James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2025 · NICs Increase: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend invites me to get inside the head of the Chancellor, but I am not sure I would be able to do that. All I know is that the other groups that he mentions should also be listened to. The Chancellor has shown herself to be particularly tin-eared on the impact of these changes on family farms and businesses, hence there is, tomorrow, yet another protest. I read over the weekend that another brave Labour MP has come out and said he opposes the changes and wants to see reforms—perhaps some of the other Labour MPs are here to speak to say that they too stand with the farmers in their constituencies. To conclude, the Prime Minister and Chancellor set growth as the mission for this Government. They inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7, but the choices they have taken in the Budget and in this Finance Bill have stopped growth stone dead. They have hiked taxes, undermined business confidence, pushed up inflation and hit working people and pensioners. Later this month, we will get the economic and fiscal forecasts, but what we can already see is a Labour Government committed to higher taxes, higher spending and higher borrowing, and we are all paying the price.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 1 to 3, and amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name. It is 124 days since the Chancellor delivered the first Labour Budget in 14 years—the so-called growth Budget—but it feels like longer. Inflation is up, taxes are up, borrowing is up, unemployment is up and energy bills are up. I could go on, but most tellingly of all, growth is down. The Bank of England has just cut its growth forecast for this year in half, to just 0.75%. Little wonder that business confidence has plummeted, with firms warning of fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices. Instead of backing risk takers and supporting wealth creators, as the Conservatives do, this Finance Bill and the Budget attack enterprise and deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes. I turn to new clause 1, concerning pensioners. Millions of pensioners were left out in the cold this winter when the Government took away their winter fuel payments. Millions of people in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is 100% correct. I think we all know that the architect of much of this is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who takes a rather fundamentalist approach. He wants to cover farmland with solar farms, and wants to undermine our oil and gas sector. We on the Opposition Benches disagree. It was the previous Government who introduced the levy, but that was to tackle extraordinary profits at an extraordinary time. The revenue helped to keep energy bills lower for all our constituents, but now the Government are ratcheting up the levy and seem to want to tax North sea exploration out of existence. This is just a further example of the Government’s ill-conceived energy policy. GB Energy is a net zero vanity project that will not generate any energy or be an energy supplier. It certainly will not deliver £300 off bills. Amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name, would remove clause 47 and abolish Labour’s education tax. Since 1 January, independent school fees for education and vocational training have been subject to VAT at 20%. It is the first time education has been subject to VAT. Why is that? Because education is a public good, so we do not tax it. Putting VAT on independent schools particularly hurts those on the most modest incomes who have chosen to save and make sacrifices to send their children to a school that they think will serve them best.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debates we have had so far on the Bill, which I do not intend to extend unduly. I join him in thanking the parliamentary staff and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee. The driving mission of the Government, according to the Prime Minister, is growth, but despite inheriting the fastest growing economy in the G7, he and the Chancellor chose to talk down our economy. The impact of their words was to weaken confidence. Then, in the October Budget, the Government made choices and put in place a raft of measures in this and other Bills that have stopped growth stone dead: £40 billion a year of extra taxes; higher national insurance; increasing tax on investors; deterring the risk takers and the wealth creators we need; pushing up inflation; and hitting working people and pensioners. In just the last two days, senior business leaders from the retail and hospitality sectors have warned about the damage the Budget and Labour’s costly employment laws will have. They are just the latest businesses sounding the alarm, but the Chancellor is not listening. For all the talk of growth, we can already see from their actions that we have a Government committed to higher taxes, higher spending, more borrowing and more regulation—the classic Labour approach. It does not work. The Government need to change course, otherwise we will all pay the price. That is why we will not be supporting the Bill this evening. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done stellar work in drawing out of the Department the data on delays and waiting times. If everyone who is entitled to pension credit took it up, it would wipe out the savings that the Chancellor wanted, so the idea that she wanted all those people to take up pension credit is for the birds. New clause 1 would require the Government to review how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate will be liable to pay income tax in the coming years. At the general election, we were very clear that people in receipt of only the state pension should not pay income tax on it. However, recent forecasts suggest that an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial situation, yet they were given just six months’ notice that they would lose their winter fuel allowance. They cannot be blindsided for a second time by the taxman. In Committee, the Minister said that the relevant data was available, but I do not think that is correct, because the figures to which he referred do not break down the group we are talking about—recipients of the full rate of the new state pension. Will he commit to publishing data on how many people receiving the new state pension will pay income tax on it? This potential hit could not come at a worse time for pensioners, who have lost their winter fuel payments, because we learned last week that energy bills are going up yet again—a far cry from the £300 cut that they were all promised at the last election by the Labour party. At the Budget, the Chancellor made much of her announcement that she would uprate the personal tax thresholds in line with inflation from 2028, but that is not legislated for in this Bill. The public are being asked to take the Government at face value, yet recent reports suggest that this promise may be dropped due to the impact of the Budget on growth and higher borrowing. Given the number of broken promises since the election, can the Minister reconfirm from the Dispatch Box the Government’s commitment to unfreezing those thresholds in 2028? As well as pensioners, working people cannot afford the costs of this Labour Government. The Prime Minister promised at the election that he would not hit working people with higher taxes, and he then broke that promise with the £25 billion-a-year jobs tax.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, the last Government had to deal with a global pandemic and an energy price shock. I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, who has obviously not read the Red Book: taxes are going up—they are going up to record high levels—under the Budget and the Finance Bill that he is supporting. If he is worried about the tax burden, he should not be voting for this Finance Bill today. Households are facing financial challenges, and the measures in the Bill will only make things worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that real household disposable income will fall by 1.25% by the start of 2029, largely due to the measures in the Budget. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes on household finances. The choices that this Chancellor and this Government have made mean that borrowing is increasing, so interest rates will be higher for longer and people’s mortgages will be higher, and hard-working families will be paying billions of pounds to pay off the debt interest. The Government inherited inflation at target, but since then inflation has gone up, meaning less money in people’s pockets. While it is the Chancellor’s wider mishandling of the economy that is attracting the headlines, the measures in this Bill will have a direct role in squeezing households. Whether it is higher stamp duty, increased alcohol duty, air passenger duty, capital gains increases, vehicle excise duty, changes to the tax treatment of hybrid vehicles or many other measures, the costs of the Bill will be felt directly by households across the UK. When households are stretched, it is essential that we have transparency about what the Government’s actions are doing to incomes.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes the point that this measure may have been introduced by a Chancellor who did not actually understand the impact it was going to have. The Government should have stuck to the promise they made at the election not to increase national insurance at all. New clause 2 concerns the Government’s plan to undermine our energy security by increasing the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, extending the tax by a year and removing investment allowances. The consequences are fairly predictable. Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off billions of pounds of investment in the North sea, putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: impact assessment of increase in rate “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of Sections 15 to 17 of this Act on— (a) domestic energy production and investment; (b) the UK’s energy security; (c) energy prices, and; (d) the UK economy. (2) The assessment must examine the impact of provisions in this Act in comparison with what could have been expected had the energy (oil and gas) profits levy remained unchanged.”— (James Wild.) This new clause would require the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of changes to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK’s energy security, energy prices and the UK economy. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Football Clubs: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a serious matter that the Sport Minister has had to apologise to people running clubs in the most popular league in the world, after writing an article saying that critics of the football regulator were “promoting untruths”. Will the Secretary of State now engage actively and constructively with the people running football, and explain why the Government have repeatedly rejected proposals in the other place to impose a growth duty on the regulator?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest. The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament? Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it. New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal? In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300. We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6. Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was: “The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.” I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”. There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions. If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament. The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill. There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed .

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled. The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking. Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Given Putin’s illegal invasion and declared intent, do the Government agree that any negotiations must result in a sovereign Ukraine, and that the UK will play its part in providing security guarantees that are meaningful, unlike those of the past, because that is crucial to securing a lasting peace?

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Steel Import Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  It is no secret that President Trump loves tariffs and intended to use them, and the Minister is coming across as a little complacent in his approach. Can he clarify whether any discussions have taken place with the Administration about continuing tariff-free quotas for British steel since the inauguration? Presumably, the Prime Minister did not raise that matter during his call. Does the Minister also concur that agreeing such protections is made harder by this Government’s failure to commit to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the contributions on this point and for the Minister’s response. I have read the framework agreement closely. At the moment, the Crown Estate will notify the Treasury of changes and ultimately the Treasury will come to Parliament through the estimates process to approve the pay, based on that policy. What is going to change is that the Crown Estate will be paying from within the income it generates. While the Treasury may still know that there has been a change, no one else will necessarily know. Although I take the point that the annual report will detail any changes, there will be a lag—the policy could have been in place for some time before that happens.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My point about the new clause is trying to get some transparency about what those proceeds might be. I do not whether the hon. Member can enlighten me as to from where they might be coming and which projects will be invested in, or how many jobs will be created. He might apply for the job of the chairman of GB Energy, because the current one does not seem to know the answer to any of those very important questions. We are being asked to legislate to support a partnership between the new entity of GB Energy and the Crown Estate, so I make no apology for seeking greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed: “Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive”— I think he said “very commercially sensitive” this afternoon, or “highly”— “the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report.” —[ Official Report , 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 806.] But at all stages of the Bill’s passage and in the amendments that have been tabled, the Government have had to be pressured to be more transparent. Given that the Bill makes significant changes to the operation of the Crown Estate and reduces parliamentary oversight, I do not see why Parliament should not have sight of an agreement. It is simply not good enough to hide behind excuses of commercial confidentiality. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the conservative nature of this— [ Laughter. ] He probably is! I should have said: if the Minister is genuinely concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the agreement, perhaps a redacted version could be laid before Parliament, for example, or the full version could be provided to the Public Accounts Committee. I had the pleasure to serve on that Committee for over two years, and it was not uncommon for similar agreements to be provided in confidence to the Chair and the Committee to give assurance, on behalf of other Members of the House, that this was a bona fide commitment that did not need to be drawn more widely to public attention, noting the strictures there may be about commercial confidentiality. I have spoken to the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about this, and he would be very happy to receive a copy of the partnership agreement and continue to operate—as he has done over a decade or more as deputy Chair—by recognising and respecting confidentiality and the basis on which it is provided. It would provide assurance for all Members of the House that one of the pre-eminent Committees of the House has oversight of the agreement. If the Minister is not minded to agree to our new clause—I detect that he is not—perhaps he will look at the feasibility of a taking a redacted version of the agreement, or a similar approach, to the Public Accounts Committee. In advance of this Bill Committee, I wrote to Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate, to seek clarity on the partnership agreement. I am grateful that he took the time to respond. I asked whether the Crown Estate is planning to agree to invest a certain amount with GB Energy. His response was: “Any arrangements the Crown Estate enter into with GBE will be expressly subsidiary to our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, but with due regard to the requirements of good management…We will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to deliver on our wider obligations”. Can the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate’s statutory duty will always have primacy? Without the agreement being laid before Parliament, we will not have the transparency to see whether commitments have been given, and to judge and assess whether they meet the criteria. I also asked Dan Labbad how the Crown Estate will decide between projects that GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return. I note the comments from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, but it may be that the Crown Estate could identify non-GB Energy projects that may generate a greater return for the taxpayer and our constituents. In that case, it should be investing in those, not a political project under the Energy Secretary. Dan Labbad said: “The Crown Estate will have a clear business plan in relation to the partnership… The consideration of which projects fulfil that business plan will take into account our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate…and the obligation upon the Crown Estate to secure the best consideration, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case at the time.” “All the circumstances” is rather broad, and “take into account” could be seen as rather weak. Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen a copy of any such business plan? Would he expect to? I fear the answer will be no, but would he be prepared to lay a copy of it before the House so that Members can scrutinise it? Finally, I asked Dan Labbad about the new division’s decision-making process, because the new clause is about trying to get underneath the bonnet of the agreement. He said: “The Crown Estate’s agreement with GBE is such that activity undertaken through the partnership will not undermine the Crown Estate’s independence. The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.” “Compelled” is a very strong word to use in that context. On one level, the responses could be seen as reassuring, but I think back to the exuberant press release I referred to earlier and the excitement in the announcement of what the partnership could deliver and what the Government thought it could do. Can the Minister clarify how much he expects the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s personal investment fund? Can he rule out Ministers pressuring the Crown Estate, whether that be through GB Energy and the chairman they have appointed or the chairman of the Crown Estate, who will shortly be going before the Treasury Committee? Can he rule out pressuring any of those people to invest more than the Crown Estate considers to be prudent? I have raised my points briefly. I could go on for longer, though I am not sure the Committee would enjoy that. We are asking reasonable questions about this “groundbreaking partnership” agreement—I am looking at the exciting press release in front of me. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide some clarity and assurance on this—and I hope, having listened to the argument, accept that it is not unreasonable to place before Parliament a partnership agreement that can be redacted and before the Public Accounts Committee the full agreement. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Christian Wakeford .)

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause amends schedule 1 to the Crown Estate Act 1961. Specifically, it will increase the number of commissioners from eight to 12 and require them to be paid out of the returns generated by the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, as is the case currently. Clause 2 is intended to bring the Crown Estate’s operating practice in line with best practice for corporate governance. Subsection (2) seeks to provide the flexibility to allow the board to include a combination of executive and non-executive directors, to reflect its increasingly diverse activities. Subsection (2) also removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner—a post currently held by the chief executive—to be the deputy chairman. This measure seeks to satisfy best practice standards, whereby the roles of chairman and chief exec should not be exercised by the same person. We are supportive of the changes, and I put on record again my thanks to Baroness Vere of Norbiton for pushing the Government to give assurances that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. I understand that we are waiting for the Treasury Committee to set a date for the pre-appointment hearing for Ric Lewis. Subsection (3) requires the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the returns of the estate to reflect the Crown Estate’s commercial freedom and function, and to place the commissioners in a position that is more consistent with general commercial practice. I turn now to amendment 5, which is tabled in my name. As I have set out, as well as modifying the governance, clause 2 alters the way in which the commissioners are paid. Parliament will no longer need to approve the salaries and expenses of the commissioners and their staff. However, I believe that some form of parliamentary oversight is needed. At present, the estimate details supply finance and is voted on by Parliament at the beginning of the financial year. Amendment 5 would simply require the commissioners to “notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework governing remuneration of the Chief Executive set out in the Framework Document.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer would then be required to lay before Parliament any such notification. Currently, the remuneration policy and framework for the Crown Estate’s staff is the responsibility of the board’s remuneration committee, and the framework document states: “The Committee will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.” Given that Parliament will no longer be needed to approve the salaries, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to ensure that Parliament is at least notified of any changes to the remuneration policy that affect the chief executive? At present, the framework document sets out that the “maximum remuneration of the Chief Executive should be in line with or below that of the lower quartile of an appropriate benchmark group agreed with HM Treasury.” It also states that “the clear majority of the Chief Executive’s total reward package should be conditional upon performance, with a significant element of that conditional upon long term performance”, given the Crown Estate’s primary duty. The Opposition support rewarding success and the delivery of targets, but any such changes to the policy should be considered by Parliament. On Second Reading, the Minister said: “As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.” —[ Official Report , 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.] We absolutely agree on that, but I struggle to see how ensuring that Parliament is simply notified of changes to the chief executive’s pay policy will restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to compete for top talent. It is about transparency, and it would simply provide much-needed scrutiny to a process for which there is currently parliamentary oversight, given the statutory purpose of the Crown Estate. I would welcome support for our amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly speak to new clause 11. On Second Reading, we heard a lot of debate and discussion about the role of community benefits. As I mentioned, I represent a coastal area where there are existing community benefit schemes through the operators of the offshore wind projects that operate on the East Anglian coast. The Energy Secretary, who seems to be on a one- man mission to put solar farms on farmland and to put pylons across the countryside with no regard to the impact on communities or nature, has said that the Government will bring forward their own approach to community benefits. I am a strong supporter of community benefits, and I look forward to the Energy Secretary coming forward with that plan. It seems to be the best approach and context in which to address the important points raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.