Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I will make some progress.

The second objective of the Bill is to enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. It does so by empowering the Crown Estate to reduce the size of the cash reserves it needs to hold, thereby expanding its ability to use its land and property assets far more efficiently.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Let us be clear that this is a huge departure for the Crown Estate. The Bill basically allows it to go to the City and to raise capital based on its assets, most of which, as the Minister highlights, are property. As he knows, the sponsor Government Department for the Crown Estate is the Treasury, but investments go up and down. What if those investments go down? Who will be the guarantor for those liabilities? Will it be the taxpayer or the Crown Estate?

[Darren Jones]

I will come to a number of those points later in my speech. If I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman’s points as I get towards the end, I will take another intervention from him.

As a result of the changes in the Bill, the Crown Estate will be able to accelerate investment in redeveloping and decarbonising its Regent Street and historic London portfolio, as well as investing in projects to support science and innovation. The Bill will unlock potential investment of up to £1.5 billion in the science, technology and innovation economy over the next 15 years, building on the Crown Estate’s recent investment in the city of Oxford.

To reduce the size of its cash holdings and engage in more capital-intensive activity in the long term, the Crown Estate needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. Such borrowing will be from the Government or from other sources, but only with Treasury consent. Borrowing from the Government will be at commercial rates, meaning the interest the Crown Estate pays, funded from its own income, will outweigh the Government’s cost of borrowing the money they loan to the Crown Estate. This will enable the Crown Estate to build on its long track record of delivering significant revenues to the public purse year after year—it has delivered over £4 billion in the last decade.

[Mark Pritchard]

Is there not a potential conflict of interest? The Minister mentions GB Energy, a new national organisation introduced by Labour Government policy. Because of the Crown Estate’s partnership with the Treasury, the Government are encouraging the Crown Estate to invest in GB Energy, but what if people out there do not like that policy? What if GB Energy is a failure? It is there not a clear potential conflict of interest between the Crown Estate and the incumbent Government?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing a brilliant job of anticipating sections in my speech. Once again, I will point at him when I come to the relevant section; in fact, it is the next section, so he is in luck.

There will be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate that will govern how the borrowing powers will be exercised. Above all, the Crown Estate will be borrowing for investment, maximising the profits returned to the public purse. Any such borrowing will require Treasury consent and will be within our fiscal rules.

Given that the new powers will enable the Crown Estate to first draw on its cash holdings, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used until the end of the decade. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that this is consistent with “Managing Public Money” principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. The fiscal impact of any Crown Estate borrowing will be fully considered, starting with this year’s spending review, to ensure it is consistent with our fiscal rules.

The Bill contains a set of necessary reforms, ensuring that the two key objectives can be met and that the Crown Estate can continue to operate effectively, both now and in the years ahead. It is composed of five key elements. First, it widens investment powers by removing existing restrictions on investing in the current Crown Estate Act 1961, and clarifies the Crown Estate’s ability to invest in complementary activities, such as research, digital technology and energy supply chains. Secondly, it grants the Crown Estate the power to borrow with Treasury consent. As well as generating returns for the public purse, the new ability to borrow will free it up to make better use of its existing assets, leveraging these to give it more room to invest.

Thirdly, the Bill makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate to provide legislative simplification and to bring it in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. By expanding the number of commissioners, the board will be able to better reflect the growing breadth of the Crown Estate business and ensure a greater range of expertise and diversity at board level. The Bill also requires the appointment of commissioners to advise on Wales, England and Northern Ireland, which will ensure that the board continues to act in the best interests of the areas in which it operates.

Fourthly, the Bill requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development goals in the UK. It is important that progress towards national goals on the environment and climate, as well as wider considerations on society and the economy, continue to be at the core of the Crown Estate’s strategy.

Fifthly, the Bill requires the annual report to include a section on the activities of the commissioners under their recently announced partnership with Great British Energy. That will ensure that details of the partnership and the benefits it creates are publicly available, clear to all and subject to debate in this House when those reports are published.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided.

We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government, the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn.

As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing

“is better placed outside of legislation”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.]

and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury.

The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised?

[Mark Pritchard]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Crown Estate and Treasury’s framework agreement was ineffective, or that at least it could have been strengthened. The memorandum of understanding is in a similar vein. I therefore support him.

Will he comment on this? I have concerns about the Bill. I agree with the general principle but there are potential fiscal and reputational hazards ahead for the Crown—not just the Crown Estate—if some of the investments go south. Also, at the moment there is a link between the Crown Estate and the sovereign grant. I think it is around 12%, as not all the income to the sovereign grant is derived from the Crown Estate. However, if the investments were to go wrong, who would be liable? If we have a weak MOU with no statutory oversight, it is more likely to go wrong.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech.

It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee.

The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny?

Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future?

Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

Indeed, the press release went on to say it

“will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.

However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return?

The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate

“will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.”

That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit

“under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.”

Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more.

Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer.

As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts

“to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed”

for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that

“further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.]

they would bring forward an amendment.

I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value.

Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage.

Mortgage Charter

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I find it strange that the hon. Member should be criticising the Government’s failure to tackle inflation when her party is suggesting a multi-billion-pound package of mortgage support that would increase inflation. I must say that the Liberal Democrats are positioning themselves brilliantly as the pro-inflation party.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the new mortgage charter, but may I say, along with all Members across the House, that constituents are suffering and that they are very concerned? Many are having to choose between food, clothes and shoes and paying the mortgage or the rent, and decisions that we make here, either as the governing party or cross-party, are having a direct impact on individuals’ lives every single day. I join cross-party with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is absolutely right that, so often, when the base rate rises, lenders are quick to raise those interest rates on our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when interest rates fall, as they surely will—hopefully they will soon; possibly in the autumn, but we will see—those reductions are passed on to our constituents as quickly as possible?

[Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the human consequences of any economic shock. I am extremely proud that, under the Government since 2010, 1.7 million people have been lifted out of absolute poverty, including 400,000 children. That is why in the autumn statement we prioritised those facing the biggest challenges with a £94 billion package of support to help people through the cost of living crisis. But one thing that can definitely happen better than it is now is passing on increases in the base rate to savers.

Russia: UK Companies

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman poses a number of very important questions. On a general point, he talks about strengthening the resolve of the people of Ukraine. This country can be rightly proud of every step it has taken to strengthen that resolve, and, I must say on record, of the leadership of two former Prime Ministers, as well as the current Prime Minister. They have shown extraordinary leadership appearing in Kyiv under huge pressure and supporting President Zelensky, alongside the support we have given to the Ukrainian armed forces and our massive humanitarian aid. I know there is consensus on that, but we should not in any way be defensive about the steps we have taken to support the Ukrainian people.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about companies doing the right thing. He is absolutely right that companies are divesting and exiting from Russia. We welcome that. I explained about the statement made by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor back in March, which is obviously something we welcome. I think there are some complexities in that process and I will not be drawn on individual firms. That is long-standing Treasury policy for very good reason.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the windfall tax. We have a windfall on North sea oil and gas which will raise £41.6 billion—an enormous sum of money. Why are we raising that money? It is in part precisely to fund the extraordinary support we are putting in place to help British people and British businesses through this winter. He talked about the impact on companies of Putin’s war and the impact on people. Yes, of course, the harshest impact is on the people of Ukraine, not least the bereaved families, but there is an impact on our people with higher prices, including energy prices, here and throughout Europe and the world. Our windfall tax funds that support so that this winter we are doing everything possible to support our businesses and our people, alongside massive support for the people of Ukraine.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

There is no doubt that the UK has led the Ukraine war effort with the United States, and there is no doubt that the UK has led the international sanctions regime, but this urgent question is about UK companies. Does the Minister share my concern that DP Eurasia is selling pizzas in Russia, Unilever is selling Cornetto ice creams in Russia, and HSBC is still servicing Russian corporate clients? Does he think that is acceptable? What more action can the Government take to encourage those companies to remove their services and businesses from Russia and to divest themselves fully, rather than just give interviews to corporate magazines and offer warm words?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is for good reason that we do not entertain specific discussions on individual companies and their commercial interests, but we have been very clear on the need to divest. We have an outright ban on investment in Russia, and I sincerely hope that companies are not abusing that. I am not going to suggest that the companies he mentioned are doing so or comment on those specific cases, but I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, or receive correspondence from him, if he has concerns in that regard.

Covid-19

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s support for businesses in Shropshire, Telford and The Wrekin, and commend Secretaries of State from different Departments for their speed and flexibility in getting many schemes off the ground. I am also conscious that, of course, at some point in the future all of this will need to be paid for. In that regard, I ask Ministers that they do not tax the surviving businesses that I believe will actually help economic recovery in this country. Yes, borrowing and fiscal stimulus can and should play a role in bearing down on any recession, but ultimately it is incentive and reward through bespoke tax cuts that will revive the economy and reduce the nation’s debt once this virus has passed. In my view, increasing taxes on sole traders and small businesses, if the Government were so tempted, would be self-defeating and counterproductive.

Again, I welcome the Government’s furlough scheme and commend the Chancellor for the speed with which he and his Department, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and HMRC and DWP staff have responded. It has been first class. However, I have concerns that the Government could be paying the wage bills of thousands of companies that are still making considerable profits, perhaps waiting until the end of the furlough scheme only to make their staff redundant. I also have concerns that the various schemes, particularly the furlough scheme and some of the business schemes, could be open to significant fraud. Further, the Government have said that they will do whatever it takes. Of course that offers huge reassurance to my constituents and to millions up and down the country, but I also hope that means what is realistic, what is proportionate, and, ultimately, what is affordable.

On local government, I commend the Government for the financial support—nearly £30 million of new funding—they have given to Shropshire Council and to Telford and Wrekin Council. However, may I ask that that funding is also cascaded down to town and parish councils, which are also under pressure? The Shropshire Association of Local Councils is absolutely right to ask that the Government consider relaxing regulations around the use of capital receipts and consider extending business rate relief for councils that run markets, car parks and sporting venues. Can I also ask the Minister if the Government will move quickly on issuing guidance on how to administer the discretionary business grant, which is absolutely vital to many local businesses in my constituency?

On quarantine, Shropshire relies very heavily on tourism—not just UK tourism but international tourism—and many jobs rely on it as well. If this measure is to go ahead, may I appeal to the Government to ensure that it is reviewed on a regular basis, perhaps every two weeks, and that there is a sunset clause so that it will be removed as quickly as possible?

Ultimately, may I stand in support of the Prime Minister in saying that the Government should always be led by data and the science, and with public health in mind?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

We said that we would aim to have the scheme up and running by the April payroll. This is a brand new system that has to be designed from scratch. Claims could be backdated from 1 March, which will provide significant support to businesses and jobs, and in common with all other schemes like this across the world, the scheme applies to furloughed workers in proportion to the hours they have worked—but to workers who are put on furlough rather than being retained in employment.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

5. What fiscal steps he is taking to help businesses affected by the Covid-19 outbreak.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

8. What fiscal steps he is taking to support small business owners.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

The Government remain committed to doing what they can to support businesses, our people and public services. In the last week, I have announced unprecedented measures to support business, including over £300 billion of Government-backed loans, £20 billion of tax cuts and grants, a VAT deferral worth 1.5% of GDP and a landmark job retention scheme guaranteeing 80% of the wages of furloughed workers. We believe that these measures represent the most comprehensive and generous suite of interventions of any major developed country in the world.

[Mark Pritchard]

On behalf of my constituents, I welcome those announcements. The Chancellor, though, will know that 15% of the UK workforce is self-employed, equating to about 5 million people up and down the country. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, there are 5,600 in The Wrekin. When will the Government come forward with plans for the self-employed and freelancers, given the immediacy of their need?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I will be making further announcements about progress on these measures. It is something that we have been looking at in intense detail over the past week in the Treasury. What I can say to him is that we are in dialogue with all the key stakeholder groups, including calls that I am having today with several of those bodies. There are genuine practical and principled reasons why it is incredibly complicated to design a scheme that is analogous to the one that we have for employed workers, but he can rest assured that we absolutely understand the situation that many self-employed people face at the moment as a result of what is happening and we are determined to find a way to support them. We need to be confident that that can be done in a way that is deliverable and fair to the vast majority of the British workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman illustrates exactly the issue with such a scheme. Looking at historical tax return data from a year and a half ago gives absolutely no guide as to whether someone today who is self-employed is prosperous, and indeed that their income may be increasing versus someone, who is not. Of course I am sympathetic to those whose situation is being adversely affected by what is going on. The issue is one of finding a way to target help at them, rather than having something that provides blanket cash subsidies to 5 million people, many of whom will not need it, which will end up costing all our constituents on modest incomes a considerable amount. It is about finding a way to target support for those who most need it, and that is what is requiring time and thought.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor join me in thanking Shropshire Council and the hard-working people at Telford and Wrekin Council? Cash flow is becoming a real issue for many local councils, with many having to borrow. Could he encourage his officials in the Treasury to be a bit more flexible as to where finance can come from and the use of reserves?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to look at specific suggestions. I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend’s council but to all councils for the sterling work they are doing in delivering our grant schemes to many of their small local businesses. We are in dialogue already with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that councils’ cash-flow needs are adequately met. There are things we are doing actively in terms of the timing of the various grant payments we make, to ease some of the near-term cash-flow pressures.

Coronavirus Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I have to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been very gracious in his apology and I thank him very much indeed for that. He says he does not want a Division tonight, which is welcome, and he says that the Government’s amendment is, in his view, defective. However, in principle, does he accept the Government conceding a six-month break?

[Chris Bryant]

Personally, I would prefer the time period to be shorter. I would prefer Government Ministers not to be switching powers on and off, because that will lead to them being more queried by the nation at large. I prefer something more like a three-month period when they have these powers, with regular review by the House, but I am not going to die in a ditch. There are no ditches here. I laud the Government for the movement that they have made, but they may still need to move some way further. It may be that they need to amend their own amendment when it goes to the House of Lords.

Coronavirus: Employment Support

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will take it back to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and see what can be done.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Many of the Government’s schemes have to be delivered through retail banks, which means people and businesses calling already overloaded call centres and going into retail branches—where they exist—which might restrict hours over the coming days. Most banks and most large private sector companies in this country that rely on some phone contact have resilience and contingency places dotted around the country that have pop-up call centres in times of crisis. Could the Government deploy those to ensure that desperate immediate-need calls from businesses and individuals are dealt with as quickly as possible?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the resilience required in banks at this difficult time. I discussed that with the heads of the banks last night and over the previous two days. We need to ensure that the terms of these loans are effective in allowing people to access them swiftly and we need to ensure that the banks can ramp up the accessibility of their specialist advisers. I have been given assurances that that will be in place.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Funding

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. There is much interest in this debate, so I reluctantly impose a time limit of six minutes. That might change to five minutes later on; we will have to wait and see. For the benefit of all Members, particularly new Members, I point out that every intervention will add one minute, up to a maximum of two interventions per speech. We want to encourage debate, but bear that in mind should you wish to speak as well as intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. We need to move on to the Front-Bench speakers at 3.30. Five people are trying to catch my eye. We will have to go to a time limit of three minutes for four speakers, and unfortunately somebody might be disappointed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this incredibly important debate.

In the short time we have, I join colleagues in heartfelt thanks and admiration for those on the frontline who are dealing on a day-to-day basis with children with special educational needs. “Dealing” is not quite the right word. I used to be a teacher and know that, as has been said, those students are often the most creative and giving, intellectually, in the class. Once that potential has been unlocked, they can fly.

I often go to special schools in my constituency, and we speak about how students can feel excluded from the system. Children are pulled out of classes when they want to be included. I would love us one day to have an education system that is fully inclusive and is allowed to make accommodations on a case-by-case basis for every single child. Most teachers know what those accommodations need to be. We have heard already about the funding crisis. There is a notional SEND budget that comes out of the main schools grant. It is £6,000 from every school and it creates a perverse incentive. That has to go, which is why in the last election the Liberal Democrats suggested that it should be cut to £3,000 for each child, but the fact is we need to make sure that any child, anywhere, gets the full accommodations that they need.

In the short time I have remaining I will highlight the “h” part of EHCPs. We often talk about autism and dyslexia, but it is also meant to cover children with disabilities. The other part of the NHS that feeds into the issue is child and adolescent mental health services. I have constituents in my area of Oxfordshire who have waited nearly two years for their EHCPs. That is a direct result of underfunding in CAMHS, which the local CCG and the local authority commission together. What work is the Minister doing with other Departments to ensure that they are meeting their requirements for EHCPs?

I will quickly highlight unregistered alternative provision. What happens to students who are excluded from school? Very often those schools do not want to do that, but for the sake of other children in school, or because they simply cannot provide the resourcing needed, they move the students on, often asking for them to be home-schooled or otherwise. Why do we have a system that allows any child essentially to be pushed out of the system altogether? I can understand that the child might go somewhere else, but that provision needs to be fully registered and fully inspected. If the child is to be home-schooled, that needs to be up to a standard. My final question to the Minister is about what happened to the consultation on children not in school. We were meant to have a response by the end of the year. That is an important part and we have not seen it.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. It is now time to call the first of the Front Benchers.

The Economy

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I will comment on that because, probably like the hon. Gentleman, I campaigned for remain, and I lost the argument; but I am a democrat, unlike the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am glad to report that Shropshire has the lowest unemployment in its history. In fact nationally, as the Chancellor knows, there are over 1 million vacancies, which in itself raises a challenge for the Government as a result of their own success. As we discuss the points-based migration system with colleagues across government, given that many vacancies in Shropshire need to be filled in agriculture, in the NHS and in manufacturing, can we ensure that we still secure the very best and brightest for our jobs market not only domestically, but from the international community—Commonwealth, non-Commonwealth and the EU?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. When I address amendment (h), I will say a bit more about that.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I was not around at the time of whatever was said. I have been involved for eight months and we have been working closely together on a wide range of activities. We are trying to get this legislation through at pace. I pay tribute to the work that has gone on in Scotland since we declared that there would be a commitment to introducing this ban. The ban has been introduced there and we are pleased that there has been support for what we are doing today from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and the Scottish Government.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister was not around at the time and cannot be held responsible, but the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is absolutely right. France is another member of the European Union that has introduced a ban.

I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons. It has taken some time, perhaps longer than it should have, but I am grateful that the Government have brought it forward. I have two quick questions. Will the Minister give a commitment that the timetable for introduction will not slip beyond next January? Secondly, does he believe the Bill is tough enough on enforcement?

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for those questions and again acknowledge his work and tireless commitment on this issue. I remember him discussing the issue at length and in depth.

No, the timetable will not slip. Obviously, what was said when we made the commitment to bring the legislation into place was that there would be interim regulations involving licences. There was a sunset clause on those, and we will get the legislation in place so that there is no gap. There have been questions about that matter previously.

On enforcement, this Bill, as I will explain, is based primarily on ethics rather than welfare concerns. It does not have some of the enforcement powers that some people have talked about. However, it is important to note that other legislation is in place—not least the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and legislation from 1976—that will enable us to have those enforcement powers. This Bill complements that: the legislation works together to provide the enforcement mechanisms that my hon. Friend is seeking.

When we first announced in March 2012 that we would introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, the Government were clear that primary legislation would take time. As I have said, we introduced interim measures—welfare licensing regulations. Those regulations will expire in 2020 and the Government have announced that they will not be renewed. That is why this Bill is being introduced: so that we can deliver with confidence on that commitment.

It might help if I provide a bit of historical context, to put the timeframes into perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

As defined in this Bill, they are wild animals, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As I tried to make clear earlier, their welfare absolutely will be looked after. We have had assurances of that from the circuses themselves and we have legislation in place that will ensure that there are ongoing inspections to make sure that their welfare is looked after. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend. I recognise his interest as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the important work the Committee has done on this issue and across a wide range of other activities on animal welfare. I am grateful to him for that.

[Mark Pritchard]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. A lot of people across the House have supported me over the years—the Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats and so on. This is a tribute to them all. He mentions the Animal Welfare Bill under the previous Labour Government. I remember working with colleagues across the House on that. Is it not time for the Government, however grateful I am for the introduction of this Bill, to introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill of their own, which incorporates so many other private Members’ Bills that have been discussed in this House over the past few years, rather than take a piecemeal approach? Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for plugging my own private Members’ Bills, but there are three I could name: the Protection of Common Birds Bill, the Sale of Primates as Pets (Prohibition) Bill and the Sale of Endangered Animals on the Internet Bill. Those are just three Bills from one lowly Conservative Back Bencher. Many other important animal welfare thoughts, ideas, policies and Bills have been introduced over the past few years. Will the Government seriously consider a comprehensive Bill to modernise animal welfare once and for all?

[David Rutley]

That is another important question. There is a strong rationale to do that. We are looking at other proposed legislation going forward. The environment Bill will be absolutely pivotal in the next Session, but as my hon. Friend knows we have other legislation we need to get through. We all know, including those on the Opposition Benches, that there is a lot of other proposed legislation that will take up time and make matters more complicated. However, he makes a good point and it is vital we seek ways to get other Bills in place, not least on animal sentience. We have already had a question about sentencing and increased sentences. I share the commitment to seeing that proposed legislation through. We just need to find the right vehicle to do that.

There are key arguments about necessity. It is not necessary to use wild animals to operate a circus or to enjoy the circus experience. The public can still, as the vast majority already do, attend travelling circuses that do not use wild animal acts. They can also readily see wild animals in zoos and safari parks. We need to consider the intrinsic value of wild animals. Modern society recognises the intrinsic value of these animals. This concerns the respect of animals and their natural behaviour. Wild animals in a circus are trained for our entertainment and amusement. That sends the wrong message to audiences about the intrinsic value of those animals. We should appreciate wild animals behaving naturally, not in a comic or superficial setting. We need to look at the educational conservation benefits. The practice of using wild animals in circus performances, unlike in zoos, does nothing to further our understanding or the conservation of wild animals. There is no greater benefit to humans or animals that justifies the use of wild animals in circuses. In short, it is an outdated practice that is no longer necessary to operate a circus or to enjoy the circus experience, and it is demeaning to the wild animals involved.

In 1990, 29 years ago, there were over 250 wild animals across some 20 circuses, including tigers, lions, elephants and bears. By the time of the 2009 DEFRA consultation, it was estimated that there were only four circuses in the UK using some 47 wild animals. Today, there are only 19 wild animals left and only two travelling circuses. Attitudes and audience appetites have changed, but if we fail to bring in a ban by the time our licensing regulations expire in January there is a risk that we could see more travelling circuses using wild animals such as lions and tigers again. It is crucial that we do not let that happen.

Let me turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1, the main clause, will make it an offence for a circus operator to use a wild animal in a travelling circus in England. The offence applies only to operators of travelling circuses in the circus environment; our view is that most people are employees or hired acts who are firmly in the control of the operator, so it should be the operator who carries responsibility for any illegal use of a wild animal.