---

Sovereign Grant Bill

I commend your patience and flexibility, Mr Hoyle, in allowing this clause stand part debate to include the status of mausoleums and the role of English Heritage, which somewhat stretches the clause. Having a Second Reading-type debate on clause stand part in this way is probably a revolutionary approach to parliamentary procedure. After the events of the last few days, that may not be surprising. However, I should reassure the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that he need not feel destabilised by my use of the word ““revolutionary”” in this context. A fortnight ago, during the debate on the financial motion relating to the Bill, the Opposition made it clear that"““the monarchy continues, and must continue, to play a vital role in the affairs of our nation in the new century, but that to play this role and to command public support, the royal household must… be financed in a proper, open and fair way””." We expressed our intention to support the Chancellor's proposals to reform the current 250-year-old arrangements and"““to strike a fair and workable balance between the legitimate needs of the household and the interests of the taxpayer.””" However, we also made clear that it was"““the responsibility of Her Majesty's Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government to make sure that it is done in a fair and proper way””." Those are the guiding principles that lie behind today's debates on clause 1 and, more widely, our amendments. In that debate a fortnight ago, I cautioned the Chancellor that"““At a time when many families and businesses are under real financial pressure””" there was more work to be done, and a need for more ““detail and reassurance”” on Second Reading—which we have not had—or in Committee"““to establish a consensus not only across the Dispatch Box but in the country as a whole in support of these reforms.””—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1150.]" I also asked the Chancellor to provide more clarity and detail on the level of the sovereign grant and the wider costs of the royal household, the arrangements for regular parliamentary scrutiny, and the mechanisms for uprating the grant. I thank the Chancellor for the detailed way in which he has sought to answer those questions in the debate so far, and for the serious consideration that he has given to our amendments. I am also grateful to him for giving Members more information than they were given two weeks ago. However, it is difficult to hold a debate such as this when time is so constricted, and I share the concern expressed about that by Members on both sides of the House. As I said to the Chancellor earlier, I think that he could have provided even more information to help Members to understand the debate. Setting the sovereign grant at 15% of Crown revenues will mean, from next year until the end of the current Parliament, a 3.2% real-terms rise in the grant available to the royal household. That is significant, and is set against a real-terms fall over the Parliament as a whole. Let me turn to the thinking behind our amendments, and respond to the points made by the Chancellor. It is right that Parliament and the National Audit Office should be properly able to scrutinise whether the Chancellor is setting the sovereign grant at the right level, given both the costs and the pressures on the royal household. On one hand, the Queen has managed to deliver a 50% reduction in the total expenditure of the royal household over the past two decades, but these proposals, and the cash floor, effectively mean that the process of making further efficiency savings has effectively come to an end.