Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their questions and comments. Turning first to the questions from the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the OBR forecasts for inflation, interest rates and so on were used as the underlying basis for the projections. To the extent that Members across the House support the OBR and its independent forecasting duties, I hope that they would support the royal household using those forecasts. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the reserve, the household previously aimed to maintain reserves of at least 5% of annual expenditure. This legislation formalises a slightly higher reserve at 10% as the floor, with 50% being the ceiling. It is our judgment that that is reasonable. Of course, 50% is a significant reserve. The hon. Gentleman asked what happens to the reserve. Of course, it can be drawn down on in times when the royal household faces significant in-year financial costs. The first reaction of the Treasury and the royal trustees would not be to come to the House to ask for a vote to increase the expenditure in the case of additional in-year costs. Instead, it would be hoped that capital programmes could be smoothed out over time, and that the flexibility allowed by the reserve could be drawn on. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether the secondary legislation in the event of changes would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in the House. I can confirm that if the percentage were to go up, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and we would therefore have the option to debate and discuss. If the percentage were to go down, my understanding is that it would be subject to the negative procedure. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the important issues of transparency, accountability and value for money. However, it is the Government’s view that the Liberal Democrat amendment is not necessary under the existing framework. Any future proposal to increase the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant would already require a published report from the trustees setting out the rationale and, as I have just said, would require the approval of the Commons through the statutory instrument being subject to the affirmative procedure, so Members of the House would have the opportunity to analyse and debate any proposed change. The National Audit Office already plays an important role in scrutinising the sovereign grant. It audits the grant annually and can undertake value-for-money examinations where it considers that such work would assist Parliament. Indeed, it exercised these powers, as we have discussed, in relation to the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. The Liberal Democrat amendment would also create a unique test that is not applied to other bodies funded by the public sector. It is the Government’s view that the sovereign grant is already subject to robust arrangements for accountability and scrutiny, including the managing public money principles, accounting officer oversight, National Audit Office audit and parliamentary approval for legislative changes. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered. Third Reading

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree with the hon. Member on that point. These grade I listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments are a very significant part of our national story and, for many, of our national identity. On his point about the quality of the estate, I can tell the House that independent surveys have found that 52% of the estate was at the target condition in 2020, but that had fallen to 38% by 2025. To conclude, the question before us is a practical one: do we wish to leave in place a framework that no longer properly reflects the end of the exceptional reservicing expenditure on the palace; or do we wish to put in place a revised framework that resets the grant, improves flexibility and preserves the ability of the grant to fulfil its core purpose? The Government’s view is that the right course is the latter. These measures are targeted, proportionate and deliver value for money for taxpayers. They improve the existing framework to the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate, I believe, as Parliament intended. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

• 8 Sept 2026 · Private Investment: Local Leaders · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friends are right to ask these critical questions, and I agree with them that private investment is critical to delivering good growth in every postcode. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that centralisation of power has led to too much of the country losing out on investment, leading to lower productivity and lower living standards for our constituents. The Chancellor set out yesterday his vision to shift power and resources so that they sit with local leaders, to enable long-term local investment and industrial strategies that will crowd in private investment.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Private Investment: Local Leaders · Hansard source

  More

  The Government understand the challenges of the implementation of steel tariffs, but we have to ensure that we keep a foundational steel sector in the UK. That is critical for our national supply and our national security. The Government looked very carefully at ensuring that the tariffs were applied in the right way to protect downstream suppliers, and we will continue to engage with industry and with Members of Parliament on these important decisions.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That— (1) provision be made amending the Sovereign Grant Act 2011— (a) to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28; (b) to specify the percentage of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate to be used by the Royal Trustees to determine the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years; (c) to confer a duty and a power on the Treasury to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant in subsequent financial years in certain circumstances; and (d) for connected purposes; (2) any increase attributable to such provision in the sums payable under that Act should be payable out of money provided by Parliament. The motion stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we approve it, the Bill to establish the sovereign grant will be published later today, and I am sure the House will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed debate on Second Reading. The sovereign grant is the annual funding provided to support the sovereign’s official duties and the work of the royal household, including staffing, official travel and the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces. Since 2012, the level of the grant has been determined through a statutory framework that links it to a specified percentage of the revenue of the Crown Estate—an independent public business whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. Additionally, in 2016, the previous Government agreed a temporary £369 million uplift to the grant over 10 years from 2017-18 to 2026-27 specifically to fund the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, a major 10-year project to modernise and safeguard the palace’s essential infrastructure. Periodically, Parliament requires the royal trustees to review whether the arrangements for the sovereign grant remain appropriate. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed that review and made recommendations for the appropriate level of sovereign grant funding from 2027 to 2032. The trustees recognise that with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirement for the scheme no longer exists. They therefore recommended that the overall level of funding provided through the sovereign grant should reduce from next year from £137.9 million to £99.9 million in 2027-28. The recommendation was made based on an assessment of the royal household’s expected costs and the Crown Estate’s expected revenues between 2027 and 2032. The new level of the grant will ensure that the royal household can continue to deal with property maintenance backlogs, following some years of constrained funding during the pandemic. It will also allow the royal household to replace ageing systems to strengthen cyber-security and install energy-efficient heating systems. With the consent of the House, given that we will debate the clauses in the Bill in more detail on Second Reading later this month, I will bring my remarks to a close. Overall, these measures ensure that the grant will continue to fulfil its core purpose of supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces. I hope the House will agree that the clauses in the Bill will improve the existing framework governing the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate just as Parliament intended.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Employees Travelling Outside the UK: Expenses Rate · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for raising this important issue today and for the work that he and neighbouring MPs, on a cross-party basis, have been doing to highlight the concerns that their constituents have raised with them. I can see that hundreds of people in the Crawley constituency have signed the petition. It is similar in Horsham and people near Heathrow and other major airports have signed it, too. The issue clearly affects many staff who work in the airline industry and, as my hon. Friend points out, particularly affects those who are on lower wages. Yes, they might enjoy and love the travel and going to visit so many different places as part of their work, as well as the benefits that come from a job working in the sky and working for airlines, but there are costs associated with being away from home. It was right to have the overseas scale rates system in place back in 2014, but it is not right at that the system has not been updated since then. The OSRs play an important role in reducing administrative burdens when employees incur subsistence costs while travelling overseas, and the key thing is that they provide a practical alternative to reimbursing and evidencing every single expense. As a result, if they were abolished at any point in the future, that could place a significant burden on airlines, which is certainly something we want to avoid. As my hon. Friend set out, the rates have remained more or less frozen since 2014. I was doing the maths earlier today in preparation for the debate, and I came up with a similar figure to him. If they had been uprated in line with inflation in the UK, they would have increased by 40% since 2014. Of course, inflation rates vary across the globe, but that gives us a sense of the size of the gap that has opened up over the last 12 years. The Government have been listening to representations made by airlines, individuals and Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend. As we announced just a few short weeks ago, we will review both the OSRs and the benchmark scale rates, which are the domestic equivalents that set out the scale rates for lunches and dinners that employees may have when they are in the UK on business. We will also look not just at uprating the rates but at whether there is scope to simplify the OSRs. We want to engage in detail with businesses on such a proposal, and officials in HMRC have already begun that work. Rather than having hundreds of individual rates for individual countries that need to be updated in a painstaking and administratively costly way, and that are also difficult for businesses to administer, we may find that having buckets or bands works better for employers and employees. That is something we will want to look at as part of this review, so I would really welcome representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on what changes their constituents would like to see. Let me be clear: we have not taken any decisions on where we would like to go, and our mind is not made up. We are convinced that we want to review the rates to make the system better, but we want to consider the issues carefully and gather evidence from those who are affected before a decision is made. Just last week, I met the CBI, which represents some of the large airlines, and it welcomed the announcement of a review. I look forward to receiving further representations from the private sector. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for the Government to strike the right balance between supporting businesses and maintaining fairness in the tax system, while also protecting the Exchequer to ensure that, in the round, we raise the necessary revenue to fund and put right our public services after the last 14 years, when too many were cut back. We also need to ensure that any administrative arrangements such as these remain straightforward and proportionate. Of course, there is political change in the air, but I hope that this review will conclude in time for the Budget. We do not want to be in a place where, in years to come, we are still waiting for these changes. I hope that we can make swift progress in the coming months, so that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as employees of airlines across the country, can see some improvement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for his intervention. I will take the strength of feeling in their representations back to the Department, for as long as I will be there. Question put and agreed to.