstration” of the Prime Minister’s commitment to transparency.

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

The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?

[Josh Simons]

The Prime Minister acknowledged, as I have said before, that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

China Spying Case

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[James Wild]

The first senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little, yesterday said that he took the extraordinary step of having a direct discussion with the deputy National Security Adviser because he could not understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward piece of evidence—namely, that China was an active and ongoing threat—had not been provided. Why did the Government not provide that commitment?

[Alex Burghart]

That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?

The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by

“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,

and

“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,

including special advisers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, it is not misleading. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a moment? It was the position at the relevant time. What is even worse, however, is that the word “enemy” was not the position at the time. It came out of the statement, and that happened under the previous Government, I am afraid.

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

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.

It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.

It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.

Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way.

[James Wild]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In one moment.

In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege—

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I am afraid that I am not across the specific of that in my brief, so I will get back to the hon. Lady.

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

The Minister knows the Prime Minister well, having been one of his close advisers as well as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Why, when he learnt that a major trial concerning spying on Members was going to collapse, did the Prime Minister do nothing? Why did he not ask if anything could be done to stop the trial collapsing? Is that what he wanted to happen, and if not, why did he not act?

[Chris Ward]

As I have said many times, the Government wanted the prosecution to proceed and allowed every opportunity for evidence to be provided for it and for the CPS to gather that. The Prime Minister has already stated when he was informed that the trial was in that process. He also made it clear yesterday, in response to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), that it is not his position to interfere. The case was then dropped by the CPS independently.