Financial Assistance to Industry

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Minister has set out the purpose of the motion: to approve the payment of up to £450 million to UDX Development Company to support the NBCUniversal theme park and resort in Bedford. This project would be a major investment for what could become the biggest visitor attraction in the country. The initial discussions and agreement took place under the last Conservative Government, including assisting with land acquisition. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) has been a strong advocate for the project, as has my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

As the Minister said, Universal has committed to spending £6 billion on this project, delivering an estimated economic benefit of £50 billion, with thousands of jobs. These are clearly substantial benefits, but then so is the proposed funding that the motion seeks to provide through the exceptional regional growth fund, which comes on top of the £438 million for investment in public infrastructure and the £474 million to upgrade the road and rail network. In total, the Government are looking to spend £1.3 billion on this project.

Given the amount of taxpayer money involved in this project and the proposed motion, it is essential that we properly scrutinise the rationale, impact and conditions related to it. I will deal first with the amount. The motion seeks authorisation to pay up to £450 million on the opening of the park, not before 2031. As the amount is over £30 million, the approval of this House is required and the Government referred this to the Subsidy Advice Unit, which is part of the CMA, to consider DCMS’s assessment of compliance.

It is important to be clear what the subsidy report is and what it is not. It is advisory, and it does not directly assess compliance with the subsidy control requirements. Significantly, the subsidy report identified several shortcomings in DCMS’s analysis around proportionality, competition impacts and the interaction between the direct subsidy and the other forms of Government support. However, the Department’s assessment, which is the basis of the subsidy report, has not been made available to the Committee. I asked DCMS to provide it ahead of this sitting, and I was told that it could not be provided because it is commercially sensitive. All we have been provided with up to this point is just over two pages of an explanatory memorandum and a briefing with officials earlier today.

Clearly, it is completely unsatisfactory for the Committee to be in the position of considering this motion without that information. I welcome that the Minister has acknowledged the disappointing approach through her commitment to provide a summary and other information, but we have not seen that today. I and other Committee members will therefore expect the Minister to respond fully to the points that we make—as she normally would—notwithstanding her commitment to delay notification of the motion until we have seen that information.

This would be Universal’s first park in Europe, and clearly there is significant competition for internationally mobile capital. The subsidy report refers to DCMS’s position, reiterated by the Minister, that without taxpayer support, private funding would not be forthcoming. Universal has said the same to me. The question is: how hard have the Government tested that in the interests of taxpayers? The report states that DCMS should explain more clearly, in line with the statutory guidance, how “uncertainty constitutes imperfect information” that may hinder investment rather than “normal commercial risk” for a project of this scale. The Government have not responded to that request for further information in a way that this Committee has seen. Will the Minister confirm that that will be covered in the summary she will make available to us?

That brings us to the overall amount and the requirement to keep the subsidy as low as possible. One of the largest recent grants from taxpayers was the £75 million to BMW for production of the electric Mini. The report sets out that the £450 million in this case was agreed through negotiation, and it refers to “materially different starting points.” Could the Minister indicate to the Committee how much Universal was seeking at the beginning of the negotiations? The amount is also predicated on projections and the rate of return that Universal would expect to achieve in funding a project, as well as on subsidies provided to theme parks by Governments in other countries. It is of course possible that if this becomes the largest visitor attraction in the UK, those projections could be exceeded. Again, the DCMS assessment, which we have not seen, apparently referred to Universal’s projections as “systematically conservative”.

The Committee is being asked to approve the motion without visibility of the relationship agreement between the Government and Universal—even a redacted one. It is therefore incumbent on the Government, as the subsidy report highlights, to be clearer about how alternative subsidy amounts could affect viability and any overcompensation. Can the Minister explain more about how the clawback mechanism would work? At what level would a clawback of funds be triggered if the project overperforms financially? Would that be 5% or 10% over the expected return? I think the Committee deserves an indication of that, because it is important to minimise any taxpayer contribution. How will funds be recovered if the agreed outcomes the Minister referred to are not met?

To continue that theme, there is also a lack of detailed information on the grant, what it will be used for and what eligible spending is. The subsidy report refers to

“expenditure associated with the construction, infrastructure, systems and other development works”.

That is all rather broad brush. Can the Minister give some tangible examples of the type of spending that might qualify? Does it cover funfair rides, for example?

The purpose of the subsidy regime is to consider the impact on competition, and DCMS’s assessment identifies Merlin Entertainments as the competitor in the UK most likely to be affected, as well as Disneyland Paris internationally. It is worth noting that any company that considers this an unfair subsidy can challenge it at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Does the Minister accept the analysis in the subsidy report that there should be further consideration of displacement effects and the impact on investment and competition? If so, will she make sure that that is made available to the Committee?

Finally, the funding is due to be paid no earlier than April 2031. Can the Minister confirm whether the funding has been allocated to the capital budget of the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and whether there is a funding line in its budget to pay for this? If not, will it be secured at the spending review, or is this essentially an IOU for a future Government to pay?

The opportunities that investment in a world-class visitor destination could bring are considerable. Equally, this is an exceptional funding proposal, and it is right that there is proper scrutiny of its basis, which has been the focus of my questions and contribution. The Minister needs to respond to these detailed points today and provide much greater transparency around the terms of the subsidy in order to protect taxpayers’ interests. I call on her to agree to share with hon. Members, in suitably redacted form, the relationship agreement and the assessment of compliance. I look forward to her responses.