Financial Assistance to Industry

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 General Committees

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The investment by Universal is to be welcomed and it is fantastic to see that there could be employment for 8,000 people. This will create jobs and be a lively part of the local visitor economy, but it will have a huge impact on the local area—not just in Bedfordshire, but in my county of Hertfordshire.

The motion relates to one of the three grants that the Government have been looking at. I have a number of questions relating to the other grants, not least because this is one of the only opportunities we have had to put questions to the Minister about this. If she does not have the answers to some of these questions, because they do relate to some other Departments, will she write to me after today’s debate?

First, the Government are, in a separate grant, investing in transport. That is welcome and needed, but they confirmed in June 2026 that none of the money that is allocated for transport will be for improvements on the Bedford to Brighton Thameslink line, which serves my St Albans constituency. We know that the Bedford to Brighton line will exceed capacity in five years. The key bottleneck is the Croydon area to the south.

It is quite short-sighted that the Government have not sought to use any of this funding to sort out that problem. With millions of visitors expected to this destination—it will have 8.5 million visitors in the first year and up to 12.5 million in a few years, and 6 million will be domestic—the Thameslink line between Bedford and Brighton will be used by millions more people. This is short-sighted, so I ask the Minister to explain either today or in writing why none of the funding has been allocated to that.

Secondly, Bedford borough council has welcomed this investment, but as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—negotiations for an investment zone to be created have stalled. This Universal theme park, when it gets off the ground, will generate a huge amount in business rates, and Bedford borough council is keen to ensure that it can receive its fair share of them. When does the Minister expect the discussions to reopen and restart? Can she confirm that they will be concluded by 2031 so that the local borough can benefit before Universal opens?

On this specific SI and subsidy, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk referred to the Subsidy Advice Unit, which identified Merlin Entertainments as the domestic

“competitor most likely to be affected by the Project”.

The SAU would go as far as saying only that the negative consequence

“may be partly offset by additional domestic and international visitors attracted by the Project.”

The SAU also asked the Government to

“consider the potential longer-term effects of the Subsidy on competition and investment”,

not just for Merlin Entertainments, but, more broadly, for the current set of competitors and any future potential competitor, and particularly how it might impact investment. Can the Minister update us on whether any additional work has been done to look at the longer-term effects and impacts of this arrangement?

We know from a briefing earlier today that, effectively, this amount of money can be used for any kind of capital expenditure. It is not remotely clear to me whether it will be used for toilets, car parks or rollercoasters. Given that the Government have put in place a number of conditions and clawbacks linked to employment, it strikes me as rather odd that no conditions have been put in place relating to what the capex can be spent on. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?

The Minister said the approval of this motion would be delayed so that Opposition parties could have sight of further details. I highlight to her that it is not clear why this amount of £400 million has been deemed proportionate. We have not seen the assessment of what would be disproportionate. Would disproportionate be twice that? Would it be £50 million more? That is not remotely clear, so it is very difficult for Opposition parties to scrutinise this.

Finally, to repeat an earlier point, given my conversations with Universal—I have had a number of conversations relating to London Luton airport and transport infrastructure in the region—I found it quite surprising that the Minister indicated that Universal predicated its investment on this subsidy. It was never raised with me. That does not mean that it has not been raised with Ministers, but in my conversations, there seemed to be only one condition: the approval of London Luton airport expansion. I wonder whether the Minister can share any more with us about when that argument was put forward. Was it always the case that the subsidy was required, or was the argument introduced in the latter stages of the negotiation?