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

  My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the works on Buckingham Palace over the past 10 years have been carried out with efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, the National Audit Office took a look at the programme of work and was able to commend it for its effective use of taxpayer money, which is of course very important. Clause 1 delivers, therefore, the intended reduction in funding following the completion of that work, and implements the conclusions of the royal trustees review to establish a new baseline for future years. Having reset the grant for 2027-28, clause 2 turns to the framework that will determine grant funding in future years. The grant has, since 2012, been linked to the performance of the Crown Estate. That underlying principle remains unchanged by the Bill. Clause 2 updates the percentage of Crown Estate profits used within that calculation, so that the framework remains appropriate after the grant has been reset through that bottom-up calculation. It sets the relevant percentage at 20.5%. Returning to conversations we had on Second Reading, I want to reassure Members that that figure is not arbitrary. It comes directly from the conclusions of the June 2026 royal trustees review, which assessed both the royal household’s expected expenditure requirements and the Crown Estate’s forecast revenues over the period 2031-32. Clause 3 introduces targeted safeguards to ensure that the funding framework can continue to operate effectively in exceptional circumstances. This is to ensure that where royal trustees conclude that the amount produced by the statutory formula would result in the sovereign grant reserve falling below 10% of annual expenditure or exceeding 50% of annual expenditure, and where the existing framework can adequately correct that outcome, the trustees must explain that conclusion in their annual report and identify the new amount they believe would be appropriate. The Treasury must then implement that through regulations. This reform allows greater flexibility to prevent reserves becoming either too large or too small, and it means that action can be taken before reserve levels move outside of a sustainable range, rather than waiting until existing statutory mechanisms have been triggered. The second mechanism is a limited power to increase the grant during a financial year in genuinely exceptional circumstances, and is intended as an emergency power. It can only be used when unforeseen circumstances arise during a financial year that cannot be reasonably addressed through the normal annual funding process. Clause 4 contains standard provisions relating to commencement and the short title of the Bill; I commend this and all other clauses to the Committee.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his engagement in the ways and means debate. I was glad to be able to write to him and to the Opposition in the intervening days to clarify a few points and, I hope, expand on some of the information that I gave during that debate. Let me briefly touch on the headlines of the three things that the Bill is doing; I will then deal with the points that have been raised, and will wrap up in good time. First, the Bill resets the level of the sovereign grant to reflect the fact that the exceptional funding requirement associated with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme is coming to an end. Secondly, it establishes a revised mechanism for calculating the grant in future years. Thirdly, it introduces limited powers to adjust the grant in exceptional circumstances—powers that have already been discussed in our proceedings—including circumstances in which funding would otherwise become inappropriately high. The Government believe that, taken together, these changes amount to a measured and sensible reform. I now turn to some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a valuable contribution. I would have enjoyed hearing more of it, but I understand that he had to keep within scope, and I will ensure that I do so too, Madam Deputy Speaker. His final point was that he does not think it is appropriate for this sum of £99.9 million to go to the royal family. It is worth clarifying that this grant is not for the family’s personal purposes, but to enable His Majesty the King and the working members of the royal family to carry out their official duties on behalf of all of us and of the country. Turning to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I look forward to debating the proposed amendment in more detail in Committee. I thank the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition for their support and engagement on the Bill. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Poole correctly, his key question is: why is the grant set relative to the profits from the Crown Estate at 20.5%, rather than the needs of the household? I reassure him that the key thing is the needs of the household, rather than the figure of 20.5%. The way the trustees arrive at the relevant figure is via a bottom-up assessment of what is required to enable the royal household to carry out its duties on our behalf. It starts not with the relevant percentage of the Crown Estate profits, but instead with the specific needs and requirements of the monarchy. On my hon. Friend’s specific point about the increase in the sovereign grant over recent years, he is right to point out that it is set to increase by more than inflation, but the trustees interrogated a number of reasons for that when the £99.9 million grant was determined. They include, for example, an £11.7 million addition for a 10-year programme to replace the gas heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle as part of the royal household’s clean energy transition; £4.3 million to modernise ageing digital infrastructure and strengthen cyber-security, and replace some legacy IT systems, some of which are over 20 years old; and £11.5 million for other cost increases such as on utilities, travel, housekeeping, equipment and professional services. I do take and understand my hon. Friend’s point about inflation, but I point out that the grant will in effect be frozen—in cash terms—throughout the next five-year period. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the stability of the royal household’s finances. It also goes some way to explaining why the Government do not think that coming back each year would be the most appropriate and efficient way to set the grant. For those seeking to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, particularly with long-term capital expenditure, via the sovereign grant, it is much easier to do so when it is possible to plan on a long-term basis.

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to the efficient use of taxpayer money, I would like to point out to the House that the hon. Member—he is, of course, welcome to submit as many questions as he likes—sent 371 questions, at a cost to the taxpayer of potentially around £80,000. Of course, we are willing to have debates in this place and on the Floor of the House, and my hon. Friends in the Cabinet Office will continue to answer questions, but in the end we need to make sure that the Government are driving good growth across the whole country. No. 10 North, bringing together businesses, leaders and senior politicians from across Government, is the right route for doing just that.

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  I think it would be best for hon. Members, rather than getting in a flap about No. 10 North, to back what we are trying to do to drive good growth, opportunity and devolution across the whole country. It is the right thing to do. The previous Government passed on to us a country that was the most geographically unequal advanced economy in the whole world. We are setting out to turn that around for the people of this country. Of course, the details on employment and the costs of No. 10 North will be published in the usual way, along with the accounts for the Cabinet Office.

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is totally right that the objective of No. 10 North is to drive good growth in every postcode across the whole country. Too many places and too many communities have been left behind for too long because power and decision making was hoarded in Westminster. Members on the Labour Benches know that the route to growth everywhere is getting it out across the country. Members on the Opposition Benches, it seems, want to keep hoarding power and decision making here in Westminster.

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  No. 10 North will drive growth in every postcode of the country, working alongside mayors, council leaders and businesses from across Britain. The costs of setting up and running No. 10 North are covered by existing Cabinet Office budgets.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is an expert on those matters and is totally right to point to the importance of looking at the demand side of the economy. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have focused on just that, for example, with the cut to VAT on electricity bills and the reinstatement of the £2 cap on bus fares for 2027. My hon. Friend will also support the big focus on the supply side that the Chancellor talked about in his speech yesterday, improving the productive capacity of our economy, so that we can build more homes, labs, transport and power.

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

  More

  I am delighted to inform my hon. Friend that my conference calendar already includes a meeting with local leaders in Liverpool to talk about what we can do to back growth and investment in his city and region. I have been in conversations already with the mayor of the city region about the things that he wants to work on and focus on to boost economic growth, and that includes the Liverpool Central development.

• 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.

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

  More

  I fully agree with my hon. Friend that going forth and prospering is a very good objective, and I look forward to working with her and the local businesses in her constituency that she has raised with me, including Mantec and Goodwin. There are some fantastic ceramics and advanced manufacturing businesses that we need to identify, and across the Treasury and No. 10 North, we will work with local leaders and parliamentarians to ensure that we can identify the right clusters in the right places to back and support.

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

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point. We need to ensure that we see higher economic growth in every part of the country, and that includes the north, the east, the west and the south-west of England. We have many fantastic Members on both sides of the House who are working and advocating for their communities. We will ensure that we drive and deepen devolution in areas that do not yet have a mayor. The Prime Minister has discussed the need to ensure that those who do not want to have a mayor—he highlighted Cornwall—can have specific further devolution powers. One of the examples we are looking at not too far from the hon. Member’s constituency, I believe, is place-based business cases, so that we can unlock investment in particular parts of the country; one of the places that we are looking at in detail is Plymouth.

• 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.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members from across the House for their questions and for beginning the scrutiny that will take place, should the House agree that the Bill should be laid and for debate to proceed at Second Reading. Let me turn to some of the points that were raised. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild)—I hope he still has that title, given the Opposition’s ongoing junior ministerial reshuffle—raised a whole range of important questions and asked whether I would write to him on these matters. I would be very happy to write to him, and I am sure the letter can be made available to others in this place, given that a whole range of questions were asked and I may not be able to cover them all in concluding. One key question asked by Members on all sides was on the increase in the value of the sovereign grant above inflation. That is, of course, an important question, and one that the trustees went over in detail in making the decision to increase the grant, relative to the pre-Buckingham Palace servicing costs, up to £99.9 million. It is reducing by a quarter from the current year to next year because of the Buckingham Palace refit finishing. A large part of the increase in expenditure has been on the refurbishment and the servicing costs of the occupied royal palaces. That was at £18 million in 2016-17 and next year it will be at £33.6 million. That accounts for a large share of the above-inflation increase. The shadow Minister mentions—the House of Commons Library and others have also pointed to these—other increases in expenditure faced by the royal household: yes, on buildings and maintenance, but also on ensuring the palaces can take proactive steps to improve the energy efficiency of their heating in line with broader net zero goals that have at least some level of consensus across the House. I hope that one day we may be able to rebuild that consensus, which seems sadly to have been lost in recent months, on ensuring that we, along with our international allies, can reduce our domestic carbon emissions. There is the need for investment in cyber-security, which is growing in line with AI, and we must target other long-term measures to make sure the royal household is more resilient. There was a whole range of questions on whether the trustees have ensured a focus on external benchmarking and on what work has been done to scrutinise the costs. I am assured that that work has taken place, and we can discuss it in more detail on Second Reading. That touches on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and others about the fact that the sovereign grant will now be set at close to 20% of the revenue of the Crown Estate, rather than 12.5%. That reflects the bottom-up assessment that has taken place, looking across the needs of the royal household and making sure it is being funded adequately for the public duties that His Majesty the King and the royal family carry out. It is worth pointing out that those activities have increased significantly in recent years. Towards the end of her reign, the late Queen was not carrying out a large number of foreign engagements and was also hosting a smaller number of state visits. The King has increased the engagement he is carrying out on our behalf as part of his public duties. That has involved more expenditure in staff costs and to ensure that those engagements and the benefits the shadow Exchequer Secretary talked about—the representation of our country and supporting good causes here in the UK—can get the funding and support they need. It is worth noting, in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that the sovereign grant is very clearly focused on the official duties that the royal family carry out on our behalf. It is not about supporting or funding their private activities, or things it would not be appropriate for the sovereign grant to fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole raised the need for debate on these topics. We will get plenty of time on Second Reading to debate the issues that he and others have raised on transparency and clarity on where the sovereign grant is being spent. I have set out today some initial outlines. I will respond in writing and I am sure we will have a thorough debate later in the month. I will have to get back to the shadow Exchequer Secretary on the business case thresholds, but the Treasury does of course make sure that every penny of our money is well spent, and that includes the £99.9 million that will be allocated. I have, I hope, responded to many of the points that have been raised. I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward, if we proceed, to debating this matter on Second Reading. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing Resolution; That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alex Norris and Dan Tomlinson bring in the Bill. Sovereign Grant Bill Presentation and First Reading Dan Tomlinson accordingly presented a Bill to specify the amount of the Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28 and 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; 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 for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 137 ) with explanatory notes (Bill 137 -EN).

• 15 Jul 2026 · Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we return to the topic at hand, but I am very glad that my hon. Friend is happily married to, I am sure, a fantastic partner. The Government recognise the important contribution that hospitality businesses make to jobs, growth and local communities across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels support local economies and, as the hon. Member for South Antrim set out, are important for employment, particularly of young people who are trying to find their way in the jobs market, get experience, get a foot in the door and ready themselves for a career of productive work. They also play a vital role in our high streets and town centres. I hear the concerns that have been raised about pressures facing the sector in Northern Ireland and across the wider country in terms of operating costs. I also understand the particular challenge in Northern Ireland from the comparisons with the hospitality VAT rate in the Republic of Ireland and cross-border competition. I recognise that the fact that consumers have that much more readily available choice is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a unique challenge facing businesses in Northern Ireland. I fully understand why he is raising the issue and campaigning on it on behalf of his constituents, and I commend him for his sterling work as a constituency MP.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for securing this debate on an important issue facing hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland and for his recent question to me in Treasury orals on the same topic. I look forward to meeting him to discuss it further, as I committed to on the Floor of the House. I thank hon. Members for their interventions, too. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on his festivities over in Northern Ireland.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  There are a whole range of challenges and also benefits from the protocol and the Windsor framework. I agree with the hon. Member that they do not provide constraints on the policy choice on VAT. I always find it frustrating when Ministers hide behind legal constraints that perhaps are not always there, and I want to be up front with him: if a Government chose to do this, the protocol would not be a barrier. Members have focused on the potential merits of a Northern Ireland VAT reduction pilot for hospitality, but VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption that applies to a range of sectors, and it also applies on a UK-wide basis. The Government’s view is that different VAT rates would create divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and impact the competitiveness of businesses between the two regions. I understand that Members are specifically talking about Northern Ireland, but across the country as a whole—some hon. Members did mention the broader campaign around reductions in VAT across the UK—a reduction to 10% in VAT for hospitality would cost around £11 billion a year, which is equivalent to the total expenditure on the Royal Navy or the annual child benefit bill. There would be significant practical challenges associated with introducing a pilot for a different VAT treatment for hospitality in Northern Ireland only. Businesses, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and consumers would then need to operate in a system that created different treatments for otherwise similar transactions. There would be boundary issues and administrative complexity to work through. The fact that I am not announcing this change today does not mean that the Government do not take this issue seriously and understand the representations being made. We are also not standing aside. The Chancellor has introduced the Great British summer savings scheme, which is a temporary reduction in VAT on eligible family attractions and children’s meals over this summer, helping families with costs and encouraging footfall during the summer holidays. In England, the Government have also introduced new business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, a package of transitional reliefs, and the supporting small business scheme, which together amount to £4.3 billion of additional spending. The Barnett formula is applied in the normal way to those changes, so the Northern Ireland Executive received £185 million in consequentials as a result of those decisions. The Government—and I personally, if I have the honour of staying in this role—will continue to listen carefully to representations from the hospitality sector, from the Northern Ireland Executive and, of course, from hon. Members. We will meet after the summer recess; I am as good as my word. However, we do not believe that a Northern Ireland-specific hospitality pilot is the right approach. As tempting as it is to burnish my devolution credentials ahead of an impending reshuffle, I will not make that commitment today. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for securing this debate and for strongly representing his community. This is an important issue, and I am happy to continue discussing it.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Right now, we are engaging in what could be seen as a similar proposal to the one put forward today. We are doing a time-limited reduction in VAT, not for one sector and one part of the country, but for particular leisure and hospitality activities and consumption across the country as a whole. I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others will conduct thorough evaluations of that, so that we can see the impact that it had. We expect businesses to pass the reduction in VAT on to consumers. Some big organisations, such as Merlin Entertainments, have already done that by setting new ticketing prices for families this summer, and many small businesses have been changing the prices on their menus for children’s meals. I hope that once this Great British summer savings period ends on 1 September, we will review that and look at the impact. Of course, the challenge with any VAT reduction is whether it will be passed on to consumers. To be clear, I do not begrudge businesses having more margin, but the objective of the hon. Member for South Antrim is to see prices fall. When VAT changes have been made in times gone by, the gains have not always flowed entirely to consumers. The Government have been working really hard to ensure that businesses pass on the reduction in the Great British summer savings scheme. As I say, we are really glad that many have done so. I look forward to continuing to discuss this important topic, and to seeing the impact of the temporary and targeted changes that we have made to VAT this summer. Question put and agreed to.

• 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.