Spending Review 2025

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he always passionately argues the case for Blackpool. Yes, there is deprivation in Blackpool, but there is also huge opportunity, which is why we are backing Blackpool with the investment we are putting in through the spending review.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Why does the Chancellor think it appropriate to pledge £50 million on a preferential basis to a sporting organisation that has a political objective as its first and defining attribute, and that has named some of its sports grounds and trophies after IRA terrorists who brought such death and destruction to Northern Ireland, while other organisations are required to make do with what they were allocated in 2011? Does the Chancellor not see and agree that £50 million would make a far better contribution to meeting the housing needs, particularly for social housing, and the sewerage infrastructure needs that in my constituency have brought much of the building of new housing to a halt? What is the priority when matters like that are ignored?

[Rachel Reeves]

Alongside the investment at Casement Park, we have also made record investment, with a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive, in the announcements we have set out today. In addition, there is substantial investment in the defence sector, including in Northern Ireland. So there is plenty of money going into Northern Ireland, and it now needs to be spent wisely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the invitation to join him in his constituency. I very much enjoyed the regional reception with business leaders, as I have done in every region and nation across the country during the spending review. We will continue to work hand in glove with them to unlock investment, create jobs and create growth for everybody, across the whole country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Earlier, when the Chancellor was talking about the impact of tariffs, she pledged that the Government would act in our national interest. How can it be in the whole national interest, so long as the trade laws governing Northern Ireland are not the trade laws of the UK but those of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU?

[Mr Speaker]

We have an urgent question shortly.

Spring Statement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. That is why we have not set a number for the reduction in the size of the civil service and instead have made it an admin target. We do not want the number of civil servants to fall and then the number of agency workers and consultancies to increase. Absolutely, this Government will learn from failed efforts, both of the UK Government under the Conservatives and other Administrations in the past.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I think one of the Conservative Members said that he will update me in his speech later. I may have misheard him, but I think I heard him say that he will confirm later whether the Opposition will reverse the national insurance changes we are making, so I look forward to that update.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care?

[James Murray]

The fundamental principle is about which organisations the Government will support in response to the changes to national insurance contributions. The approach the Government are taking, which is in line with the approach taken by the previous Government in the health and social care levy, is for the Government to provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), that means central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers are independent contractors and will therefore not be exempt from the changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time?

[James Murray]

Just two weeks ago, I spent a fair amount of time meeting representatives from the National Farmers Union and other representative organisations from different nations within the UK. I listened to their concerns and what they had to say. We have to be honest that we disagree. They do not agree with the Government’s policy, and I need to be direct about that because we had to take a number of difficult decisions at the Budget. But I do not apologise for the importance of balancing the public finances and sticking to our fiscal rules.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and to express my party’s frustration with the Government’s refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd, that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy. Under the current system, the profits generated from Wales’s vast natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where that wealth is created.

The Crown Estate in Wales is set to generate millions annually from offshore wind energy leases in Welsh waters. If this money were kept within Wales, it could contribute an estimated additional £50 million to the Welsh Government’s budget at a time when public services in Wales are crumbling. It is nothing short of outrageous that the Labour Government in Westminster seek to deny Wales these vital sources of income, which could help to address the crisis in our public services, economy and infrastructure. The Labour Government’s refusal to devolve these powers further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland.

While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets within its borders, has been left without those powers. The benefits of devolution for Scotland have been clear, with the Scottish Crown Estate generating over £103 million for the public finances since 2017. The excuses we have heard from the UK Government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from Ministers about how devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales’s “best interests” or would be a “waste of time” are frankly an insult to the people of Wales.

This Government claim to support growth, but they seem determined to keep Wales from reaching its full potential. Instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow directly to London. That is not the vision of growth to benefit local communities or level up left-behind communities; it is a continuation of the Conservatives’ failed economic model, which prioritises centralisation and investment in the south-east of England over everywhere else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities. I hope the Government will change their mind.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.

A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate; I will follow on from what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) seeks. I want to make a specific request, which I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell).

My issues with the provisions primarily relate to the fishing sector and the impact on fishing fleets around the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but particularly in Strangford for Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects Crown Estates in the entirety of the United Kingdom.

As the Library briefing outlines, the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. It manages the seabed and much of the coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, playing a

“fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.”

I am not against wind turbines and the green energy they produce, but I am concerned about the impact on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns and express my support for the fishing fleets at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, where fishing is an important economic sector, providing jobs and investment. That has been happening for hundreds of years, and I want to see that tradition maintained. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will reassure fishing communities that any development will not be to the detriment of the fishing sector.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems in this territory is that we do not yet have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable? On reading the Bill, it appears that the whole focus of what sustainable will be is on the green energy side, rather than what will sustain the fishing industry.

[Jim Shannon]

That is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, but I want to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector over the years. It has been sustainable and still provides jobs in Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I want it to continue to do so. That would be my concern as well.

The fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations brought about by Crown holdings on the coastline, and concerns have been expressed to me regarding the partnership announced by the Government for the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—the very issue that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refers to—to bring forward new offshore wind developments. I wholeheartedly welcome renewable energy and attempts to harness the reliable energy of our vast seas and loughs, but only inasmuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful. That must always be the key consideration. If we were to lose one of our primary sectors in fishing and to gain wind turbines and green energy, that would be something that the Government would have to consider sensibly.

Similarly, the regeneration and development department in my local Ards and North Down council has highlighted the additional red tape that comes from leasing or altering existing leases to the Crown Estate. That being said, the council is also thankful for the open doors and accessibility when needed. However, it has been seen that there is a willingness to consider the national needs when requests are made for alterations, and that is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we want to ensure that they do not take away from the local needs of those in Strangford, in Ards and North Down and in the fishing fleets and those who own land and farms around the Irish sea and Strangford lough.

During 2023-24, the Crown Estate generated a net revenue profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has returned £4.1 billion of net revenue profit to the Treasury. We must ensure that the Crown Estate is being run at ultimate capacity and is bringing money into our coffers, but also that it has a socially conscious operating model and that it is being used to do good for everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency.

I was very much inspired, as we probably all were, by the Prince of Wales’s scheme on homelessness, and by the fact that he is using his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, to build 24 homes to help tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes in Nansledan, Newquay, is due to be complete in autumn 2025. That good work should inspire us all to ensure that a Crown Estate operated by a team appointed by the Prime Minister attempts where it can to make such an impact for the common good.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I have heard no one in this debate defend the land-banking corporations, but I have heard many Members objecting to genuine farmers’ being treated in the same way as if they were the land-banking corporations. That is fundamentally wrong, and therein lies the basic flaw in this proposal.

It is useful to cast our minds back to why, 40 years ago, this concession was introduced. We were told at the time that it was for two reasons—two reasons that still apply today: to enable retention by the next generation, and to allow long-term planning without fear of a crippling death tax. Those two reasons were good then and they are equally good today.

Yet now we have arrived at a situation where the Government tell us—or some of its Members do—that they are bringing this policy in to chase the land-banking corporations, even though the policy, if implemented, will enhance the land banking of those corporations. It is the small, genuine family farms that will not be able to meet the tax and will sell—and who will the buyers be? The buyers will be the land-banking corporations. It is a self-defeating policy if that is its purpose, and it is a policy that will cripple many family farms.

The Government tell us, “Oh, it will affect only 500 farms a year.” The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association, a body of professional valuers, has done a massive piece of work on this and has concluded that, in Northern Ireland alone, 200 farms will be affected per annum. If the total is meant to be 500 in the UK and Northern Ireland, which represents only a 40th of this nation, can produce 200 in a year, it is quite clear that the Government are wholly wrong in their statistics and in their evaluation.

Frankly, my local farmers are not particularly interested in Labour chiding the Tories and the Tories chiding Labour about who did what when. They are interested in getting a solution. I say to this Government that strong government is not about driving a policy through because you have a big majority; strong Government is about doing what is right. It is patently right here to have the courage to acknowledge that this is a flawed policy and therefore the Government need to find reverse gear. I trust that they do.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I raised such issues with my counterparts in China at the weekend. It is really important that, whenever we engage with foreign Governments, we also raise issues consistent with our values, including Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government with materials used in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Did the Chancellor raise any concerns, or indeed does she have any concerns, about the Confucius Institute, the Chinese Government-backed operation we see across the United Kingdom? And what answer did she get with respect to Jimmy Lai?

[Rachel Reeves]

When our Prime Minister met President Xi Jinping in Rio last year, they agreed that one of the points of re-engagement is that we were able to make clear our concerns on a range of issues in a private way. I am not going to go into the details of that conversation, but I raised these issues with all the Chinese officials I met at the weekend. [Interruption.] The problem is that Conservative Members, for all their chuntering, did not raise these issues because they did not even engage.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.

[Graham Stuart]

Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.

As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I can well understand the need to update the Crown Estate Act, particularly in regard to the financial reach of the Crown Estate and the assistance that it may require. It is perfectly clear in this debate that Members have rightly discerned that the real driving force behind this legislation is to twin the promotion of offshore wind energy with Great British Energy. That seems to be the primary motivation behind much of the Bill. If the Government create circumstances where the Crown Estate is required and facilitated to increase its own financial success and they twin it with the promotion of GB Energy, they inevitably incentivise the development of offshore wind, which has its part to play, but it is not the answer to all our needs.

In Northern Ireland I have seen proposals for offshore energy, particularly in the South Down area, that have provoked great and rightful opposition from the fishing industry, leading to substantial difficulties. Yet it is quite clear that where the Bill talks about sustainable development, it is not in respect of the historic use of our seas as fishing grounds but in respect of our seas as sites for offshore wind energy. As another hon. Member said, there is a tension between offshore wind farms and fishing. It seems from the Bill that the Government have made up their mind about which is the priority. We have heard in this debate that the definition of sustainable development specific to the Bill will be very much orientated to the climate change theology. It will therefore place the need for wind farms above the needs of the fishing industry, which will not serve the interests of our coastal communities well. There is a need to reinstate some balance in that regard.

There is an interesting contrast between clause 3, which focuses on sustainable development, with the obvious meaning I have referenced, and clause 5, which I know the Government have said they will be removing. In clause 5, which relates to salmon farming, one of the matters to be looked at is the environmental impact; however, when it comes to wind farms, there is no requirement to look at the environmental impact—only at sustainable development, which is couched in terms that favour offshore wind development.

I think of my own constituency of North Antrim, where there are already proposals to put huge offshore wind farms not far offshore, just beyond the territory that contains the wonderful Giant’s Causeway and Rathlin island—cheek by jowl, coastwise, with areas of outstanding natural beauty. I do not think that would enhance the coastline or the waters in and around North Antrim. There have been similar proposals off Portstewart in County Londonderry.

When I read the Bill, it seems to me that the incentivising—it is much more than a nudge—is towards pushing along offshore wind farms with little regard, and certainly no corresponding regard, to the environmental impacts that they could have on whole communities.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am struck by the fact that many of the people living in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency will be dealing with extremely high energy bills in poorly insulated houses, and will be desperate to see those energy bills go down and to see decent jobs come back to Northern Ireland, and for them and their communities to thrive. I also recognise the value and importance of heritage sites. My constituency in Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea and has enormous opportunity for offshore wind, but we also want to retain the value and beauty of our surrounding environment. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that these things are reconcilable? This is not a theology, but a science and an economic requirement of this country so that it can serve his constituents, as well as mine.

[Jim Allister]

The point I am making is that the tension in the Bill between the environmental impacts and sustainable development—the codeword for offshore wind—is out of kilter. It is very much weighted in favour of offshore wind, with little or no regard, it would seem, given to the environmental impacts. I am simply saying to the House that we need to have regard to both. I do not think we serve future generations well if we surrender the beauty and serenity of the coastline that we enjoy, to be blotted for years to come by huge offshore wind farms.

Offshore wind farms have their place, but that is not in every place—that, I think, is the key point. Take the Giant’s Causeway, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Are we saying there should be giant wind farms shortly beyond it? What would that do for the UNESCO setting of the Giant’s Causeway, or for other sites around the United Kingdom? I am therefore advocating caution. I am advocating that we remember that it is about not just offshore wind farms, but preserving and protecting our environment and getting the balance right, and I am not sure that the Bill does that.