Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Government want to drive growth through house building, but even before the departure of the Deputy Prime Minister, they were predicted to miss the 1.5 million new homes target by half a million. How does the Chancellor and her team of tax raisers think a 3,000% hike in the builders tax, adding £28,000 to the cost of building a new home, will help to deliver the new homes that young people need? Rather than consult on it, why will she not rule out this damaging tax rise?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think Opposition Members will recognise that building companies have strongly welcomed the reforms we have made to get the country building, and they are very much against the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and others in the House of Lords opposing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which could have been given Royal Assent by now without that opposition. Instead of scaremongering about something that is being consulted on, the shadow Minister might want to get on and back the positive things that the Government are doing.

Finally, I pay tribute to the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for the amazing work she did to get housing on the agenda to build the 1.5 million homes that this country desperately needs, and for being an inspiration for so many people from working-class backgrounds. I applaud her efforts and her work.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

First, it was a humiliating reversal of the Chancellor’s winter fuel cuts. Now, welfare cuts that she rushed to meet her fiscal rules have been shredded, leaving unfunded spending to pay for. In October, the Chancellor said that extending the freeze in income tax thresholds

“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Does she stand by the commitment to end that freeze from 2028—yes or no?

[Rachel Reeves]

It was the hon. Member’s Government, when they were on this side of the House, who froze those allowances, taking more money out of the pockets of working people. Despite that, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. I will take no lessons from Conservative party, which has opposed everything that is needed to invest in our public services. We are in the mess we are in because of the damage that it caused.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. I would thank Members from across the House for their contributions, but one main party has failed to show up—apart from the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, of course.

High street businesses are not just shops, restaurants, pubs, banks and other firms; they represent jobs and investment, but above all they represent identity and a sense of place. Business rates have long been a source of concern for retail firms. That is inherent in their nature as a fixed cost that does not flex to profitability, business cycles or sales.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke of his direct experience as a retailer. There is a case for reform but, as with everything—particularly with this topic—the devil is in the detail. The action that the Government have chosen to take means that shops and others will pay higher bills this year. That comes with consequences, and hon. Members have set out what has happened in their constituencies.

When we were in government, we understood the value of our high streets. That is why we doubled the small business rates relief to £15,000 and almost trebled higher-rate relief to £51,000. That took a third of properties out of business rates completely. We also provided long- term support through things such as the towns fund and the long-term plan for towns, which King’s Lynn in my constituency is benefiting from; it is making a difference.

Of course, in 2021 retail relief was set at 100% to reflect the realities and extraordinary pressures of the covid restrictions. In 2022, retail, hospitality and leisure properties were eligible for a 50% discount, and that was increased in 2023 to 75%—a tax cut worth £2.4 billion, which was then extended to 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge rightly said, that was to help the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors adjust and continue to recover.

That approach is a far cry from the 40% discount that the Government are offering now, almost doubling bills. The Exchequer Secretary was talked up by my right hon. Friend, and if he has his backing he is sure to go far. He is a consistent man, so he will likely claim that there are no plans to extend the 75% relief. However, if people look at our track record, they will see that we consistently provided relief and backed our high streets, and we would have continued to do so—I and my hon. Friends would have made sure of that.

The Government’s decision to cut relief from 75% to 40% will leave many high street businesses facing increased costs. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off, to the tune of £925 million. According to the British Independent Retailers Association, a shop with a rateable value of £60,000 will pay nearly £20,000 this year, up from only £8,000 in 2024. The average pub will have to pay £5,500 more annually. As we have heard, pubs are at the heart of our communities. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, has said that when Wales reduced relief to 40%, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England.

Any Member who talks to businesses every week, as I do, will know how difficult things are out there due to the choice that this Government have made to increase costs for our high streets. Under the Government’s plans, from next year there will be higher business rates for properties over £500,000. That will not only hit online retailers. The British Retail Consortium has expressed concerns that it will hit 4,000 larger stores in England, many of which are the anchor stores on high streets that help to drive footfall and support nearby businesses—more unintended consequences from this Government.

As we have heard, high streets and local businesses are indispensable to our economy. Retail alone comprises 5% of GDP, providing 3 million jobs directly and 2.7 million more in the supply chain. Hospitality is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.5 million people working in the sector, and it contributes £93 billion annually to the economy. Beyond their economic value, high street businesses form the heart of local communities, providing accessible services and so much more.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Robin’s Nest coffee shop in my constituency, which has just celebrated its first birthday. In the year that the shop has been open, its owners have seen their business rates double, and they have written to me to say that they might not make it to their second birthday. Does he agree that business rate reform cannot come soon enough and that it would be a crying shame to lose such high street businesses?

[James Wild]

Absolutely. That is the sort of risk taking and job creation that we want to see across all our constituencies around the country, and it is that opportunity that the Government are crushing through their decisions.

The hon. Lady’s example illustrates that the impact of these changes is already being felt, but we have been warned that worse is to come. The British Property Federation has found that business rates changes could cause a £2.3 billion hit to the economy, jeopardising 20,000 jobs. When businesses face higher costs, the alternatives open to them are higher prices, job losses or closures—boarded-up shops become inevitable—and young people and, in particular, part-time workers lose out on opportunities as a result.

The Local Government Association has also raised concerns about the financial impact that these reforms could have on local councils. It has urged the Government to introduce a transitional mechanism to ensure that local council services are not put at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond directly to the LGA’s concerns.

Sadly, these are not stand-alone reforms; they come on top of the £25 billion jobs tax; the Employment Rights Bill, which will add £5 billion a year to costs; and the family farm tax and business tax. As if it were playing a game of Buckaroo!, Labour is loading cost after cost on to businesses and there will be a reaction. Half the major retailers surveyed by the British Retail Consortium said that the Employment Rights Bill will lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect companies to absorb these much higher costs on top of business rates and higher national insurance?

Last month, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), visited Beales, which was holding a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale” as it wound down its business after more than 140 years. That is just one of 200,000 businesses that have closed under this Government.

The future of our high streets should be a priority for any Government. Policies should be designed to help them to thrive, rather than burdening entrepreneurs and job creators. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister said earlier this week:

“I don’t think you can tax your way to growth.”

Yet that is precisely what the Government have done with the £25 billion jobs tax. They are choking growth, costing jobs and hitting businesses that our communities rely on.

Before the election, the Labour party promised that it would scrap business rates completely. In power, it simply ditched that pledge—another broken promise. It is little wonder the British Independent Retailers Association said:

“For all the government’s rhetoric about supporting small businesses and revitalising high streets, their actions do precisely the opposite.”

It is time for the Government to start listening to businesses and change course.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, James Murray.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Climate Change Committee says that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, but rather than maximise North sea production, the Government are taxing it out of existence. Harbour Energy has just announced hundreds of job losses as a result of the Chancellor’s 78% windfall tax. Instead of costly transition imports, will Ministers use the spending review to think again and focus on an energy policy that will deliver cheaper and cleaner energy that is affordable for consumers and businesses?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. That is why we are investing in home-grown secure energy, including renewables, nuclear and other forms of energy. In yesterday’s UK-EU trade deal—which I am sure the shadow Minister would like to welcome—we have enhanced our arrangements with the European Union on electricity trading, enabling us to export energy we produce in the UK to the European Union and vice versa. That will ensure energy security, as well as good jobs and good businesses in the energy sector, for decades to come.

Income Tax: Personal Allowance

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

In the last Westminster Hall debate that I took part in I think we were limited to 90-second speeches, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to expand at some considerable length this afternoon.

I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and the proposer Mr Frost for bringing forward this petition for debate on behalf of the 250,000 signatories, nearly 500 of whom come from my constituency. The petitioners have called on the Government to increase the income tax personal allowance to £20,000 to help low earners and pensioners. A bit of a spoiler alert: I think that they will be disappointed, because we have all seen the Government’s response that there are no such plans. It is worth noting that over the past 60 years, no Labour Government have left office with the tax burden lower than when they started. That is similar to employment; Labour Governments have always left the rate of unemployment higher than when they inherited it.

The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is forecast to hit its highest level since the second world war by the end of this Parliament. The cause of that pattern is philosophical: the belief that there is such a thing as Government money. In fact, there is only taxpayers’ money, and we Conservatives want people to keep more of it. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has said that we must drive taxes lower and do so in a responsible manner.

Other Members have referred to research by the House of Commons Library, that estimates a cost of between £50 billion to £65 billion—depending on the choices made on other parts of the allowance—to raise the personal allowance for everyone to £20,000, as the petition calls for. That is about what we spend on the defence budget. To introduce such a policy, people have to be very clear about the choices they are proposing: the spending that they would cut, the increases in other taxes they would make or, indeed, if they would fund this through borrowing. Anyone promising such an increase has to be honest about it, and set out their choices clearly and openly. The Conservatives will be doing that before the next general election.

The last Conservative Government increased the personal allowance significantly to benefit low earners—we made that a priority. It increased by 40% in real terms from 2010, from £6,475 to the £12,570 it is today. That change has benefitted millions of UK taxpayers. Of course, I also acknowledge that the last Government had to take the difficult decision to freeze that threshold until 2028. That decision was unwelcome and unpopular—I do not think it won us any votes—but it followed the hundreds of billions of pounds that we put in place to protect lives and livelihoods during the covid pandemic. Other parties were calling on us to spend even more, as I recall. That decision supported the poorest people the most.

Billions more were spent in response to the energy price shock—again, that money needs to be paid back. However, it is also the case that if the personal allowance had simply been uprated by inflation every year since 2010, it would only have been around £9,650 in 2023-24, which is lower than the current level.

At the last election, it was Labour that promised not to raise taxes on working people, which it broke in the October Budget with increases in national insurance. That was justified on the grounds of restoring financial responsibility and economic stability—referred to in the Government’s response to the petition. But it is hard to see that stability. The Government’s actions have led to a collapse in business confidence, and have seen taxes and borrowing rise at record levels. Meanwhile, growth—meant to be the overriding priority—has flatlined.

Last week’s cut in interest rates was welcome, but Labour’s policies are expected to mean that interest rates stay higher for longer than they would have done under our plans. Only last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research assessed that the Chancellor would miss her fiscal rules by £63 billion by the end of the forecast period. That came after the emergency Budget only a few weeks ago, that saw rushed cuts to welfare budgets, which colleagues across the House are concerned are untargeted. That was simply to spare the Chancellor the blushes of missing her own fiscal rules.

As a result of the Government’s actions, questions are being asked about the levels of personal taxation, particularly the personal allowance—the subject of the petition—which the Government pledge to unfreeze in 2028. The Chancellor made much of this at the autumn Budget, saying:

“From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

I think we might disagree about the second part of that quote.

The statement about the policy was clear and unambiguous, and it maintained the position of the last Conservative Government—to lift that freeze in 2028. According to recent reports in the media, this is an issue that the Treasury is looking at as it tries to keep in the too-limited headroom that the Chancellor has in place. Will the Minister give an unambiguous commitment and restate the pledge to unfreeze the personal allowance from 2028? It does not go anywhere near as far as the petitioners would want, but it would at least be something.

The petition refers particularly to the position of pensioners; the hon. Member for Sunderland Central referred to that. Millions of people who are in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it. Of course, many with modest private provision already face that situation. Forecasts suggest an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. At the general election, we had a very clear policy: the triple lock plus commitment, which would have ensured that people relying on the state pension as their only source of income would never pay income tax on it. Labour refused to match our policy at that time; in government, it has maintained opposition to it.

I have tabled several parliamentary questions to him, but the Minister has been reluctant to give the Treasury estimates of the number of pensioners who receive only the state pension whom he expects to pay income tax and when they will do so. Perhaps today he will come clean with the figures that the Government must have about how many pensioners will have to pay income tax, when all they have in income is the state pension. I assume he is aware of those figures and assessed their impact when the Government were deciding to cut the winter fuel payments, again from very vulnerable people.

Towards the end of the last Parliament, I supported measures by the then Government to cut taxes for working people through reductions in employee national insurance, the last of which, last March, was worth £10 billion. We believe in people keeping more of their own money, and the Minister should give the signatories of this petition clear answers to the following questions. Will the Government stick to their promise to increase the personal allowance from 2028? Are the Government committed to not raising the rates of income tax and VAT in this Parliament? Will the Minister rule out any further increases in national insurance rates? I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

The Minister referred to the Employment Rights Bill. Has he seen the survey from the Britain Retail Consortium in which 70% of the businesses that were surveyed, which are major retailers that employ half a million people, said that the legislation would damage their business, and half said that it would make them less likely to take people on?

[James Murray]

Many employers recognise that having a productive, secure workforce who can take pride in their jobs and contribute to their fullest ability at work is important not just for the employees themselves but for the productivity of the businesses. That is why we want to see workers with employment rights that will be upgraded through our plan to make work pay, alongside, as I mentioned a few moments ago, a stronger national living wage and national minimum wage under this Government.

That focuses, however, on working people and their rights at work and their incomes. The petition also raised concerns about the state pension being subject to income tax. In 2025-26 the personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic and full new state pension. That means that pensioners whose sole income is the full new state pension or basic state pension without any increments will not pay any income tax. The state pension continues to be the foundation of support available to pensioners, backed by the Government’s commitment to the triple lock.

This year, over 12 million pensioners have benefited from a 4.1% increase to their basic or new state pension, which means that those on the full new state pension will get an additional £470. Over the course of this Parliament, the yearly amount of the full new state pension is currently projected to go up by around £1,900, based on the latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government also support pensioners through a range of other means, including free eye tests, NHS prescriptions and bus passes. For pensioners who are eligible for means-tested support, we provide pension credit and housing benefit.

I recognise the substantial support for this petition. Hard-working people and pensioners who have worked hard all their lives want taxes to be as low as possible; I understand that. However, as we have set out today, we inherited a mess from the previous Government and have had to take tough choices to set us on a path to generate economic growth. Raising the personal allowance to £20,000 would undermine the work that the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, and it would slash the funding available for vital public services. This Government remain committed to keeping people’s taxes as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility. Fiscal recklessness hits working people and pensioners the hardest. Parties promising to raise the personal allowance to £20,000 would have to explain how they would cut the NHS by a quarter, or why they want a rerun of the economic disaster we saw under Liz Truss.

We as a Government are determined to go further and faster to deliver our plan for change with its key goal of putting more money in people’s pockets by kick-starting economic growth. We will always keep taxes as low as possible while never putting security for families and pensioners at risk. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Businesses have just been hit by the Chancellor’s £25 billion jobs tax, which will cost working families £3,500; also, business rates are nearly doubling for hospitality and retail businesses. How does imposing taxes that the Office for Budget Responsibility says will result in lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs help growth and those on the lowest incomes, and will the Chancellor keep her promise not to come back with more taxes in this Parliament?

[James Murray]

The shadow Minister talks about business rates support. I remind him that if we had carried on with the plans inherited from the Conservative party, business rates relief would have ended entirely this month. It is only thanks to a decision of this Government that rates relief is continuing for this year, ahead of permanent reforms that will permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street from April 2026. That is thanks to a decision this Government made.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Even before Labour’s jobs tax comes into force, we can see the damage that it is doing. Three quarters of a million jobs in hospitality will be subject to employer national insurance for the first time, costing £1 billion. Given that major hospitality and retail businesses are warning that lower-paid and part-time workers will suffer most, will the Chancellor think again? Can the Minister at least commit that there will be no further increases during this Parliament?

[James Murray]

The businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, like businesses in all sectors of the economy, benefit from the stability that this Government have brought to the economy. He wants to talk about unemployment and the rate of jobs. We recognise that making changes to employer national insurance contributions was a tough decision that will have consequences, but the unemployment rate will fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. When taken together, the Budget measures mean that the employment level in this country will increase from 33.1 million in 2024 to 34.3 million in 2029.

Finance Bill

James Wild 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.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

When the Government decided to take away the winter fuel payment, they said that people could apply for pension credit to try to get some support. The problem is that there are huge delays in getting pension credit. When the message was first put out, the delay was 84 days. Five hundred new staff have been brought in, but it is still 56 days, which is above the 50-day limit. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that people have now passed through winter and still do not have the funds to which they are entitled under this Government, and which are not there?

[James Wild]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done stellar work in drawing out of the Department the data on delays and waiting times. If everyone who is entitled to pension credit took it up, it would wipe out the savings that the Chancellor wanted, so the idea that she wanted all those people to take up pension credit is for the birds.

New clause 1 would require the Government to review how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate will be liable to pay income tax in the coming years. At the general election, we were very clear that people in receipt of only the state pension should not pay income tax on it. However, recent forecasts suggest that an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial situation, yet they were given just six months’ notice that they would lose their winter fuel allowance. They cannot be blindsided for a second time by the taxman.

In Committee, the Minister said that the relevant data was available, but I do not think that is correct, because the figures to which he referred do not break down the group we are talking about—recipients of the full rate of the new state pension. Will he commit to publishing data on how many people receiving the new state pension will pay income tax on it? This potential hit could not come at a worse time for pensioners, who have lost their winter fuel payments, because we learned last week that energy bills are going up yet again—a far cry from the £300 cut that they were all promised at the last election by the Labour party.

At the Budget, the Chancellor made much of her announcement that she would uprate the personal tax thresholds in line with inflation from 2028, but that is not legislated for in this Bill. The public are being asked to take the Government at face value, yet recent reports suggest that this promise may be dropped due to the impact of the Budget on growth and higher borrowing. Given the number of broken promises since the election, can the Minister reconfirm from the Dispatch Box the Government’s commitment to unfreezing those thresholds in 2028?

As well as pensioners, working people cannot afford the costs of this Labour Government. The Prime Minister promised at the election that he would not hit working people with higher taxes, and he then broke that promise with the £25 billion-a-year jobs tax.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Member confirm which Government left taxes at a 70-year high? Can he also confirm which Government led to interest rates and inflation being at record highs, which has stung so many mortgage holders?

[James Wild]

Well, the last Government had to deal with a global pandemic and an energy price shock. I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, who has obviously not read the Red Book: taxes are going up—they are going up to record high levels—under the Budget and the Finance Bill that he is supporting. If he is worried about the tax burden, he should not be voting for this Finance Bill today.

Households are facing financial challenges, and the measures in the Bill will only make things worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that real household disposable income will fall by 1.25% by the start of 2029, largely due to the measures in the Budget. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes on household finances. The choices that this Chancellor and this Government have made mean that borrowing is increasing, so interest rates will be higher for longer and people’s mortgages will be higher, and hard-working families will be paying billions of pounds to pay off the debt interest. The Government inherited inflation at target, but since then inflation has gone up, meaning less money in people’s pockets.

While it is the Chancellor’s wider mishandling of the economy that is attracting the headlines, the measures in this Bill will have a direct role in squeezing households. Whether it is higher stamp duty, increased alcohol duty, air passenger duty, capital gains increases, vehicle excise duty, changes to the tax treatment of hybrid vehicles or many other measures, the costs of the Bill will be felt directly by households across the UK. When households are stretched, it is essential that we have transparency about what the Government’s actions are doing to incomes.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Of course, the big tax-raising measure in the Budget, as my hon. Friend says, was the national insurance contributions rise, with its £25 billion impact on the economy, yet once we have taken off compensation for public services and the negative impact on activity, it nets only about £10 billion. It is a peculiarly ridiculous policy that nets only £10 billion or £11 billion, yet, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s numbers, will take £19 billion out of people’s pay packets. Does my hon. Friend agree that there has surely never been a more ridiculous measure that costs so much and delivers so little?

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes the point that this measure may have been introduced by a Chancellor who did not actually understand the impact it was going to have. The Government should have stuck to the promise they made at the election not to increase national insurance at all.

New clause 2 concerns the Government’s plan to undermine our energy security by increasing the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, extending the tax by a year and removing investment allowances. The consequences are fairly predictable. Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off billions of pounds of investment in the North sea, putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member not agree that if such a rate is good enough for Norway, a clean energy superpower, it is good enough for the United Kingdom?

[James Wild]

In short, no, I do not, which is why we voted against that previously. We should be maximising our home-grown energy, not undermining domestic production and choosing to rely instead on importers with higher carbon emissions.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I agree entirely with the shadow Minister. Only today, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that our economy is security, and security starts with our defence and looking after ourselves—and that includes energy security. Is it not ridiculous not to use North sea oil—our own reserves—to ensure that security? It is the cleaner side of oil and gas. Using our own reserves also comes with jobs, and prevents us importing oil and gas in a volatile world.

[James Wild]

Absolutely. I wonder if, when the Prime Minister was in Washington last week, he had the opportunity to talk to President Trump about home-grown energy and the importance of supporting the domestic sector. That is what we on the Conservative Benches certainly support. This is a sector with 200,000 high-skilled jobs, so it is important that we have an up-to-date assessment of the impact of what the Government are doing on our domestic energy production, energy security, energy prices and the UK economy. Unfortunately, we already see some of that impact: the US firm Apache has said that it will end its operations in the North sea by the end of 2029, blaming the extension of the profits levy for making it uneconomic to stay beyond then.

[Graham Stuart]

This measure is vying with the national insurance contribution change to be the most absurd measure. I think that it wins by a head. The Prime Minister says that we must have energy security, and the Climate Change Committee that says we will still need oil and gas for 25% of our energy needs if we meet net zero in 2050, but the Government will have no more licences. We will lose tens of thousands of jobs, tens of billions of pounds in tax, and the engineering capability that we need for the transition. It is absurd on every single possible front.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. I think we all know that the architect of much of this is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who takes a rather fundamentalist approach. He wants to cover farmland with solar farms, and wants to undermine our oil and gas sector. We on the Opposition Benches disagree. It was the previous Government who introduced the levy, but that was to tackle extraordinary profits at an extraordinary time. The revenue helped to keep energy bills lower for all our constituents, but now the Government are ratcheting up the levy and seem to want to tax North sea exploration out of existence. This is just a further example of the Government’s ill-conceived energy policy. GB Energy is a net zero vanity project that will not generate any energy or be an energy supplier. It certainly will not deliver £300 off bills.

Amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name, would remove clause 47 and abolish Labour’s education tax. Since 1 January, independent school fees for education and vocational training have been subject to VAT at 20%. It is the first time education has been subject to VAT. Why is that? Because education is a public good, so we do not tax it. Putting VAT on independent schools particularly hurts those on the most modest incomes who have chosen to save and make sacrifices to send their children to a school that they think will serve them best.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have a number of faith schools that will be impacted greatly by the measure. They have contacted me even at this late stage to ask whether the Government would reconsider. Does the shadow Minister agree that faith schools will be impacted, perhaps more than others, and that the impact on parents, and children in particular, will be gross?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Everyone will have an opportunity, if the amendment is moved and selected for a Division, to vote to strip the measure out of the Bill. None of those parents on modest incomes are getting a tax break. They are also contributing to funding places in the state sector, whether or not their children take them up. Ultimately, this is a tax on aspiration, and we oppose it. In Committee, we raised concerns about the impact on certain groups, including children with special educational needs, small schools, faith schools and military families.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He touches on the issue of children with special educational needs. This is not just about scrimping parents making a choice; this is about people with no choice, whose children have been bullied or who have special needs that have not been met in the state sector, and who have made a sacrifice to put their children in the private sector. People with children in particular need will pay the price of this ill-thought-through measure.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend is consistently absolutely right. There are more than 100,000 pupils in independent schools with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan. They will have to pay VAT on their school places—that is not covered by the Government.

[Tristan Osborne]

Is it not true, though, that special educational needs students are exempt from this proposal? It is not a surprise that while the Opposition are focused on the very small number who go to independent schools, we are focused on ensuring a good education for the large majority of our children in state schools.

[James Wild]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is flat wrong. Children with SEND who go to an independent school but do not have an education, health and care plan will have to pay the 20% VAT—I would hope that people who are voting on this legislation might have understood that fairly fundamental point. That will make those places unaffordable for the parents of many, add pressures to the state system, with demand for places where there is no capacity, and squeeze council budgets. This is just another part of the Education Secretary’s ideological approach, which seeks to divide. We on the Conservative Benches care about all children. We simply believe that parents should be able to choose the school that is best for their child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. At Davos, the Chancellor said she had listened to that community. Why would she make changes for that community, but not the farming community, the pensioner community, the pupils at private schools or the SEND community, or indeed working businesses such as pubs, restaurants and charities, who are all seeing tax increases? Why was that community listened to, when no others were? Does he have any idea why that could be the case?

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend invites me to get inside the head of the Chancellor, but I am not sure I would be able to do that. All I know is that the other groups that he mentions should also be listened to. The Chancellor has shown herself to be particularly tin-eared on the impact of these changes on family farms and businesses, hence there is, tomorrow, yet another protest. I read over the weekend that another brave Labour MP has come out and said he opposes the changes and wants to see reforms—perhaps some of the other Labour MPs are here to speak to say that they too stand with the farmers in their constituencies.

To conclude, the Prime Minister and Chancellor set growth as the mission for this Government. They inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7, but the choices they have taken in the Budget and in this Finance Bill have stopped growth stone dead. They have hiked taxes, undermined business confidence, pushed up inflation and hit working people and pensioners. Later this month, we will get the economic and fiscal forecasts, but what we can already see is a Labour Government committed to higher taxes, higher spending and higher borrowing, and we are all paying the price.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Economic growth is the ability to produce more with less. It is the foundation of all human progress. It is why we are not all scratching around in the dirt, desperately hoping something will grow. However, there is no economic law that says that when the economy grows, all must share in it. In decades past, it has not been shared. Growth has gone to high earners over everyone else, to the old rather than the young, to capital over labour and to London over everywhere else. This is tearing our democracy apart, and it is tearing other democracies apart. That is why I am so proud to speak in favour of this Finance Bill, which will help to ensure that economic growth is shared among all people and all places.

I worked as an economist before entering this place. As Members may know, my PhD was on the causes and consequences of inequality and particularly why, since the 1980s, people and places have not shared equally in growth. In my adult life, I have never known a growing economy, and now my beard is turning grey—[Interruption.] I will soon look like Gandalf. I want to see the dotted line on the GDP chart finally go up, but that is not enough. We have to ask whether all are sharing in that growth. Growth for where, and growth for whom? The only way to ensure that all share in growth is for this Government to act. When people do not share in growth, when their incomes do not rise and when life becomes worse, hope turns to cynicism, happiness turns to anger and peace turns to riots.

There are four ways in which growth has not been shared by all, and we are fixing all four in this Budget. First, across high-income nations, top earners have seen their pay rise far faster than the rest. Technological change destroyed manufacturing jobs and led to a divided labour market of high-paid and low-paid jobs. High-paid workers benefited from new technology—computers, Excel and PowerPoint—and they saw their wages increase 50% faster than the average. We are fixing that in this Budget by investing in the skills of non-graduates, with more money for further education colleges and apprenticeships.

Secondly, older generations have benefited from cheaper homes, while younger renters cannot buy a home because we have failed to build enough houses in this country. Twenty years ago, house prices were three times the average wage. Today, they are more than eight times the average wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The impacts of the changes to the alcohol duty and the energy profits levy have already been set out in the tax information and impact note that was published alongside the autumn Budget, so that information is already in the public domain. Information on the impact on households was also published alongside the autumn Budget in the “Impact on households” report, which demonstrated that households are on average better off in 2025-26 as a result of these decisions.

Finally, I will address the amendments tabled by the Opposition that deal with VAT on private school fees—several hon. Members have spoken about that matter. Amendments 67 to 69 would collectively remove clauses 47 to 49, which remove the VAT exemption for private schools and set out anti-forestalling provisions and the commencement date.

Ending the VAT tax break for private schools is a tough but necessary decision that will secure the additional funding needed to help deliver on our commitments, including those relating to education and young people. This policy took effect at the beginning of January, and I note that in his speech, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), did not say how his party would pay for its decision to reintroduce that tax break for private schools. The policy will raise £1.7 billion by the final year of this Parliament, so it is essential that the Opposition explain what they would cut from the schools budget, from education services, or from any other public services to pay for the reintroduction of that tax break. I will happily give way if the shadow Minister would like to make an intervention to place on record how he will pay for it. I do not see him leaping to his feet, so I will move on.

Finally in the debate we are having about VAT on private schools, the Government set out the expected impacts of this policy in the autumn Budget, so I do not believe that new clause 7—which would require the Government to make a regular statement on the impact of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—is necessary. However, I take this opportunity to make clear that in developing this policy, the Government carefully considered the impact it would have, including on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. I am sure that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and her colleagues will welcome the extra £1 billion next year for high needs funding that we have been able to announce thanks to our decisions on tax policy, including on private schools.

I hope I have set out why the Opposition amendments are unnecessary, and indeed why reintroducing the VAT tax break for private schools not only runs counter to the manifesto on which the Government were elected, but represents an unfunded tax cut from the Opposition—have they learned nothing? I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments, and I commend our amendments to the House. Again, I extend my thanks to all Members who have contributed to this debate.

[James Wild]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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.”—(James Wild.)

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.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debates we have had so far on the Bill, which I do not intend to extend unduly. I join him in thanking the parliamentary staff and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee.

The driving mission of the Government, according to the Prime Minister, is growth, but despite inheriting the fastest growing economy in the G7, he and the Chancellor chose to talk down our economy. The impact of their words was to weaken confidence. Then, in the October Budget, the Government made choices and put in place a raft of measures in this and other Bills that have stopped growth stone dead: £40 billion a year of extra taxes; higher national insurance; increasing tax on investors; deterring the risk takers and the wealth creators we need; pushing up inflation; and hitting working people and pensioners.

In just the last two days, senior business leaders from the retail and hospitality sectors have warned about the damage the Budget and Labour’s costly employment laws will have. They are just the latest businesses sounding the alarm, but the Chancellor is not listening. For all the talk of growth, we can already see from their actions that we have a Government committed to higher taxes, higher spending, more borrowing and more regulation—the classic Labour approach. It does not work. The Government need to change course, otherwise we will all pay the price. That is why we will not be supporting the Bill this evening.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

[Ben Lake]

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

[James Wild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill.

There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

Clause 5 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms, and where they determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

During the Bill’s passage in the other place, peers felt it necessary to amend the Bill to add clause 5. The Government understand the objectives behind the clause, but we are unable to support it, as it would duplicate existing protections. Fisheries policy is also largely devolved, and therefore responsibility for this issue in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rests with the relevant devolved Government. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, and the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is also a devolved matter.

For those reasons, the clause would have almost no impact in practice on farmed salmon in the UK. As it stands, it risks impeding an already thoroughly regulated industry, while having little to no positive impact, due to the territorial realities of the Bill. Therefore, I do not recommend clause 5 to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so soon, Mr Mundell. As the Minister noted, the clause was added in the other place, particularly following the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It was backed by peers from across the parties, and Labour peers may have supported it as well. The Minister says that it duplicates provisions that exist. Given that the Government said in the House of Lords that they support its objective, it is clearly disappointing to see them removing these provisions, with the message that that sends about the importance of protecting the future of wild Atlantic salmon.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6

Commissioners with special responsibility

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

[James Murray]

Clause 6 amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That responsibility would be in addition to the other responsibilities of a commissioner. For appointments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland, no recommendation may be made to His Majesty, unless Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland have been consulted.

The legislative changes brought about by clause 6 ensure that those on the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continue working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside performing their existing duties as commissioners. The clause, which was added as an amendment, following Government support in the other place, will bring knowledge of the devolved nations even more directly to the board table and will supplement the expertise of the Crown Estate’s director for the devolved nations, who is based in its recently opened office in Cardiff. The clause will ensure that the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continues working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[James Wild]

This is a pretty straightforward clause. It is one of those that were added to the Bill in the other place to improve it, and I hope the Minister might learn the lesson of those clauses as we come to consider the new clauses shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Extent, commencement and short title

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.

[James Murray]

These are very straightforward matters to debate. Government amendment 3 removes the privilege amendment inserted by the other place. Clause 7 sets out the Bill’s extent, commencement period and short title in the usual manner for such legislation. I commend Government amendment 3 and clause 7 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Thank you for calling me to speak again, Mr Mundell—it is good to get the exercise. There is not much to add on this very straightforward clause and amendment, other than that the commencement date, which brings the legislation into force automatically within two years, could usefully be applied to other legislation from the last Parliament. Quite a lot of private Members’ Bills and other pieces of legislation were passed that have not been commenced. I could expand on that issue at length, Mr Mundell, but you would rightly say that it was not in scope. However, car parking regulations, for example, have not been brought into the code of practice or into effect. Having a clear date in legislation to say, “This will happen, as long as the Bill passes,” is a good thing to do.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Territorial seabed

“After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—

‘3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc

(1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of—

(a) any part of the territorial seabed, or

(b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed,

which forms part of the Crown Estate.

(2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void.

(3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.’”—(James Murray.)

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[James Murray]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I will respond to Government new clause 2 and to new clause 3, which was tabled in my name. As we heard from the Minister, Government new clause 2 will require the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. The Government moved this measure because of the extensive debate in the other place about the sale of certain assets, and particularly the seabed. We welcome the constructive approach taken by Ministers; Lord Livermore gave a commitment in the other place, and it has been honoured today, so we will support the new clause.

Although we welcome the new clause, we still have concerns about the disposal of other assets. My new clause 3 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to seek approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of such a disposal by the commissioners.

As previously noted in Committee, the Crown Estate owns some of the nation’s most vital assets. It is somewhat surprising to find that there are few safeguards to prevent the Crown Estate commissioners from deciding to sell critical assets. That is why the debate in the other place, which exposed the issue of the seabed and brought about new clause 2, was so important. However, the Crown Estate has lots of other assets, which Members may wish to refer to and which they may think also deserve special attention.

In the original business case for modernisation of the Crown Estate, which is publicly available, it was noted that the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals, which—coincidentally enough—equates to nearly 10% of its portfolio. In the other place, my noble Friends suggested a disposal limit of anything greater than £10 million. The noble Lord Livermore responded:

“It is the Government’s view that imposing a statutory limit on disposals in this way would undermine the flexibility required by the Crown Estate to ensure that it can operate commercially and fulfil its core duties under the future Act.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1411.]

The Minister made a similar argument in his speech, but I am not sure that it is right. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, there should be some form of greater transparency if they are to be disposed of. Reporting to Parliament and seeking approval from the Treasury for disposals over a set percentage would provide such transparency.

The disposal of assets by the Crown Estate should be properly scrutinised, given its important role and statutory purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate about its planned disposals—the £1.4 billion referred to in document on the modernisation of the Crown Estate, which any Member may access—it said that it was unable to disclose its plans. Members might guess that the old “confidential, commercially sensitive” reason was given. That raises concerns about transparency. Will the Minister confirm whether he knows which assets were included in that figure and whether the Crown Estate plans further disposals? I asked the same question on Second Reading, and the Minister replied to most of my points, but that is one he did not reply to. Perhaps he will do so on this occasion.

Having reflected on the debates in the other place, we have changed our approach from a £10 million cap to a 10% cap, after which new clause 3 would require approval and a report to Parliament. That is a modest measure, which would not inhibit the commercial freedom of the Crown Estate to take such decisions if it wants to. It owns assets such as Great Windsor Park and others, and who knows which it may decide to sell at some point in the future? Such assets are held in right of the Crown, so this is not about the sovereign’s private income, but about the income generated for the taxpayer. Transparency is something that the Government should endorse.

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility needed to enable the Crown Estate to operate commercially and meet its core duties under the Crown Estate Act 1961. As I mentioned earlier, there may be instances where it makes commercial sense to dispose of high-value assets, particularly when the Crown Estate, by its nature, takes a longer-term view of the business and its strategy.

[James Wild]

The Minister talked about flexibility, but the Crown Estate would not suddenly decide tomorrow to sell some asset; it will have a business case and a process. That business case will go to the Chancellor, who will get advice rapidly—within a matter of hours or a day—either approve it or not, and report to the House. I do not see what the flexibility issue is.

[James Murray]

I point the shadow Minister to the way the system currently operates. The Crown Estate operates independently from Government, but there is a long-standing, constructive and transparent relationship between it and the Treasury. That ensures that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. That is underpinned by the Crown Estate’s framework document, which makes it clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury

“of any matters concerning spending, income or finance that are novel, contentious or repercussive.”

That is an important point to highlight in terms of the way the system currently operates.

However, I return to my earlier point, which is that the Crown Estate is an independent commercial business, and it is not the Government’s intention to materially alter its independence in such a way that the Treasury is required to approve its business decisions. I reassure the shadow Minister and others on the Committee that the Crown Estate’s core duty, which is to maintain an estate in land and to enhance and maintain the value of the estate, is unchanged by the Bill.

Finally, to respond to the question about the £1.4 billion of disposals outlined in the business case, those published as part of the Lords stages relate to non-strategic assets.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

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.’” —(James Wild.)

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.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Nobody is saying that this is easy, but it is possible, and it has happened with Scotland. As many Members have said to us, given that we have territorial devolution and powers over the land, why not the seabed as well? There are ways of managing this, so complexity should not get in the way of ensuring that we have fairness in the distribution of economic benefits.

This funding is desperately needed, particularly given the historical underfunding of Wales on issues such as infrastructure. The success of devolution in Scotland speaks for itself; since 2017, when Scotland gained control of the Crown Estate, it has generated more than £103 million for public finances, so let us think what could happen for Wales if it was able to retain the profits generated by the Crown Estate within their borders.

Wales is expected to generate at least £1 billion from offshore wind energy leases in the coming years alone. Keeping some of that money within Wales could add £50 million a year to the Welsh Government’s budget—funds that could be directly reinvested in public services and local communities.

But this is not just about the financial gain; as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, devolving the Crown Estate would open up opportunities for greater investment in renewable energy projects. That is particularly important for coastal communities, which have long suffered from the decline of traditional industries. When they see direct benefits from renewable projects, they are far more likely to support them. That would create jobs, opportunities and sustainable development, delivering long-term economic stability, especially for the coastal regions of Wales that need it most.

The devolution of the Crown Estate has widespread support across Wales, from the Liberal Democrats in this place and the Welsh Parliament to Plaid Cymru, a majority of local authorities in Wales and even to the Welsh Labour Government. There is clear and overwhelming backing. In addition, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of the Welsh public are in favour of seeing the Crown Estate devolved, and it is clear that the people of Wales want to see this change. We want to work together, and I urge the Government to support this new clause and allow Wales to benefit from the powers and financial resources that it so rightly deserves.

[James Wild]

I will not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the previous Conservative Government’s position, which has not changed today. The proposal would introduce an element of risk in spinning out assets and revenue streams. We heard about the particulars of the Celtic sea, so this is not the right proposal for this time.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for tabling new clause 5, which would require that within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed a transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to make provision to ensure that the employment of any person in Crown employment is not adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 12, which would require the Treasury to set out a scheme to transfer all existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales and rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

The Government believe there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. Both new clauses would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales which, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables and disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-systems approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Its reform aims to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Do you wish to say anything, Mr Wild?

[James Wild]

Well—

[The Chair]

It is not compulsory.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I am up now. I will not detain the Committee long. We did not support new clause 5, so it follows that we do not support new clause 6, although it raises a thought in my mind. The east of England, which is home to the largest offshore wind sites in Europe, is perhaps not getting its fair dibs. That is probably something I need to reflect on for another time.

[The Chair]

Indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

May I take this moment to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions? I also thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing the Committee. I thank the Treasury officials, the House of Commons officials and everyone else for making the Committee run so smoothly.

[James Wild]

I am grateful, Mr Mundell, for your chairing this afternoon, and I am grateful to Ms Furniss for chairing the first session this morning. I am grateful for the support, help and advice of the Clerks and for the contributions and responses provided by the Crown Estate during the passage of the Bill. I look forward to reconvening with Members for its remaining stages, which I understand will be on 24 February—they will be a pleasure. I am grateful to the Minister for getting on the record my strong opposition to the 100 miles of pylons coming from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency and the need to look at underground options.

[The Chair]

As ever, it is a disappointment to me that I can take no further part in these proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.