James Wild MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I rise briefly to speak to amendment 9, not least because I represent North West Norfolk, which is next door to North Norfolk where I grew up. It is sometimes quite difficult to get the local names correct, but Happisburgh is actually pronounced “Haysborough”, rather than “Happisberg”. I wanted to get that on the record, because people there feel quite strongly about it—it is a mistake that is inadvertently made quite a lot. It is important to protect national assets such as those at Bacton from coastal erosion. I would expect the Crown Estate already to be taking account of such requirements, and the Government to be doing likewise through their wider planning and strategic approach to coastal erosion, so I look forward to the Minister’s response on how coastal erosion will be prevented.

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

  More

  Clause 3, the first of several clauses added on Report in the House of Lords, will amend section 1 of the 1961 Act to require the commissioners to review the impact of their activities on achieving sustainable development.

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

  More

  I am disappointed to hear the Minister’s response. He did not quite address the point that an MoU —I appreciate that he has provided a draft to the Committee—can simply be changed if Ministers and the Crown Estate decide they want to change the level. Only in the last week or so, we have passed into law the charter for Budget responsibility, setting out the Government’s fiscal rules in statute, so I am not sure why there is an in-principle objection to setting out such borrowing in legislation. I think that that would be a prudent step, as we and the Crown Estate embark on a new period with this borrowing power. I will therefore push my amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert— “(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.” This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

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

  More

  As the Minister said, clause 4 was added on Report in the House of Lords to require the Crown Estate’s annual report to include activities under the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. I will also speak to new clause 4, which is in my name. Clause 4 does introduce an important layer of transparency, as the Minister said, ensuring there is a specific report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership during the year, and on any effects or benefits experienced during the year that are a result of those activities. This is a welcome step, and we support the clause. However, the reporting requirement would only apply in years when a partnership between the commissioners and GB Energy was in operation. This means we will not know what has been agreed until the partnership is operational. Parliament—I think not unreasonably—needs to see an agreement when it is finalised. That is why I have tabled new clause 4. New clause 4 would simply require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. This new clause is of fundamental importance. Without being able to see the details of the partnership agreement, we do not know what has been agreed and the impact on the duties of the Crown Estate. On the day that the Bill was introduced, the Government, with a lot of fanfare, announced the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. Indeed, Ministers claimed that the new GB Energy partnership would “turbocharge energy independence” and “unleash billions of investment in clean power.” However, currently there is a distinct lack of transparency over how this partnership will work and what difference it will make. I am concerned that this partnership may have been created for political, rather than economic, purposes.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 11 at end insert— “(5A) The Commissioners must 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. (5B) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any notification received under subsection (5A).” This amendment requires Commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any changes to the remuneration of the Chief Executive, who must lay that notification before Parliament.

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

  More

  Okay. Amendment 1 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to have regard to net zero targets, regional economic growth and ensuring resilience in various areas. Instinctively, I am a bit sceptical about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate, given that its primary purpose is to generate a return for the nation. As I mentioned in passing, clause 3 already applies a sustainable development duty. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes spoke pretty persuasively, so I look forward to the assurances that the Minister might give before we see whether the Committee divides on the amendment.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to get the Committee started this morning. The clause amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to remove certain statutory restrictions on the commissioners’ powers, and it clarifies and expands those powers in certain respects. Specifically, it broadens the Crown Estate’s investment powers and confers a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. As well as moving the amendment, I will speak to the clause. The Crown Estate Bill was conceived under the previous Government, and I am pleased that it has now progressed to this stage. We support the objective of the clause, which is to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. As the Committee knows, assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, and nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown—in other words, they are owned by the Crown as an institution, not personally by the monarch. The concept of the Crown encompasses the interests of both the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is important. The Estate has assets worth £15.5 billion and a portfolio of 185,000 acres, and it manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline. It is also the largest contiguous owner in the west end. The Crown Estate returns all its net profits to the Treasury. In 2023-24, it recorded a net profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, which is a laudable record, but there is the potential to do more. The Crown Estate estimates that the changes in the clause will enable it to generate £100 million per annum in additional revenues to the Treasury by 2030. That is forecast in the original business case that led to this legislation. It is therefore right that we should help to modernise the Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation. At present, the Crown Estate is limited to making investments in certain types of property and certain restricted types of security held on the Crown Estate’s behalf by the national debt commissioners. The Estate’s powers to borrow for the purposes of discharging or redeeming incumbrances affecting the Estate are very limited. The Bill will modernise the Estate by removing those limitations. Although we support the borrowing power, we are concerned that there is a lack of parliamentary oversight over the borrowing levels. This is a new power. The Crown Estate should be prudent on the level of borrowing. The purpose must be supporting the Estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers. That is why we have tabled amendment 4, which would limit the amount the commissioners may borrow instruments. Specifically, the amendment would limit borrowing to a net debt-to asset value ratio of no more than 25% initially. When pushed by Baroness Vere and other noble Friends in the other place, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing is better placed outside legislation and that controls would be set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury. On Second Reading, the Minister repeated that, saying: “There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised.” —[ Official Report , 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.] The target borrowing level in that MOU sets out that the loan-to-value ratio should not exceed 25%. Given that the Government agree that there should be a limit, we should introduce robust safeguards in statute to protect against unconstrained borrowing. An MOU between the Treasury and the Crown Estate is easily altered at the stroke of a pen. If Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction to allow the Crown Estate to borrow, I struggle to see the logic in why the Government think that the cap they have committed to should not initially be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it by secondary legislation, if necessary. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those concerns and confirm whether the Government have considered this proposal since Second Reading. A limit must be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is a proportionate step that will ensure that the Crown Estate can access that borrowing to maintain and enhance the value of its land, property, and interests for the benefit of the nation. However, borrowing can be risky, and this is a new power, so it should be subject to some controls and we should be cautious. I contend that amendment 4 is a perfectly reasonable check on the borrowing power, and I hope we can get the Committee off to a positive start, with the Minister accepting it.

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

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak again, Mr Mundell—it is good to get the exercise. There is not much to add on this very straightforward clause and amendment, other than that the commencement date, which brings the legislation into force automatically within two years, could usefully be applied to other legislation from the last Parliament. Quite a lot of private Members’ Bills and other pieces of legislation were passed that have not been commenced. I could expand on that issue at length, Mr Mundell, but you would rightly say that it was not in scope. However, car parking regulations, for example, have not been brought into the code of practice or into effect. Having a clear date in legislation to say, “This will happen, as long as the Bill passes,” is a good thing to do. Amendment 3 agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 2 Territorial seabed “After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert— ‘3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc (1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of— (a) any part of the territorial seabed, or (b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed, which forms part of the Crown Estate. (2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void. (3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.’”— (James Murray.) This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  Well—

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

  More

  I will respond to Government new clause 2 and to new clause 3, which was tabled in my name. As we heard from the Minister, Government new clause 2 will require the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. The Government moved this measure because of the extensive debate in the other place about the sale of certain assets, and particularly the seabed. We welcome the constructive approach taken by Ministers; Lord Livermore gave a commitment in the other place, and it has been honoured today, so we will support the new clause. Although we welcome the new clause, we still have concerns about the disposal of other assets. My new clause 3 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to seek approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of such a disposal by the commissioners. As previously noted in Committee, the Crown Estate owns some of the nation’s most vital assets. It is somewhat surprising to find that there are few safeguards to prevent the Crown Estate commissioners from deciding to sell critical assets. That is why the debate in the other place, which exposed the issue of the seabed and brought about new clause 2, was so important. However, the Crown Estate has lots of other assets, which Members may wish to refer to and which they may think also deserve special attention. In the original business case for modernisation of the Crown Estate, which is publicly available, it was noted that the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals, which—coincidentally enough—equates to nearly 10% of its portfolio. In the other place, my noble Friends suggested a disposal limit of anything greater than £10 million. The noble Lord Livermore responded: “It is the Government’s view that imposing a statutory limit on disposals in this way would undermine the flexibility required by the Crown Estate to ensure that it can operate commercially and fulfil its core duties under the future Act.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1411.] The Minister made a similar argument in his speech, but I am not sure that it is right. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, there should be some form of greater transparency if they are to be disposed of. Reporting to Parliament and seeking approval from the Treasury for disposals over a set percentage would provide such transparency. The disposal of assets by the Crown Estate should be properly scrutinised, given its important role and statutory purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate about its planned disposals—the £1.4 billion referred to in document on the modernisation of the Crown Estate, which any Member may access—it said that it was unable to disclose its plans. Members might guess that the old “confidential, commercially sensitive” reason was given. That raises concerns about transparency. Will the Minister confirm whether he knows which assets were included in that figure and whether the Crown Estate plans further disposals? I asked the same question on Second Reading, and the Minister replied to most of my points, but that is one he did not reply to. Perhaps he will do so on this occasion. Having reflected on the debates in the other place, we have changed our approach from a £10 million cap to a 10% cap, after which new clause 3 would require approval and a report to Parliament. That is a modest measure, which would not inhibit the commercial freedom of the Crown Estate to take such decisions if it wants to. It owns assets such as Great Windsor Park and others, and who knows which it may decide to sell at some point in the future? Such assets are held in right of the Crown, so this is not about the sovereign’s private income, but about the income generated for the taxpayer. Transparency is something that the Government should endorse.

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

  More

  I am up now. I will not detain the Committee long. We did not support new clause 5, so it follows that we do not support new clause 6, although it raises a thought in my mind. The east of England, which is home to the largest offshore wind sites in Europe, is perhaps not getting its fair dibs. That is probably something I need to reflect on for another time.

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

  More

  The Minister talked about flexibility, but the Crown Estate would not suddenly decide tomorrow to sell some asset; it will have a business case and a process. That business case will go to the Chancellor, who will get advice rapidly—within a matter of hours or a day—either approve it or not, and report to the House. I do not see what the flexibility issue is.

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

  More

  I am grateful, Mr Mundell, for your chairing this afternoon, and I am grateful to Ms Furniss for chairing the first session this morning. I am grateful for the support, help and advice of the Clerks and for the contributions and responses provided by the Crown Estate during the passage of the Bill. I look forward to reconvening with Members for its remaining stages, which I understand will be on 24 February—they will be a pleasure. I am grateful to the Minister for getting on the record my strong opposition to the 100 miles of pylons coming from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency and the need to look at underground options.

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

  More

  I will not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the previous Conservative Government’s position, which has not changed today. The proposal would introduce an element of risk in spinning out assets and revenue streams. We heard about the particulars of the Celtic sea, so this is not the right proposal for this time.

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

  More

  This is a pretty straightforward clause. It is one of those that were added to the Bill in the other place to improve it, and I hope the Minister might learn the lesson of those clauses as we come to consider the new clauses shortly. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Extent, commencement and short title

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so soon, Mr Mundell. As the Minister noted, the clause was added in the other place, particularly following the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It was backed by peers from across the parties, and Labour peers may have supported it as well. The Minister says that it duplicates provisions that exist. Given that the Government said in the House of Lords that they support its objective, it is clearly disappointing to see them removing these provisions, with the message that that sends about the importance of protecting the future of wild Atlantic salmon. Question put and negatived. Clause 6 Commissioners with special responsibility Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady referred to neighbourhood policing. In Norfolk, the new settlement will mean four officers on duty at any one time over an area of 2,000 square miles. Norfolk’s chief constable, who is also the national lead, has warned that there is a £4 million funding gap for Norfolk, and that he will have to lose experienced police staff as a result. Why is the Minister not giving Norfolk and other rural areas the settlement they need?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. To support growth, innovation and investment, we require a competitive tax environment for business. New clause 10 would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Bill being passed, to conduct a review of business and lay before the House a report setting out recommendations arising from the review, including recommendations on how to use business tax to encourage and increase the investment of profits and revenue, and on how to ensure that businesses have certainty about the taxes to which they are subject. A common theme throughout the Committee has been the impact of the measures in the first Labour Budget for 14 years. Sadly, we know that that Budget and this Finance Bill introduce tax increases of around £40 billion a year—it is the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history. It is businesses that are bearing the brunt, including the £25 billion a year through the jobs tax that the Government repeatedly promised during the election not to introduce. The Government said that their priority is growth. We heard more about their plans yesterday, but we did not hear much about how their plans would deliver more growth in this Parliament, rather than in the long term. While that is welcome, I think people are also interested in the here and now. Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the OBR then downgraded the growth rate by 0.7% in its forecast, as a result of the measures in the Budget. We have seen borrowing costs rise to the highest level for 27 years, inflation is above target and business confidence is plummeting. That latter point is what lies behind the new clause.