Financial Assistance to Industry

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 General Committees

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I absolutely welcome the international investment in the UK and I recognise the immense potential that a Universal resort would bring to Bedfordshire, but we must not let our enthusiasm and excitement blind us to the economic realities. We are being asked to approve a massive direct cash transfer to a multinational corporation, at a time when the global theme park industry is navigating a deeply uneven patch. In Comcast’s latest financial reporting, its theme park division, Universal Destinations & Experiences, posted a 4.4% drop in revenue and a 17.1% drop in adjusted EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. Across the wider sector, per capita spending remains high, but overall visitor attendance is softening, due to the cost of living and the reduction in travel post pandemic.

The public deserve to know that the Department has stress-tested Comcast’s ambitious projections against those market realities, and that we are acting as rigorous custodians of the public purse, not simply rubber-stamping a deal based on best-case scenarios. I must therefore pose some questions to the Minister, and I look forward to her responses on the record.

What verified independent evidence can the Department provide to prove that Comcast, a company with a market cap exceeding $150 billion, would not have invested in the UK without this £400 million—now £450 million—taxpayer bonus? Does the project delivery hinge on this money, or is it simply boosting corporate profit margins? How has the Department adjusted its long-term economic models to account for the current downturn in global theme park attendance and Universal’s own tightening profit margins? If those economic conditions persist closer to the 2031 opening date, what happens to the viability of this deal?

The Department has cited a cumulative £50 billion economic boost, but what precise percentage of that figure represents brand-new growth for the UK versus displacement? In a tight economy, a British family spending hundreds of pounds to visit Universal in Bedford is a family not spending money at Alton Towers, Blackpool pleasure beach, Legoland in Windsor or our wonderful theatres in London. Have the Government independently calculated the net negative impact that this project will have on our existing domestic tourism assets?

The Minister mentioned the Subsidy Advice Unit, but can she confirm that it has fully cleared this specific allocation under the Subsidy Control Act? If a legal challenge is brought against this non-competitive grant, who would carry the financial and legal liability—the Government or Universal? Although I note that the money will be transferred only after the park opens, what specific long-term protections do we have? What are the clawback clauses tied to the sustained delivery of the promised 8,000 jobs, or is the payout simply triggered by the opening of the gates, regardless of subsequent economic underperformance or redundancies?

At a time when public services and local authorities across our regions are facing unprecedented budgetary crises, how does the Minister justify allocating nearly half a billion pounds in a single non-competitive grant to a private entertainment empire? We must ensure that this deal delivers genuine value for money, absolute legal compliance and a net benefit to the entire UK economy.