Neil Duncan-Jordan

I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe they should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. That seems a very odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. That, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up—until the Government tabled this motion—was described by the Financial Times as an arrangement whereby in a good year the monarchy would win, and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It is therefore right that the Government are addressing that anomaly. The motion also raises the question of how the grant should be set. I believe that the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount on an annual basis. It is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open to MPs for debate. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That has to change. Finally, there are some anomalies relating to the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster in the setting of the level of the sovereign grant, and why are the monarch’s financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? While the Bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it is important that we ask why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even when we allow for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those issues when he sums up the debate.