Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Bank of England must not require the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment if it has directed the financial institution to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements.”

This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of FSCS funds to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which have reached end-state MREL.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) No application to the scheme manager for recapitalisation payments may be considered by the Bank of England for a financial institution which has been directed to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements, unless permission has been given, through regulations, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(3B) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject to subsection (4), shall be made through Statutory Instrument under the negative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure financial institutions that maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities exceeding minimum capital requirements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, unless permission has been given through regulations.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) As a further objective to the special resolution objectives in section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, when discharging its functions in respect of the exercise of recapitalisation payments under this section, the Bank of England must observe the competitiveness and growth objective.

(5B) The competitiveness and growth objective is facilitating, subject to aligning with relevant international standards—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through a levy on the banking sector.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.

(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank's resolution objectives.

[Mark Garnier]

Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds.

Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters.

We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks.

Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands.

The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month.

I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens.

Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks.

The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique.

Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity.

Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible.

I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2.

There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime.

I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time.

Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in scope, rather than what is not in scope and has not been selected?

[Mark Garnier]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments.

I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves.

Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Spring Statement

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to mention my hon. Friend’s constituency in my statement. As the home of the British Army, on behalf of this Government, we thank the people of Aldershot and Farnborough for the service that they give our country every single day.

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of companies in the defence sector, whether big or small, being able to access finance. That has never been more important than it is today, when the threats posed by Putin continue to grow. I therefore urge everyone in financial services to do their part to make sure that our fantastic defence start-ups have the money that they need to grow and help defend our country and our values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 9 to 19 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendment 20 would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), Lords amendment 20 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.

After Clause 3

Review of effect on certain sectors

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21.—(James Murray.)

Family Businesses

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Unusually, I welcome the motion tabled by the Conservatives because it sets down on the record, loud and clear, that they are no friends of working people, and they are no friends of working women in particular. Their motion calls for an end to Labour’s groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill and would allow bad employers to continue to exploit workers, to sack anyone who objects and to continue paying women less than men. That is not a surprise, of course, because the Leader of the Opposition has already made it clear that she thinks maternity pay has “gone too far” and is “excessive”. Statutory maternity pay is based on earnings, and for most of the leave period it is set at a maximum of £184 a week or 90% of normal pay, whichever is lower. That translates to about £9,500 a year. I do not think many women, or their partners, would think that is excessive.

I am at least grateful that the Conservatives are being honest: they could not care less about working people. Earlier, the shadow Chancellor was unable to tell us which bit of the Employment Rights Bill they wanted to get rid of. Well, he should read his own motion—it is written in black and white. Their motion explicitly objects to Labour’s new law to finally make employers put a stop to sexual harassment in the workplace and to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment of staff by customers, contractors and service users. The Conservatives seem to be especially against that in their motion, which is peculiar, because just two years ago they said that they would bring in exactly the same law. What happened? Oh yes, I know: they abandoned working women, broke their promises and left shop workers, office staff and women managers at the mercy of sexual harassers, and they want to do the same today.

The other new law in Labour’s Employment Rights Bill that the Conservatives seem to be especially against—it is in their motion, which the shadow Chancellor has not read—is the ending of exploitative zero-hours contracts. Their motion instead supports the continued mistreatment of often low-paid workers who do not know from one week to the next how much work they will get or if they will be able to pay their bills. Let us be clear: sexual harassment can often go hand in hand with exploitative zero-hours contracts. Imagine how difficult it is for a low-paid woman to complain about her manager’s inappropriate sexual behaviour if she relies on him to give her enough hours to feed her family next week. Zero-hours contracts put way too much power in the hands of managers, and, with proper business planning, there is simply no need for them to be forced on workers.

In their motion, the Conservatives seem to have confused knowing what people’s hours are in advance with the new right of flexible working, which Labour is also introducing. They claim that those two things are in conflict—of course they are not. People can still have a zero-hours contract if they want to, but if they want guaranteed hours so that they have a secure income for their family, they will be entitled to that. If people want to work part time because they have kids or elderly parents, they will have a new right to flexible working that will allow that. The Conservatives’ motion is not clear on whether they support flexible working, but surely the Leader of the Opposition should understand and embrace Labour’s new right to flexible working, given her reported invention of Kemi mean time, or KMT, to explain being half an hour late for everything. Maybe it is one law for her and another for the workers.

In this motion, the Conservatives have squarely and unashamedly set themselves against working people, especially working women, but the British people made a choice on 4 July: they voted for a party that would stand up for working people and keep its promises to outlaw sexual harassment at work and end exploitative zero-hours contracts. That is why Labour will vigorously and vociferously vote down the Conservatives’ attempt to stop those changes today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mike Martin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter]

I hear what the hon. Member is saying. There are a number of reliefs in Scotland, and Scotland went further and quicker than the Conservatives did in government when it came to the small business bonus scheme that was in place, so I am not going to take any lessons about what we do with business rates. It is a different system; there are other things going on that make the mix different. Also, that is not the issue that businesses are raising with me.

The first and foremost issue, as has been indicated by Family Business UK, is inheritance tax. That is what is causing the most consternation. The businesses that I met last week were saying that their financial advisers—or their finance directors, if they are big enough to have them—are already advising them to set aside substantial amounts of money to cover off risk. These are businesses that have never had to value themselves in their lives. They are family businesses that work on a model of working with what they have and getting on with it. They have never had to place an inheritance value on their business. That is yet another headache for them—another bureaucratic maze for them to work their way through—that does not apply to LLPs, which is a very unfair situation. I do not understand why a Labour Government in particular are tackling family-owned businesses in this way and allowing shareholder-owned businesses or LLPs off the hook. That does not make sense to me.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke very well and, had her amendment been selected, I would certainly have gone for it. I am sorry that I cannot, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Mike Wood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I absolutely agree. I was baffled by the speeches of Labour Members; they were lining up to say that they had been meeting local businesses that were desperate to congratulate them on the tax rises that their Government are imposing on them. That is clearly ridiculous.

In my constituency of West Suffolk, I am proud to represent so many family businesses that contribute to the economy. The Hadley shipping group, owned by James Warwick, is one of the last remaining family-run shipping companies in Britain. The Claydon family has manufactured and exported world-class agricultural machinery since the 1980s. Wedge Group Galvanising in Haverhill is a leading business in hot-dip galvanising in Europe and beyond. We need those vibrant and successful family businesses to help us build again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has just said, they are telling us the same thing: that because of the policies of this Government, they are confronted with a choice between selling their business altogether, selling parts of their business or cutting much-needed investment.

I will conclude by saying that repeating the word “growth” in press releases, ministerial speeches and tweets does not make growth magically appear. Pummelling business, as this Government are doing, is the fastest route to killing growth and our prosperity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate. We heard, in particular, excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins). We also heard interesting speeches from the Liberal Democrat hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and her colleague the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), and from the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), as well as Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru speeches from, respectively, the hon. Members for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi).

As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury emphasised in his opening remarks, we are taking the tough decisions now to support family businesses. We recognise that they are the backbone of our economy, our communities and, indeed, our society. Unlike the Conservative party, who crashed the economy, we are determined to champion those family businesses. While the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), was sitting at the Cabinet table, the cost of loans to family businesses were going through the roof. He was part of a Cabinet that left this Government with a huge £22 billion black hole in the public finances. It is always interesting to listen to the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who never seems to mention any more that he was once in the Treasury helping to write the Liz Truss Budget. Any time he wants to intervene and apologise for that, he will find me willing to let him do so. He finished his time in Government as a business Minister, when a record number of family businesses went bust. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am interested, and my constituents will be very interested, to hear what the Minister is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

For my entire working life I have been self-employed in the family business which was established by my dad and my uncle in 1975. Does the Minister agree with my experience that family businesses do not operate in isolation? Lots of things matter to family businesses. If someone is ill in the morning, they cannot join the 8 am merry-go-round for a GP appointment—the state that the Tories left this country in—because they have to get to work, open up and get people through the door. If the buses do not work, staff cannot get in. If potholes are not fixed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Gareth Thomas]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. As he rightly alludes to, in the Budget we had to take tough decisions to fix the foundations of our economy, to restore stability and to begin to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure and address the terrible state of our public services. While we have raised employer’s national insurance contributions, we have mitigated the impacts by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500—a record amount—which means that 1 million small businesses will be paying either the same or less in national insurance contributions than they do now.

Several hon. Members rightly pointed out during this debate that a lot of family businesses are high street businesses. Many of them have been run for successive generations, and they are part and parcel of our communities. The Conservative party did next to nothing to help family businesses on Britain’s high streets. It allowed thousands of bank branches to close and thousands of pubs and other high street family businesses to go, too. That is why this Government are focused on our five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

To be clear, I support the Bill. However, in order for this Government to deliver on their election manifesto, the Crown Estate must be given clear purpose and direction that are directly aligned with the Prime Minister’s plan for change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the progress of the Crown Estate, and recognise the benefit that will come from improvement, but none of that can be done on the back of existing relationships. The Minister is an honourable man—we know that. He has set out to help us and reassure us on many things—although, for the record, there has not been too much reassurance lately. I seek assurances for the fishing sector in Strangford, and in South Down. Given that the Member of Parliament for that constituency does not even attend Parliament, I find myself with the duty to work on behalf of the fishing fleets in Ardglass and Kilclief. The fishing fleets are all in the boat together—to use a pun—and all need help. If the Minister can reassure us, he may go some way towards reassuring the fishing sector, which is not quite sure yet about what is happening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and provided further detail about their amendments or concerns.

I start by making it clear that the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind an amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward. That was evidenced in the changes made by this House to ensure appropriate protections for our seabed. As a result of changes made to the Bill, the Crown Estate will now be required to seek the approval of the Treasury for any permanent disposal of the seabed. I thank the Opposition for a constructive debate on that matter. Alongside that, further changes made in the other place have helped to strengthen the Bill, including changes to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland; a reporting requirement in respect of activities with Great British Energy; and a requirement relating to sustainable development. In that spirit, I have considered the amendments that are before us.

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for tabling new clause 1, under which, within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed the transfer of responsibility for management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to ensure that no person in Crown employment has their employment adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for tabling new clause 4, to which her colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), also spoke. It would require the Treasury to set out a scheme for transferring all Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and rights in relation to the Welsh zone. As I set out in Committee, the Government believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form.

New clause 4 would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales—an entity that, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables. It would also risk disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-system approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Those reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the time it takes for generation projects to connect to the grid.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and something of a privilege to be the only Back-Bench speaker. I shall make a series of points, including welcoming the Chancellor’s commitment to growth and the announcements that she made today before moving on to a number of other areas.

I commend what the Chancellor said this morning in Oxfordshire and, in particular, what she said about the importance of investment in infrastructure for the long term, whether in transport, new powers to streamline the planning process or indeed attracting more tech investment to the UK. My Reading Central constituency and the whole of Berkshire benefits enormously from such investment, so I wholeheartedly welcome her announcements and commend her for her work on that.

If I may, I will somewhat cheekily ask the Chief Secretary to take a few points back to the Chancellor. In our area, we are looking for further investment to drive economic growth. I will highlight a couple of points of local importance. In particular, the western rail link to Heathrow scheme is supported by all Berkshire MPs and colleagues from across a much wider area. Heathrow airport is unusual in being a hub airport in western Europe without a rail link in both directions. A number of local authorities, parliamentary colleagues and the rail industry have pushed for this measure, which, compared with some points discussed in the Chancellor’s speech and more widely in the House this afternoon, would require only modest investment. A short stretch of railway line from Langley, just outside Slough, into the airport, where space for a station already exists, would significantly cut journey times for workers at the airport, commuters and many others, and attract business to Berkshire. The scheme is supported by local business groups.

To give an idea of the importance to Reading, at the moment it takes around 50 minutes from Reading station to travel to Heathrow by bus, but it would be just 15 minutes with a rail link. Many of the firms relocating to the Reading area from across the country would be encouraged further by that and have far greater connectivity to international markets through swift access to Heathrow. Equally, it would appeal to inward investors coming to our part of England. There would be an additional benefit—the Chief Secretary may know well know about this—for travellers from the west of England and south Wales in vastly speeding up their journeys to Heathrow airport. I want to flag that up to him.

May I ask the Chief Secretary to relay to the Chancellor my wholehearted support for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor? The area that I represent sits at the south-western edge of that corridor. Given the excellent rail and road connections between Reading, Berkshire and Oxford—it takes as little as 25 minutes to get from Reading town centre to Oxford city centre by rail—that route could extend the corridor, which will run through Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, as the Chancellor highlighted. Indeed, the rail corridor into Berkshire and through southern Oxfordshire passes Culham, an area of significant science investment that was formerly the site of the UK and Europe’s Joint European Torus project. It also runs through Didcot, which is a major centre of inward investment, as well as to Reading. There would be enormous benefit to residents and businesses in Oxfordshire and to businesses in Berkshire if that were seen as a whole, rather than the line stopping in Oxford. I hope that he will take that back to his colleagues.

I appreciate that many colleagues may want to speak later on the welfare cap motion, so I will limit my remarks and not stray too far. I would, however, like to describe some of the benefits to the Berkshire local economy of the stability that the Chief Secretary outlined. We have a fundamentally strong local economy; we are lucky to have high levels of growth relative to other parts of the UK. We face the same challenges as areas from across the country, which he outlined earlier: the importance of stability and long-term investment, and making sure that businesses understand that there is stability so that they invest and spend their own money creating jobs.

Let me draw out some examples from local businesses. I represent a constituency that has high tech and telecoms employment. Something like 300,000 people work in those sectors in the county of Berkshire. In Reading, there is a significant cluster near the station, which has been fostered not just by the rebuilding of the station but by Reading being the western terminus of the Elizabeth line. That has led to a significant number of employers moving to the town centre. It is a good example of the benefits of investment that the Chancellor talked about earlier, and of the importance of high-speed rail and other improvements to rail and public transport, to connect major centres of employment and allow employers to recruit from a much wider pool. That is exactly the message I have been told when visiting employers in that area. They have based themselves near the station because they can access a much wider pool of workers with higher levels of skill, and that drives productivity and growth in their business. There are strong local examples which, at microeconomic level, make the point that the Chief Secretary has made today.

Let me also draw the House’s attention to the importance of education, which the Chief Secretary hinted at, to managing public finances. In my experience, having a university in the constituency is a huge driver of economic activity, particularly for creating a skilled workforce, who often wish to remain in the constituency. That is certainly the case for many places the Chancellor described in her speech, particularly the great university cities of Oxford and Cambridge. It also applies to London and many other centres such as Manchester.

Higher education is central. It must be linked with employment and offer the right programmes to attract a wider range of young people into higher education. It was a privilege to meet staff at Reading University recently. They briefed me on some of their work to encourage young people from families who traditionally might not have thought about going to university to consider higher education at their local university. That is an important part of the bigger picture. I commend the Chief Secretary for his wider approach on the importance of investment and stability linked to investment, in transport infrastructure, as well as IT and tech infrastructure such as data centres, and a range of other forms of infrastructure.

Let me move on to some of the points made earlier. It is important to note that we are at a turning point. We have had a long period of low growth. The Government are right to make growth their top priority, to move on from 14 years of historically low growth compared with the UK average over the past 40 or 50 years and going back to the industrial revolution. The Chief Secretary rightly made the connection between growth and investment, and so did the Chancellor today.

I welcome and wholeheartedly support the Chancellor’s emphasis on releasing pension savings to drive economic growth. That has been a successful policy both in Canada and in Australia. Although they are much bigger countries and have more natural resources, they have significant similarities to the UK—the benefit of English common law and many other historical advantages of our system and history. There are some important points to be made on that front. Above all, we must avoid the mistakes of recent years—the instability, the disastrous mini-Budget, the gambling with public finances and the lack of transparency.

The Chief Secretary is right to commend this charter today. I will draw out two particular points to flag to the House that I think are vital. The first is reporting on capital investment, which is an important measure in the charter. The second is in-year pressures, which, from the point of view of managing public finances, is vital. As he rightly said, it will allow policymakers much greater insight into what is happening in near-real time, which is important in avoiding future problems. I commend those measures.

In summary, the macro-level changes that we have described today will do a great deal to support my local small business, as well as larger investors coming into my constituency. I wholeheartedly support and welcome the measures set out today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have already set out, one of the issues I was able to raise with my counterparts in China was forced labour, particularly in Xinjiang. As I said in answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have also been really clear that any company seeking to list in London has to meet stringent requirements, as set out by the United Nations and the OECD, on labour supply and the treatment of workers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While I welcome the UK-China economic and financial dialogue, as the Chancellor will know, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have repeatedly highlighted in this House human rights abuses in China, with regard to Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians in Hong Kong and China. How will the Government and the Chancellor make sure that safeguards for British money and goods are put in place to ensure that economic engagements do not directly support those violations? Human rights concerns, forced labour, denial of religious freedom and ongoing suppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan must be remembered at all costs and in all deals with China.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He will know from the work of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that the enormous potential for offshore wind in the Celtic sea and off the south-west coast is currently largely untapped. A lot of the work that needs to be done to make those seabeds available, and to bring the interconnections onshore and on to the grid to make it viable for private sector investment, requires quite a lot of up-front work. The Bill will enable the Crown Estate, working in partnership with GB Energy, to identify opportunities to invest in things like supply chain and in preparation and planning for the seabed work, and to identify the cost profiles that might relate to the projects that are being developed. That will facilitate the deals that we wish to make with private sector suppliers to unlock those opportunities. We see this as an important enabling mechanism to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the south-west and other parts of the country.

Clause 6 requires the appointment of separate commissioners with responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, noting, as I have on a number of occasions, that Crown Estate Scotland is a separate entity. It also grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted on each of the appointments relating to those parts of the UK. Clause 7 sets out procedural matters relating to the Bill’s extent and commencement.

The Bill gives the Crown Estate the flexibility it needs to meet its core duty of enhancing and maintaining the value of the estate and the returns obtained from it. The Bill broadens the scope of the activities in which the Crown Estate can engage, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition, and it empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. Critically, these measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the Crown Estate’s contribution to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the United Kingdom.

This Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, modernising it for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Christmas Adjournment

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I ask Members to invoke the spirit of Christmas and help each other out by keeping their contributions to around four minutes so that we can get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the next speaker, I will have to impose a four-minute time limit.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in today’s debate. As we approach the festive season, I extend my warmest wishes to everyone in the House—to you Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the dedicated staff who help make this place so special and kind.

Christmas offers a timely opportunity to reflect on the achievements, community spirit and remarkable individuals who make up the heart of our constituencies. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the individuals, charities, businesses and organisations that make Suffolk Coastal such a special place. One such group is Pitstop in Felixstowe, where Liss and her team of volunteers do exceptional work supporting young families in need. Their work goes beyond providing material things such as food and clothes. They work to ensure that no family feels isolated or alone. That is especially important during the holidays, but important at any time of year.

The Woodbridge branch of the Salvation Army is a shining example of our community giving back. During my recent visit, I had the pleasure of meeting Alan, Tanya and their team of volunteers, who work tirelessly to provide food and essential supplies to those facing hardship or loneliness. A few weeks ago, I held a pop- up surgery at the Salvation Army’s food bank. Citizens Advice was there to provide financial support to those in need. I was able to provide financial advice and give support to people who face real and pressing poverty, and to those who had unexpectedly found themselves on hard times. That was a pretty normal surgery experience for me.

Then I met Edward. Edward is 42 and street homeless. He was a fisherman previously, in Aldeburgh. He had a stable job, a home and a relationship. When things started to go wrong for him, as they do for us all at some time in our lives, it affected his mental health, which meant that he turned to drugs. The drugs took over his life, and it spiralled from there. When I met Edward the other week, he was clean. He had managed to get clean on his own, and had been sofa surfing, but then, naturally, the good will of his friends ran out. When that luck ran out, he had moved into a disused caravan on private land that he had found near Woodbridge. His only coat had been stolen some days earlier. My team were able to get him some emergency help, and it was the Salvation Army that so kindly stepped in and bought him a brand-new coat from Mountain Warehouse on the same day. He was later placed in emergency temporary accommodation, and he is now being supported by the council; but it was that friendship and support from the Salvation Army that gave him the first glimmer of hope that he had felt in months, with a warm meal, a new coat, and a safe place to begin the journey to find temporary accommodation. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Salvation Army, and, indeed, to all those groups that do so much to support our constituents.

Woodbridge is one of the many beautiful market towns in my constituency that tourists flock to, and just the other week it was voted the happiest place in the country in which to live. As someone who lives in Woodbridge, I wholeheartedly and unapologetically agree. However, whenever I talk about the beauty of Suffolk Coastal I feel a desperate need to talk about the other side of the constituency as well, and Edward’s story is a real reminder of that. I fear that many people do not see the poverty or the struggles facing so many people in my constituency. In Suffolk Coastal we have 23% of children on free school meals, but in Southwold, the place that the tourists coo over, we have 39%, and in just one primary school in Southwold one in two children receive it.

We have food banks in every single town in my constituency, and they are growing in each of our villages and parishes. We have a housing waiting list that only increases each year, with 150 households in east Suffolk living in temporary accommodation—which means that this Christmas, 188 children will be living in hotels or B&Bs. That is no way for any child to live at any time of year. The work of our community to fix some of the most pressing issues must be commended; I have already talked about the work of some of our amazing food banks, and it does not stop there.

As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Once again, I extend my gratitude to Members from across the House for contributing to today’s debate and facilitating the swift passage of the Bill. Today, and throughout the Bill’s passage so far, this House has made clear its strong feelings on the plight of the Ukrainian people. Members of all political stripes have spoken eloquently in favour of continued support for Ukraine in its ongoing fight against Russia’s tyrannical, unprovoked and illegal aggression. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, no matter which party has been in office, the UK Government have remained committed to fully supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.

The G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and this Bill, which facilitates the UK’s contribution, are another demonstration of the UK delivering on that promise. Beyond the ERA, the UK has now committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. Earlier this year, the Government announced that we will continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes, and our ERA commitment goes further still. As hon. Members will know, the Bill unlocks the UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion, which constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on our GDP share within the G7 and EU. It remains crucial that we pass the Bill as swiftly as possible to begin disbursing funds this winter to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs. Taken together, the ERA will provide Ukraine with an additional $50 billion in support. I pay tribute to our G7 partners for their collective determination to bring the ERA to fruition in just a few short months. We all remain united in our support for Ukraine against Russian provocation.

We in this House recognise the sacrifice that the people of Ukraine are making. They are fighting not only for their own survival and national identity, but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. The Bill will enable the Government to provide Ukraine with the essential support it requires to continue its battle against Putin’s unjust and illegal aggression.

At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that this is probably my last contribution to the House this year, I wish you and the House a very merry Christmas, and say to the Ukrainian people that we hold them all in our hearts over this difficult period. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller]

On behalf of the official Opposition, I thank the Government for bringing forward the Bill and concluding its stages in this House before we break for Christmas. I also thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for the way he has handled the discussions on the Bill at each stage, providing Members with all the information they need at any stage and in answer to all questions. He has done an exemplary job.

I note the uniformity of support across this House from Members, whichever party they represent. However, it goes deeper than that: since former Prime Minister Boris Johnson galvanised the west into defence of Ukraine, through former Prime Minister Liz Truss, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and now, with our current Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the United Kingdom Government have been determined in support of the people of Ukraine. It says something of the depth of support in this country for the people of Ukraine that if we swept away a large proportion of the Members of this House and replaced them with different representatives from across the country, the resolve in support for Ukraine would remain the same.

We must not give up our efforts. Since we started our debates, there have been further actions in Ukraine. I will quote the latest summary from the Institute for the Study of War, which demonstrates the urgent need for the support set out in the Bill that we are passing today:

“on December 14…Russian forces fielded more than 100 pieces of equipment in a recent assault in the Siversk direction and noted that there were 55 combat engagements in this direction on December 13—a significant increase in tempo in this area of the frontline.”

It goes on:

“The GUR reported that a contingent consisting of Russian and North Korean servicemen in Kursk Oblast lost 200 personnel as of December 14 and that Ukrainian drones swarmed a North Korean position, which is consistent with recent reports of North Korean forces engaging in attritional infantry assaults.”

Our support, the military support the United Kingdom provides under this measure, is desperately needed, but the need goes further. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an estimated 8 million Ukrainian citizens have been displaced and 6 million people have left the country as refugees, with many still unable to return. As hon. Members have said, over 200,000 Ukrainian citizens are living in the United Kingdom. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. We should also note the work of British charities and non-governmental organisations, including the British Red Cross, which estimates that, with other Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world, assistance has been provided to over 18 million people in Ukraine.

As we take our break, many of us will be celebrating Christmas. I hope that the Christian message of peace and hope will resonate in the new year, and that all of us in western Europe and particularly in Ukraine can look forward to a peaceful future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.