Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Torsten Bell

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member has shown interest in this topic over many years, in a lot of different environments. This is a question of “and”, rather than “or”. As he says, the document spells out that His Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I encourage him to go on to the royal family’s website, where he will see the language about the King being the defender of the faith very prominently displayed. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he seeks.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

We are extremely fortunate to have a monarchy, particularly this monarchy. Since the reign of George III, the profits from the Crown Estate have accrued to the Treasury; in return, the institution of the monarchy receives a grant, which we are debating today. Part of that is an annually determined proportion of the profits. However, for things other than exceptional expenditure, such as on Buckingham Palace, the institution presumably requires some sort of stability and certainty about the receipts necessary to carry out its functions. Is it logical for the grant to be a proportion of profits, which will inevitably vary year by year, because they are a commercial matter?

[Torsten Bell]

I think everybody in this House will agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman successfully argues. A royal household with an important role, both as the sovereign, and in maintaining an estate of grade I listed monuments, needs certainty about its income. It is not for me to defend the previous Government, but the 2011 Act provided two bases for funding. The first is the mechanism that he mentioned, relating to a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estate. The second is a proviso that there be no fall, from year to year, in the amount of the grant. That is to provide exactly the stability that he talks about. That is why we are taking forward this primary legislation, with that dual lock. The reduction this year is purely to take into account the bringing to an end of the Buckingham Palace 10-year repair project. The legislation then provides an ongoing commitment to the royal household and the monarch that the grant will remain at next year’s level, at least. I hope that offers the right hon. Gentleman reassurance.

As I was saying, a key point of context is that Parliament agreed a temporary uplift to the grant from 2017-18 to 2026-27 to fund the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. That was a major 10-year investment to modernise ageing infrastructure, replace critical electrical and mechanical systems, and safeguard the long-term future of one of the nation’s most historic buildings. As that programme nears completion, it is time for the level of funding to be reassessed. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed the latest review and considered both the royal household’s projected expenditure and the Crown Estate’s projected revenues for the period from 2027 to 2032. The trustees concluded that with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirements that justified that temporary uplift no longer exist. They therefore recommended that the sovereign grant should fall from £137.9 million in 2026-27 to £99.9 million in 2027-28. That represents a reduction of almost £38 million, or more than a quarter.

At the same time, the trustees recognised that the royal household continues to face operational pressures in delivering what we all think of as crucial work. The recommended amount of funding will enable the household to address a maintenance backlog that was exacerbated by the pandemic, and to replace ageing digital infrastructure to strengthen cyber-security. The grant provided for by this Bill ensures value for money for taxpayers, and that the royal household can continue to discharge its crucial functions effectively.

This Bill delivers a fair and proportionate funding settlement. It reduces the amount of the sovereign grant, following the completion of a major capital programme; it improves the resilience and sustainability of the statutory framework established in 2011, while maintaining parliamentary oversight; and it ensures that the sovereign grant can continue to fulfil its core purpose, which is supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces on behalf of the nation. On that basis, I commend this Bill to the House.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Torsten Bell

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question.

While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress before giving way again.

The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. On grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo.

Of course, a major part of the job of the Opposition is to oppose some things that the Government are doing. I do not want to prejudge the remarks that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), will offer shortly, but I am confident that we will hear some opposition—maybe a word or two—to the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the Minister for arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force, and I very much hope that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are listening. We were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and that the Government would not be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes. What has changed over the past several months that means he is now coming back to levy this very large sum of money?

[Torsten Bell]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to.

As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Torsten Bell

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

That is such an important point! One of the biggest mistakes that we made in previous decades was saying, “We will not see the benefits of work to improve the quality of the housing stock for years, so let us slash it.” That is exactly what happened in 2013, when there was a 90% cut in the level of insulations under the energy company obligation scheme, and we have paid the price for that ever since. This Government are not going to make the same mistake. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been ramping up the warm homes programme, and we need to be out there insulating homes and improving lofts every day until Britain has a housing stock of which it can be proud.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Many of my elderly constituents had an unnecessarily cold and miserable winter, and the uncertainty to which the Minister constantly refers was of his Government’s own making. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents?

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is right to highlight that we need to provide support for older people, and for all households, with their energy bills right through the year, which is what this Government have been doing. We have not been waiting. As I said, the warm homes discount is being extended to almost 3 million extra households, we are rolling out the improvements to the insulation programmes that I have just mentioned, and the household support fund has been extended for future years. That is exactly what we need to do, while at the same time improving our energy security and our energy generation to make sure that, in future, we do not see the disaster of the last five years, when global wholesale gas prices sent electricity and gas prices here in the UK through the roof.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Torsten Bell

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

No, the change that we were elected to introduce was to save our NHS and to return our economy to growth so that we can raise living standards for pensioners and for workers right across the country. That is the change that we were elected to deliver and that is what we are going to do.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is being generous in giving way; congratulations to him on making the best of a bad job. He knows that old people die in cold homes. In 2017, the Labour party did some research on which to attack the Conservatives, which showed that 4,000 old people would probably die in the event that we removed winter fuel allowance; we did not do that. I wonder whether he got his officials to repeat that research and, if so, what it showed.