Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Thursday 25th July 2024
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd September 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to bring legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century.
The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities, yet it is restricted in its ability to do so by legislation that has not changed since 1961. With less ability to compete and to invest, it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it otherwise might be. Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant that it has had to generate capital for investment by selling its assets, which is neither desirable nor sustainable, and under current legislation the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come.
These are the reasons why this Bill is necessary, and why the Crown Estate has asked successive Governments for these reforms. The changes the Bill proposes will give it new freedoms, including the power to borrow as its competitors can, enabling it to adopt a sustainable and competitive business model.
The Bill has two key objectives. First, it broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, in order to support the delivery of its core purpose across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth and generating returns to the public purse. In its current form, it is predominantly a property estate and is significantly limited in its investment options. The proposals in the Bill therefore seek to provide it with the ability to invest more widely in new growth opportunities—for example, investing in the further mapping of our seabed. This will enable it to undertake significant de-risking activity, such as preconsent survey and supporting grid co-ordination, thus increasing the frequency of leasing for offshore wind and supporting the clean energy transition.
The second objective of the Bill is to enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. It does so by empowering the Crown Estate to reduce the size of the cash reserves it needs to hold, thereby expanding its ability to use its land and property assets far more efficiently. As a result, the Crown Estate will be able to accelerate investment in redeveloping and decarbonising its Regent Street and historic London portfolio, as well as investing in projects to support science and innovation. The Bill will unlock potential investment of up to £1.5 billion into the science, technology and innovation economy over the next 15 years, building on the Crown Estate’s recent investment in the city of Oxford.
To reduce the size of its cash holdings and engage in more capital-intensive activity in the long term, the Crown Estate needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. Such borrowing will be from the Government at commercial rates, meaning that the interest it pays will outweigh the Government’s cost of borrowing. This will therefore be of net benefit to the public finances, building on the Crown Estate’s long track record of delivering significant revenues to the public purse year after year—more than £4 billion in the last decade. Above all, the Crown Estate will be borrowing for investment, maximising the profits returned to the public purse. Any such borrowing will require Treasury consent and will be within the fiscal rules. Given that these new powers will enable the Crown Estate to first draw on its cash holdings, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used until towards the end of this decade.
The Bill contains a set of necessary reforms sought by the Crown Estate, ensuring that these two objectives can be met and that it can continue to operate effectively both now and in the years ahead. The Bill is composed of three key elements. First, it widens investment powers by removing existing restrictions on investing in the current Act and clarifies the Crown Estate’s ability to invest in complementary activities such as research, digital technology and energy supply chains. Secondly, it grants the Crown Estate a power to borrow with Treasury consent. As well as generating returns for the public purse, this new ability to borrow will free it up to make better use of its existing assets, leveraging these to give it more room to invest. Thirdly, it makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate to provide legislative simplification and to bring it in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. By expanding the number of commissioners, the board will be able to better reflect the growing breadth of the Crown Estate business and ensure a greater range of expertise and diversity at board level.
Three specific clauses achieve these ends. The first inserts two new sections into the Crown Estate Act 1961 to clarify the powers of the commissioners. These new sections explicitly broaden the investment powers of the commissioners and grant a power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. This clause also clarifies that the commissioners have the powers to do that which is connected, conducive or incidental to meeting their general functions, including enhancing and maintaining the estate and the returns obtained from it. It also allows the Crown Estate to borrow from the National Loans Fund, the Treasury or otherwise, subject to Treasury consent, and authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners or to provide loans from the National Loans Fund.
The second clause makes two amendments to modernise governance by increasing the maximum number of board members from eight to 12 and removing the requirements for the salaries and expenses of its commissioners to be paid out of voted loans. The third clause sets out procedural matters relating to the extent and commencement of the Bill.
These clauses give 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 activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, 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 contribution of the Crown Estate to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK. The Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, modernising it for the 21st century.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the Bill and for the time that he spent last week talking to those who have an interest in it. I welcome its provisions, which enable us to make the best use of our natural resources—in this case, offshore wind—in turn helping us to meet our environmental targets. I know that others will speak on those targets, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as chair of Peers for the Planet, of which I am a very small satellite.
As the Minister said, the Bill amends the Crown Estate Act 1961. Its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House that year was over in under half an hour, with only two speeches, the response from the Labour Front Bench being made by the Earl of Lucan, father of the one who disappeared. Today the Bill may get greater analysis. I will leave others to address the specific issue of the seabed and turn my attention to the broader issue of the governance of the Crown Estate.
The Bill’s Explanatory Notes say that it makes amendments to Schedule 1 to the Crown Estate Act 1961 which are
“intended to bring The Crown Estate’s constitution in line with best practice for modern corporate governance”.
In 1961, the Crown Estate was the fairly passive holder of land owned by the Crown, at a time when issues of transparency and accountability were very different. Now, if we look through the impressive 173 pages of the Crown Estate’s annual report, we see that it is a totally different organisation. The briefing notes to the King’s Speech said:
“The Crown Estate plays a critical role in maintaining and improving public infrastructure of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and generates a financial return for the Government worth over £3 billion in the last decade. This money helps fund vital public services”.
I applaud its many achievements, which the Minister touched on. However, it has no shareholders. It is independent of the Government and the monarchy and is run by 12 commissioners. It floats in a public space on its own, with an umbilical cord to the Treasury in a framework agreement, on which more in a moment.
This raises the question of whether the governance structure is still appropriate, 60 years after the legislation introducing it was passed, with very minor amendments touched on by the Minister today. Is the modest addition of an extra commissioner, as proposed by the Bill, adequate? Does it really bring the Crown Estate in line with best practice for modern corporate governance? How is it held to account? The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who will speak later, may address this issue in more abrasive terms than those that I plan to use.
To make my point, I turn to the issue of undertakings given to Parliament by the Crown in return for not being covered by legislation, a privilege not accorded to any other organisation and which underlines the need for proper accountability. The undertaking that I want to refer to was given on the last day of the last Parliament, 24 May. I quote the relevant passage:
“The Crown as landlord, will, subject to the conditions described below, agree to the enfranchisement or extension of residential long leases or to the grant of new residential long leases under the same qualifications and terms which will apply by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, to lessees who hold from other landlords”.—[Official Report, 24/5/24; col. 1368.]
The 1993 Act was one that I put on the statute book as a Housing Minister in the other place. The Crown gave me a similar undertaking to the one that I have just read out, which I relayed to the other place at the time. However, there is evidence that the Crown Estate is not abiding by that undertaking in respect of freeholds for which it now has a responsibility under a process known as escheat. I will summarise as briefly as I can the reason for that assertion.
The freeholder of a block of flats in Southampton could not be traced, and initially an encouraging dialogue was opened on behalf of the leaseholders with the bona vacantia division of the Treasury. It confirmed that it would be happy to sell the freehold to them as qualifying tenants and pointed them to the so-called BVC4 formula on the government website, which details the procedure compliant with the relevant legislation. That formula calculated the cost of buying the freehold, as a multiple of the ground rent and the leases that remain, as £17,850.
However, this encouraging dialogue with the Treasury Solicitor was abruptly terminated, as it was stated that the liquidator had disclaimed the asset and it was now vested in the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate in turn appointed Burges Salmon, which responded to the leaseholders by saying that it did all the Crown Estate work regarding enfranchisement and collective freehold purchases and that:
“We consider that a disposal of the Property might be possible in this instance”.
There was no reference to the undertaking I gave a moment ago. Burges Salmon would do nothing before £750 was paid to open a file. It further advised that the government BVC4 formula did not apply to the Crown Estate, saying that:
“It is not obliged to follow guidance from the Bona Vacantia Division as that is a separate entity and we have dealt with this matter in this way for many years”.
That was again in defiance of the undertaking.
In addition to its fees, Carter Jonas would be instructed to provide the price at which the Crown Estate would sell, with all fees to be paid in full by the tenants. The total cost would be over £60,000, over four times the figure produced by the BVC4 formula in the legislation, which requires no valuation, and a contribution of only some £600 would have been made to the costs of the solicitor at the Treasury. I do not think that can be reconciled with the undertaking given to Parliament. Nor can it be right that leaseholders had certain rights under their original freeholder but lose those rights when the freehold defaults to the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate might argue it has a duty to secure best value, but that cannot override the clear undertaking I have given. There is now deadlock, causing problems for leaseholders who need to sell. As Burges Salmon conceded in a letter:
“Where a block of flats is subject to escheat lessees will generally be unable to sell”.
I note that when the Crown Estate gave evidence to a Treasury Select Committee in 2017, the then chief executive said on escheat:
“The Crown Estate’s role in respect of escheat properties is pretty narrow; it is limited to helping to respond to an owner who comes along and basically getting them back into private hands”.
She went on to concede that
“I do not think we are best placed to deal with properties that are subject to escheat”.
That issue is not confined to the one I have just quoted from. A letter from the Crown Estate says:
“The sheer volume of properties which become subject to Escheat each year means that we outsource this work to Burges Salmon and Carter Jonas”.
Further, following the Grenfell tragedy and the Building Safety Act, which places responsibility for remediation on freeholders, many freeholders are likely to go bankrupt, in turn putting more properties into escheat.
So what should be done? I mentioned earlier that the Treasury is the sponsor department, and the relationship with the Treasury is set out in Framework Document: The Crown Estate of June 2023. This refers in paragraph 2.1 to the need for “good management”, and later to
“strong collaborative relationships with customers”
by the Crown Estate. Crucially, it also says that the Treasury shall
“inform The Crown Estate of relevant government policy in a timely manner”.
Government policy on enfranchisement has been clear for many years. It is not being delivered, and I hope the Minister will use his powers to put right the injustice I have referred to.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this Bill. We welcome Labour’s mission to decarbonise power generation by 2030. While we are supportive, we will closely scrutinise these proposals to ensure they work and provide value. We will encourage Labour to be bolder. The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy is key. GB Energy will be a state-owned energy company sitting at the heart of Labour’s plans to decarbonise our power generation. Backed by £8.3 billion of government investment over this Parliament, the aim of GB Energy will be to leverage some £60 billion of private investment—a state-owned investment vehicle working alongside the private sector.
The Government will take on some of the risk and provide much-needed stability in policy. This will help to accelerate private investment, speeding up the transition to cleaner energy, ensuring energy security and lowering energy bills over time. It is good for the environment, for jobs and growth, and for lower energy bills, potentially saving each household £300 a year, if all works well.
A typical household’s annual energy bill will rise by 10% from October. This is necessary because of higher international energy prices, which is a stark reminder of the impact of our continued dependence on imported gas. Ambition is good, but are the financial resources provided adequate? Labour has decided to cut its own green budget: £23.7 billion for green policies over this Parliament is far less than the £28 billion a year that Labour had originally planned. We call on Labour to reconsider.
This partnership brings together the Crown Estate’s experience of delivering renewable projects, especially offshore wind, with new investment powers. It is hoped that 20 to 30 gigawatts of offshore wind will reach seabed lease stage by 2030. This partnership makes sense and the Conservatives had similar plans.
The Crown Estate owns the seabed and has the experience. The UK has the world’s third-best wind resources and we should make use of them. The Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is a multibillion-pound business managed by the Crown Estate commissioners. In Scotland, the Crown Estate is managed by Crown Estate Scotland, since the Scottish estate was devolved in 2017. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, administering property worth some £15.6 billion, including more than half the UK’s foreshore and virtually its entire seabed to the limit of 12 nautical miles.
The Bill seeks to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to enable the Crown Estate to continue to fulfil its core duty of maintaining and enhancing the value of the Crown Estate and the return obtained from it, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land. The Act will continue to be the main legislation governing the Crown Estate.
The Bill broadens the Crown Estate’s investment powers and confers a wider power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. It also makes some changes to the governance of the Crown Estate, in line with modern best practice.
The Bill authorises the Treasury to lend to the Crown Estates commissioners from the National Loans Fund and to provide financial assistance to the commissioners from money provided by Parliament. The Explanatory Notes say that
“the government does not anticipate The Crown Estate borrowing in the short-term. Any borrowing will either be from, or subject to the consent of, the Treasury”.
This question is in my speech, but the Minister has already answered on the definition of “short-term”. I think he said 10 years or so. How much money do the Government anticipate might be borrowed before 2030? What oversight will Parliament have of this borrowing process?
The Explanatory Notes also say that:
“Further details on the arrangements for lending from government to The Crown Estate will be set out in an updated Framework Document”.
Why is this framework document not ready and why are we being asked to approve the Bill without it?
This Bill has only three clauses. I ask the Minister why the decision was taken to present two separate Bills to Parliament. While GB Energy talks of partnerships, this is the only one that has been announced and it appears to be key to GB Energy. Having two separate Bills makes the job of scrutiny harder. Was this about limiting the scope of both Bills or are there other, practical reasons for it?
The Conservatives have left the building. The last Prime Minister decided to play political games with environmental policy. The UK did not gain any additional energy security and bill payers are now paying the price.
The Conservatives have criticised the Bill and the cost, but they would do well to remember the £22 billion black hole that they left behind. Dither, delay and pointless climate culture wars mean that UK energy bills were £22 billion higher over the past decade than they would have been had action been taken earlier. Precious time and inward investment were sacrificed.
The Government need to make sure that GB Energy has the finances to succeed. With a five-year timetable to set up GB Energy, will energy bill payers see the reductions promised before the next election? What actions are being taken to ensure that these plans are not reversed by subsequent Governments?
Why not make GB Energy an energy supplier? The Government are taking a lot of financial risk for little long-term reward. We admit that this helps to leverage investment, but where is the extra long-term benefit if the state does not own or supply anything at the end? Have the Government considered allowing the Crown Estate to waive the licensing fees in exchange for part ownership of the infrastructure? This would provide a continued source of revenue.
The concerns and questions we have relating to this Bill centre on the parliamentary and financial scrutiny. The next offshore wind auction round must succeed after the complete failure in 2023. If it all goes wrong, whose fault will it be? The Crown Estate has all the skills and experience, but how will Parliament know whether the Government are listening to its concerns and taking them seriously?
The UK Government say that they are in discussions with the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland on how GB Energy could help to support new development and investment within Scotland. There are also calls from Wales for similar devolved powers and financial benefits. The Government reply that the more times the overall pie is sliced, the fewer benefits there are for anyone. Perhaps a greater concentration on small community energy projects and increased local benefits offer a way forward? Enabling work and community energy should be at the heart of these plans. The devolution issue feels problematic in this Bill.
Bringing benefits to energy bill payers early in the process is essential to success. Ed Davey has said that the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is Labour’s first mistake. This decision should be reversed, as it will increase fuel poverty. Worse, it sends entirely the wrong message about the future of energy bills at the start of the energy transition.
Are these the only two clauses in the original 1961 Act that need updating? Surely with new powers should come some updated responsibilities. The Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 provides that the estate must act in a way that is likely to further sustainable development in Scotland, as well as contribute to the promotion or improvement of regeneration, social well-being and economic well-being. Why does this Bill not contain anything similar?
A lack of national grid capacity and investment is also a major stumbling block. There is absolutely no point in creating lots of new renewable energy if it cannot be connected to the grid or it takes years to do so. I welcome the letter dated 29 August from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to ESO, asking for independent advice on the pathway going forward, but this is not a solution; it is simply a request for advice. I encourage the Government to remove zombie projects to help speed up the connections.
We welcome the intentions to strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability to develop spatial strategies. Our seabed needs to fulfil many competing functions while maintaining marine environments. Work must be co-ordinated across government. We welcome floating offshore wind, but more work is needed to mature and develop other renewable energy sources.
Finally, misinformation and disinformation are very much part of the environmental space. I wonder whether the link between the Crown Estate’s profits and the process of calculating the amount of the sovereign grant is a continued hostage to fortune and whether it might be worth considering some alternative process.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, that brings me to the starting point of my remarks. I have no issues with the Bill—indeed, I welcome most of its provisions—although I am unclear on the impact on the sovereign grant if a more highly geared Crown Estate manages to increase net revenue. At face value it would appear that the sovereign grant would be increased, but what is the logic in this?
The sovereign grant was established in 2011, consolidating the Civil List and three other grants in aid into one stream. That change made a great deal of managerial sense. The mystery is that it was stated at the time that the sovereign grant would be set as a percentage of the net revenue of the Crown Estate—initially 15%—but what is the rationale for indexing the sovereign grant on some completely unconnected metric? The sovereign grant is not part of the monarch’s income. If it were, it would be taxable. Instead, it is paid from the Exchequer to meet the costs of the monarch’s public duties.
Some years later, the percentage was raised to 25% to meet the cost of the 10-year programme of renovating Buckingham Palace. Recently, the underlying cost has been about £50 million, and with that renovation the total is now about £86 million.
Later, the percentage was reduced to 12% when the Crown Estate net revenues boomed through the expansion of offshore wind. In other words, the percentage has been adjusted up or down to keep the sovereign grant at the level agreed between the Treasury and the Palace. We are told that in the current year, 2024-25, the sovereign grant will stay at around £86 million, but in 2025-26 it will rise to £130 million, causing howls of protest and stupid headlines in papers about a 50% pay rise for the King, or showering money on the Royal Family—as in the Sunday Times. It makes no sense to boost the sovereign grant beyond what is needed.
Will the Minister, who is smart enough to see through all this nonsense, tell us whether the percentage will be reduced again to get the sovereign grant down to an appropriate level, or whether any surplus overexpenditure—any unspent monies—will be banked in a reserve and taken into account in the next settlement period?
How did this all come about? I suspect that it was a too-clever-by-half ruse by the Chancellor of the time—you can work out who that was—to pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament and the public by implying that the monarchy was meeting its own operating costs from its own resources rather than drawing on taxpayer funds from the Exchequer.
The net revenues have not accrued to the monarch since 1760 when a hard-up Monarch—I suppose that was George III—gave up the hereditary revenues in return for a guaranteed annual payment. That was the Civil List, which has morphed over time into the sovereign grant. In its annual report and accounts, the Crown Estate records the £1.1 billion net revenue as paid to the Treasury
“for the benefit of the nation”.
There is no mention of any link with the sovereign grant. In other words, it is perfectly capable of distinguishing between the reality and the spin. It would be much more honest to make a clear separation between the two and settle the sovereign grant at whatever level is required, not on whatever net revenues the Crown Estate adventitiously manages to generate.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and the opportunity that it gives for the Crown Estate to make a greater contribution to net zero, but the Crown Estate is a big thing—it has 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 kilometres of coast and a seabed area that is bigger than the combined landmass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the third biggest landowner in the UK, yet I bet that the vast majority of people in this country have only a very woolly concept of what the Crown Estate does. It keeps its light well hidden under a bushel, which I suspect is a tactic.
We need to recognise that the Crown Estate owns more land than the entire landmass of Luxembourg, and it is particularly important land, because it is marine land, which is clearly hugely important for net zero; it is coastal land—likewise; and it is urban land. So the Crown Estate has even more opportunities to do good for the nation in a multifactorial way than the Bill outlines, and I would like to ask the Minister for further commitments from the Crown Estate in return for these new powers.
I am sure that others will dwell on a number of issues connected with the core purpose of the Bill, particularly how the relationship between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will deliver the pace and extent of offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and other net-zero developments that we need to achieve our net-zero targets.
The one I would like to focus on in this area is joining up to the grid. The process of revamping the grid in this country and changing the way in which join-up to the grid happens needs to be fundamentally reformed to become much more agile. It continues to drag behind the pace we need in order to meet the net-zero commitments and to develop a new, more distributed system to join up with the renewables pattern that we are seeing emerging. We cannot be behind the pace on that particularly important item.
We also need to understand how the new powers that the Crown Estate will have will increase investment, not just in seabed leasing partnerships, which have been its stock in trade primarily in the marine area so far, but in technological development, innovation, port development and the development of provisioning systems. Can the Government give us some assurances on all those things and on how the Crown Estate will use its improved investment powers to take them forward?
I shall also focus on beyond the net-zero objectives of the Bill, because the Crown Estate has other strategic objectives. One is the promotion of the natural environment and biodiversity, and one is about communities and urban centres. The Crown Estate briefing on this Bill says that it will unblock investments for nature recovery across its portfolio as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but the Bill and the Explanatory Notes are remarkably silent on how investment for nature recovery will be unblocked. Can the Minister fill us in on this and on how it will happen? The Crown Estate, as a major landowner, would be a hugely powerful player in biodiversity recovery.
Associated with that, and connected to it, is the role that the Crown Estate is playing in the development of the strategic spatial energy plan. Noble Lords who have heard me bang on about a land use framework will recognise that I am just about to bang on about a land use framework. That strategic spatial energy plan needs to be nested in an overarching land use framework that will allow energy needs for land to be considered alongside the multitude of other land use needs and requirements, such as housing and development, biodiversity, food resilience, flood risk management, other climate change and adaptation needs, timber, trees, green space infrastructure, to name but a few.
The Conservative Government endlessly promised a land use framework but failed to deliver it. The new Government have also committed to such a framework, and I am very grateful for that, but I received an Answer to a Written Question during the Summer Recess that rather disappointed me, and I had no Minister to be able to rant to immediately, because it was very non-specific on dates and seemed to focus primarily on land use issues as defined by Defra and a few CLG issues rather than including energy, transport and other infrastructure needs for land.
Can the Minister tell the House when we might expect the much awaited land use framework, how the Crown Estate and its enhanced powers will be a key player in delivering a land use framework, and how the Government’s very welcome commitment to join up policy across government departments will work in this particular area of land use to ensure that we see the needs of all factors in UK public life across all departments in a multifunctional way brought together in a land use framework?
A further principal strategic objective of the Crown Estate is the promotion of communities and urban centres. The Crown Estate is a major urban landowner, as I said. Can the Minister tell the House what requirements will be laid upon the Crown Estate to use its assets of land, buildings and powers, both old and new, to ensure that it helps the nation to turn the corner in delivering not just houses to pace but the right sort of houses? The current speculative developer-dominated system in this country is broken. We do not build enough genuinely affordable houses with a range of tenures. Instead, volume housebuilders wriggle out of commitments to deliver affordable houses using the viability challenge.
The houses we now build in this country are the smallest and meanest in Europe—that has happened over the last 15 years—and they have inadequate environmental standards. Can the Minister assure us that the Crown Estate will be required to play a key role in promoting housing management and building that is affordable, well designed and environmentally progressive, rather than expensive, spatially inadequate and environmentally lacking? I was encouraged by the noble Lord’s mention of the work already done by the Crown Estate to make its own estate more environmentally sound and appropriate for future needs. We want to see more of that, both in the Crown Estate’s existing estate and in the future development that the Bill will enable it to undertake.
I will make one last point. The Crown Estate is a key player in climate change mitigation but, as a major landowner and property owner, it also has a great opportunity to promote a better way forward in adaptation to the very real impacts of climate change that we are already seeing. I am talking about increased flooding and heatwaves—especially urban heat—as well as challenges to water supply and quality, and increased storminess.
The Crown Estate is a major property owner and developer. It can do much to make land and property more resilient in the face of climate change challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who is chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, has reported very critically in successive reports on the lack of progress being made across the board in improving the resilience of this country in the face of climate change impacts. The time has now come to start taking seriously this Cinderella/poor relation on the climate change spectrum. We are simply not making progress on adaptation and we need to do so because the effects are not something that will happen in the future; they are happening now. It is only a matter of time before we will see a serious flood risk incident where lives will be lost—and we will have been asleep at the wheel.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that the Crown Estate will step up to the mark and drive forward the big difference it can make, in its roles, to climate resilience in the UK? The Minister very kindly had a conversation with me and other noble Lords. I am sure he will say that this is a modest Bill but, in reality, the Crown Estate is a big opportunity and I hope that we will hear big assurances from the Minister today.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who obviously knows a great deal about this area. Her concerns should be taken very seriously.
I declare my interests as set out in the register. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I chair a charity, namely International Students House, whose landlord is the Crown Estate and has been for some considerable time.
I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the purposes of this legislation. As we have been hearing, the legislation itself is generally non-controversial; it is the broader canvass against which it is set where questions will arise. Indeed, the last Conservative Government announced plans in 2023 to legislate in this general area in much the same way. It is worth noting that the Crown Estate has itself welcomed the legislation, as do I.
The mainspring of the legislation is to unlock investment in infrastructure to the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom, doing valuable work on net zero, which I support passionately and wholeheartedly, although some questions do arise. The Minister quite rightly said that certain actions that this legislation will permit—he indicated possible examples such as investing in the infrastructure of a port, facilitating the development of the seabed, investing in digital mapping of the seabed and carrying on commercial activities on land owned by the Crown—are to be welcomed. Indeed, it was arguably already implicit in the Crown Estate Act 1961 that those activities should happen. What is new is the express power to borrow money.
The Minister indicated why a delay is going to be implicit in this. I think it says in the Explanatory Notes that the borrowing power will not be exercised immediately and he indicated there would be some delay towards the end of the decade. I do not know whether he is able to be more explicit on that. Given that this is a desirable power, and notwithstanding that there are some cash assets available, if it is desirable, it would be good to do it sooner rather than later.
The legislation sets out in Clause 3 that the Bill
“extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
It is worth noting, as others have done, that the Bill does not apply to the management of property of the Crown Estate that is managed by the Crown Estate Scotland under the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019. That is one aspect I wish to concentrate on, because it seems that an issue arises in relation to the Crown Estate in Wales. As I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate, I am keen that Wales gets a fair deal. I would be interested in understanding from the Minister why it is the view that Wales should not have similar treatment to Scotland.
This is particularly relevant given that any profits made from the Crown Estate Scotland go into the Scottish Consolidated Fund; they do not of course go to the monarch and do not go to the Treasury—or not directly. It would be interesting to hear why that approach is not applied in relation to the devolved Government in Wales and I look forward to hearing on that.
The portfolio of property owned by the Crown Estate comprises, as we have heard, property that ranges from pretty much the whole of Regent Street and much of St James’s to 10,000 hectares of forestry and 160,000 hectares of arable and livestock land. But most significant for our purposes is the area of shore between high and low tide and, particularly, the UK seabed. The management of that is really at the heart of this legislation, although, as has been noted by others, it is coupled with another piece of legislation which we need to touch on and examine to some extent: that relates, of course, to Great British Energy.
The context of the Bill is that a partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore energy developments amounting to 20 to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind projects should reach the seabed lease stage by 2030. That is a great ambition and I certainly support it—it is admirable—but my prime concern, which has been raised by others, is in relation to the capacity of the grid. It seems that the grid is not able to handle that without massive extra investment. This appears to be urgent, so what is the Government’s thinking on this?
The new scheduled division of the Crown Estate, to be called Great British Energy: the Crown Estate, will have the potential to deliver these new projects which I have mentioned. Great British Energy is also to be based in Scotland; Scotland seems to be doing rather well out of all this and I hope that Wales can do similarly. In addition to government borrowings, there are hopes of accessing private finance. What level of private finance are we hoping to leverage here? As I say, I support this very much, but it is important that we know the parameters here. What are we looking at and what sort of commitment are we making? I also entirely support the reduction in the time needed to get these wind projects operating, but how is this streamlined planning to be achieved? Again, what is the cost to the public purse of that? I support it, but we need to know how much it is costing.
I would certainly like to hear from the Minister in relation to capital finance and on the issue relating to devolution and Wales. I will also associate myself, if I may, with what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said about bona vacantia. Here is another issue that is not mentioned by the legislation but is very relevant while we are looking at the powers of the Crown. Of course, this is not the Crown in any personal sense but it raises the issue of why any body—any institution within the United Kingdom—should be subject to different rules. This vital issue of the rights of and undertakings given to leaseholders, and of bona vacantia, needs looking at in that context. With those concerns, I certainly otherwise support this legislation wholeheartedly and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and I agree with him that we must certainly consider the broad canvas against which this Bill comes before us. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in offering meetings last week to discuss the content of the Bill. I was not able to take advantage because of family commitments, as is obviously a problem at holiday time, but I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes was able to go along. We both hope to play a role in further discussion of the Bill at its later stages.
I am glad that the Government are bringing forward a Crown Estate Bill, but I am less happy about its content—or, rather, what is missing from it. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, touched on this, certainly as far as Wales is concerned. I note that the Crown Estate’s assets in Wales extend to 65% of the Welsh foreshore and tidal riverbeds, including the key port of Milford Haven, a number of marinas, 50,000 acres of common land and tidal streams such as Bardsey Sound and Ramsey Sound.
I should mention that my Private Member’s Bill, the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill, is awaiting presentation. I had resolved to put it forward several months ago. That was before I knew that there would be a new Government and that they were also minded to legislate on these matters, but that is something for another day.
I have listened carefully to the case that has been made for the government Bill, both in what it contains and in the rationale presented to the House by the Minister opening this debate. I will address what I regard as a missed opportunity in not proposing in this Bill matters that Senedd Members of all parties in Cardiff have demanded be devolved—in particular, provisions that members of the Labour Government in the Senedd have supported. This Bill has a broad Long Title:
“A Bill to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961”.
As such, it could act as a vehicle to meet those concerns. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the concerns felt in the Senedd.
My own detailed proposals, provided for by my Private Member’s Bill, are a matter for another day, but certain aspects of them may arise at later stages on this Bill. First, there is the generality of the provisions of the Bill before us. It has been presented on the basis that there is a need to modify existing legislation to improve the effectiveness and contribution of the Crown Estate. I note in particular the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in relation to leasehold property.
The briefing note supporting this Bill states that it will reform the management of the Crown Estate to enable its long-term strategy to support the nation. According to Clause 3, the Bill
“extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”,
but Crown Estate Scotland was devolved under the Scotland Act 2016 and nothing in the Bill amends that Act. Quite clearly, in the Government’s mind it is possible for Crown Estate Scotland to be a fully devolved function, while at the same time the Bill can extend to Scotland.
The briefing note published by the Crown Estate states that it occupies a space between public and private sectors, managing a diverse portfolio stretching across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to create lasting and shared prosperity across the nation. The map that appears on that briefing sheet shows an empty space as far as Scotland is concerned. Assuming that the Government do not intend to reverse the devolution of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament, presumably there is nothing incompatible between this Bill and its interpretation by the Crown Estate. That being so, can we take it that nothing intrinsic to the Bill militates against or prevents the devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Senedd?
I understand that the Westminster Labour Party has not yet made that concession to Wales, although it has support within the Welsh Labour Party, as I shall clarify in a moment. If, during this Parliament, the UK Government respond positively to requests from their colleagues in Wales for the devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Senedd, nothing in the Bill precludes that possibility. If that is so, it is all well and good and I do not demur from the general objectives of the Bill, although no doubt specific details will need to be addressed in Committee. Issues have already been highlighted by noble Lords, and no doubt others will emerge.
I turn now to the central issue, as far as I am concerned. It is of central importance to my party, Plaid Cymru, and it has been raised on many occasions in Wales over the past three decades. It is the fundamental issue that control of the Crown Estate in Wales should be in the hands of Senedd Cymru, and the financial benefits from it should aggregate to Senedd Cymru and the Welsh economy.
When the establishment of the National Assembly took place through the Government of Wales Act 1998, a considerable element in the momentum generated in support of that Act arose from a widespread perception that the resources of Wales—our coal, minerals and water resources—had historically been exploited for the benefit of others. I particularly note the drowning of the Tryweryn valley to enable Liverpool to profiteer by selling water on to industrial customers. That one Act—passed by Westminster in the face of the opposition of every Welsh MP bar one, who abstained—fired up the national movement that led to devolution.
Many people in Wales today see the insistence of politicians in Westminster that the Crown Estate in Wales remains under UK control as a re-run of the battles regarding water resources half a century ago. That is reflected in the debates in the Senedd. For example, in January 2022 the then Labour Climate Change Minister, Julie James, said of the Crown Estate that it is
“outrageous that it’s devolved to Scotland and not to us”.
Speaking in the Senedd last year, she said:
“It’s very clear from the latest annual report and accounts that the Crown Estate benefits significantly from its assets in Wales and our offshore waters. It’s also clear that the United Kingdom as a whole benefits from the income that is generated and the investment that the Crown Estate supports. But it is sadly not at all clear exactly how much Wales benefits from these incomes generated, and it’s our view that we need greater control of the Crown Estate in Wales to ensure that the scale of its activities generates much greater benefit to Wales and brings into much closer alignment the management of its assets and resources in Wales with our distinct Welsh policy”.
That was a Labour Minister in the Senedd in Cardiff. On that occasion, Labour supported Plaid Cymru’s Motion in the Senedd calling for the devolution of the Crown Estate and its assets in Wales.
In the Welsh Labour Government’s response in March this year to the recommendations of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, chaired by Archbishop Rowan Williams, they stated:
“Our longstanding position is that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales in line with the position in Scotland”.
That is the long-held view of the Labour Government in Cardiff.
In a Senedd debate, the Conservatives called on the Crown Estate to engage with the Welsh Government to deliver a hydrogen strategy for Wales, a Welsh national marine development plan, a blue carbon recovery plan for Wales and support for small-scale hydroelectric schemes in Wales.
The arguments for devolving Crown estates in Wales are not restricted to financial considerations but are directly relevant to the Senedd’s environmental responsibilities. In particular, there is significant further potential off the Welsh coastline to develop floating offshore wind generation of electricity, with associated on-land job opportunities that could be so valuable to the Welsh economy. This is a key dimension in Wales’s green strategy, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes may well expand on this. In fact, there is near unanimity in the Senedd that the revenues from the Crown Estate in Wales should be directed to meet the social, economic and environmental strategies supported by parties across Wales—although there are of course differing views on the mechanics by which that should be achieved.
The reluctance of the UK Labour leadership to give any commitment to Wales in these matters during the recent general election was a cause of considerable embarrassment to the Welsh Labour Government and to their Senedd members. In 2022-23, the net profits generated by the Crown Estate from its overall activities amounted to over £440 million, some of which emanates from activities in Wales. Not a single penny stays in Wales. This is not an enormous sum, but the scope for developing economic benefit from these assets is huge. The Welsh Government want to maximize the benefit for Wales from our natural assets. To keep a stranglehold over them in the hands of the Crown is little short of exploitation, and the economic exploitation of our country carries a certain resonance in Wales. To avoid such unnecessary bitterness and hostility, as well as for better co-ordination of public policy, control over the Crown Estate in Wales should be in the hands of the Senedd, as it is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament for activities in Scotland—a step that was supported at the time by the Labour Party.
These considerations will become increasingly important. There are currently three offshore wind farms in the Welsh sector of the Irish Sea, and two more are being developed in the same area off the northern Welsh coast, with the Crown Estate expecting to place a further four gigawatts by 2035, with an additional 20 gigawatt potential thereafter. In 2023, the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee, in its second report, Floating Offshore Wind in Wales—HC 1182—stated that
“floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea represents perhaps the single biggest investment opportunity for Wales in decades with the potential to create thousands of high-quality, long-term jobs”,
if government makes this a reality. However, it warned:
“Local supply chains did not benefit from the rollout of conventional, fixed-bottom offshore wind”,
and there have been numerous calls not to repeat this failure. That is where the role of the Welsh Government is absolutely essential.
Over the past two decades, the proportion of purchases made by government in Wales, from Wales-based suppliers, has grown from some 30% to over 50%, with a target of 70%. This means supporting more local jobs and helping local economic survival. When such matters are managed from outside Wales, we invariably see contracts being placed with suppliers outside Wales. Clearly, there has to be value for money and proper maintenance of standards, but the Senedd is quite capable of doing this. When such matters are devolved, the interests of the Welsh economy are foremost. That is why there is now a cross-party demand that these responsibilities are devolved. Please will the new Government show that they have faith in the Senedd, and in the Welsh Labour Government, and move forward with devolving the Crown Estate for this very purpose?
I ask the salient question: why was it deemed appropriate to devolve responsibility for the Crown Estate in Scotland by way of the Scotland Act 2016—an Act that had been fully supported by Labour Members in both Houses—yet it is deemed inappropriate to devolve to Wales similar responsibilities? I shall be grateful if the Minister, in responding, will address this aspect and, at the very least, undertake to discuss these issues with Eluned Morgan—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and her colleagues in Cardiff.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I share many of his values, but it is too dangerous and difficult for me to get into the questions of devolution that he raises. I wish him the best of luck.
When I first looked at this Bill, I thought that it was rather a minor and technical Bill, and was not really worth speaking on, if you see what I mean. What excited me to make me think that this was an important Bill was the announcement, in July, of the partnership between the Crown Estate and our newly established Great British Energy. I was a little disappointed that in my noble friend’s excellent introduction to the Bill he did not focus on that more. It seems to me that the change in borrowing powers and the requirement that the Crown Estate takes a more proactive role, particularly in our struggle to reach net-zero electricity generation, are the really interesting aspects of this legislation, along with what the extra borrowing power that the Crown Estate will have will mean in practice.
Given that this partnership with Great British Energy has been announced with such fanfare, it has to be said, with objectives to invest in ports and new technologies, and to take a more proactive, leading role in the development of the seabed and of wind and offshore wind, why is it that we are not proposing to borrow any more until the end of the decade? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction there: if we want to reach the 2030 goal then we are going to have to do something about it, not in five years’ time but now. I will be very interested in my noble friend’s response on that point.
If the Crown Estate is to take on these new responsibilities, there will have to be a change of culture. My father-in-law was a Crown Estate commissioner, and it is fair to say that it was a very conservative—with a small “c”—institution, extremely cautious in everything that it did. If it is going to do the things that were announced in the partnership with GBE in July, it will have to have a complete change of culture and become a more enterprising institution. Is that what is envisaged?
It is interesting that provision is made in the Bill for an additional four Crown Estate commissioners—presumably, this is to bring in the kind of expertise that the Crown Estate presently has. That is essential, particularly to bring people in from the private sector. In effect, if the ambitions of this partnership are right, we are talking about the Crown Estate becoming part of what will be a risk-taking investment business—and that requires expertise.
A lot of people think that investment in wind is a no-brainer, but tell that to the Siemens board, which at the moment is struggling with having to make billions of pounds of provision for the fact that its turbines have been shown to have major flaws. This job has to be extremely well done, by private sector people working with the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, and that means recruiting people who are able and not constrained by public sector salary constraints. Is this what is planned, or are we getting carried away with an excess of ambition about what might happen? I do not know; it is very difficult to tell.
Other noble Lords have mentioned that one of the constraints on the Crown Estate becoming a developer of offshore wind is the lack of grid connection. Something is actually being done about that. I was very interested that Ed Miliband, as the Secretary of State, has asked the National Energy System Operator—one of the good things that the Conservative Government did was to bring that into public ownership, so it is now a public body—what is needed to deal with the problems of grid constraints. Where does this Crown Estate partnership fit into that?
I also noted what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about offshore developments in the Celtic Sea off the coasts of Wales and the south-west. When I was on the European Affairs Committee and we were looking at the role of co-operation between the UK and our continental friends, one of the great opportunities was in the North Sea—on the other side of our country. The concept of wind power linked to interconnectors that go across the North Sea is very attractive because if too much electricity is generated by wind on one side of the North Sea, it can be sold in markets on the other side and vice versa. Is this prospect being seriously examined? What would be the role of this partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy?
I am an optimist about this. I want to think that we will be bold and get something done on our net-zero target by 2030. I hope that, in its minor way, this Bill might make a significant contribution.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, it should be a matter of concern that the Crown Estate, an entity with which the sovereign has such a close association, should be used for political purposes, however good and noble the intention may be. The Crown is apolitical and the Crown Estate must surely come under this umbrella. To not only use existing resources but to arrange to borrow to further a political ambition only compounds the error of judgment. It is out of order and, in my view, unconstitutional. This is not a criticism of the Government’s wish to have more wind farms and to generate more clean energy; it is a strong criticism of breaking convention and risking politicising the Crown.
I am sure that the thought has not crossed the present Government’s mind but if a Government of the day wished to conceal their level of spending, they could, under the proposed arrangements, lend to the Crown Estate, call the loan an asset and ask the Crown Estate to do the spending on their behalf. Doing so would allow them to camouflage spending by calling it a capital asset.
Over the past few years, commerce has been littered with large, prosperous companies which increased borrowings to modernise—and then failed. A notable example is the General Electric Company—GEC. When its long-standing managing director, Lord Weinstock, retired, it had £4 billion in cash. Lord Simpson took over, modernised and reviewed the whole company and within two years had managed to bankrupt it. When I read in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill:
“The intention behind the power to borrow is to enable The Crown Estate to invest to maintain and modernise its Estate to ensure it can continue to operate successfully in the modern commercial environment”,
I take a deep breath.
I thought the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the difference in expertise between the people currently running the Crown Estate and the expertise required to make money commercially were very relevant.
Why is it necessary for an organisation as prosperous as the Crown Estate to borrow in order to continue to operate successfully in the modern commercial environment when it already does so? There is no reason. Its continued success is more secure if it has no such borrowings.
If owned assets are to be developed, the existing income for the Crown Estate, together with cash from the proposed commercial operator, should provide adequate resources. If it is not a project for which a partner can be found, it is questionable whether the Crown Estate should be going ahead, both in the future and today; we should bear in mind the extent of government money being pumped into energy through Great British Energy. While it is true that borrowings can enhance success, they can also sink companies. The track record of Governments, regardless of political persuasion, in choosing winners does not provide any reassurance.
If the Crown Estate really does have a genuine need to borrow to upgrade its facilities, there must be, as there is in virtually all enterprises, a limit on borrowing. This can be expressed in various ways, but I would suggest to the Minister that a limit could be set as a percentage of capital reserves; for example, 10% would allow £1.5 million of borrowings.
It could be argued that as the Crown Estate would be borrowing from the Treasury, there would be no need for a limit on borrowing because the Treasury could impose the necessary discipline. However, I refer your Lordships to the point I made earlier: lending to the Crown Estate could be used to conceal government spending. A limit on borrowing would significantly reduce the risk of abuse.
To summarise, there are three strong reasons why the Bill is unsatisfactory. The first and most important is that the Crown, even at one remove, should not be associated with a political act or ambition. The second is the potential abuse of the proposed borrowing facility in allowing the Government to disguise current spending as a capital asset. The third is that unlimited borrowings can be just as harmful as beneficial and there should be some control over this.
I hope the Minister has considered fully the ramifications of this legislation in its present form, and will address the concerns I have raised.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and as a director of the associated company. I, like others, congratulate the Minister both on his appointment and the clarity with which he introduced the Bill. I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Bill with him last week.
Tempting though it is, I will not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, with which I did not agree. I look forward to the Minister taking on that challenge. I will—as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, predicted—address my remarks to the environmental, energy and biodiversity aspects of the Bill. I believe it is an important step on the road of turning aspirations in this area into delivery, and it is delivery we are going to need in the years taking us up to 2030 and beyond.
Despite that focus, I was extremely interested in the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on governance, and by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, on the basis of the sovereign grant. I look forward both to the Minister’s response and, perhaps, to discussing those issues in Committee.
The King’s Speech briefing promised:
“This Bill will modernise The Crown Estate by removing outdated restrictions on its activities, widening its investment powers and giving it the powers to borrow in order to invest at a faster pace”.
Alongside that, the Crown Estate’s own strategic objectives make clear its mission of
“supporting the UK towards a net zero carbon and energy-secure future”
and
“stewarding the UK’s natural environment and biodiversity”.
So this Bill gives us the opportunity to look at the reforms in the context of the UK’s progress towards net zero and the part that the Crown Estate can play in helping with the delivery of the Government’s wider net-zero policies and aspirations—which are clearly already the aspirations and policies of the commissioners themselves.
If we are to achieve those aspirations, as has been said many times, we need to have cross-cutting measures that span and interconnect a wide variety of sectors and bodies that need to work positively together to achieve our statutory obligations and the progress that we want to see. There is a complicated jigsaw to put together here, and the Crown Estate is a critical and important part of that wider net-zero jigsaw.
As others have said, the Crown Estate is also an organisation that makes a not insignificant contribution to the government purse and whose investment firepower has the potential to make a difference in tackling the dual climate and nature crisis, which the Government have recognised as
“the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”.
To rise to that challenge, we need not only to integrate the work of all government departments—which, frankly, is difficult enough in itself—but to recognise the potential contributions and responsibilities of all UK organisations with a public role and that discharge important public responsibilities, which clearly includes the Crown Estate. I hope that in Committee we can explore how we can combine the rightly valued independence of the Crown Estate and its commissioners with ensuring that the legislative proposals contained in the Bill contribute to what the Crown Estate itself acknowledges is at the core of its strategic activities. It underlines the need
“to make a positive impact for net zero, nature and communities while creating financial value for the UK”.
Both the Crown Estate and the Government are clearly on the same page on this, yet the fundamental duties of the Crown Estate have not been updated over the last 60 years. I hope that there will be opportunity to discuss how we can acknowledge the shared understanding that we need not only to drive up renewable power generation but to better mitigate and adapt to climate change while creating space for nature-based solutions and natural capital. Those points have already been clearly made.
As a number of others have also made clear, the new borrowing and investing powers that the Bill gives to the Crown Estate clearly have the potential to contribute to the delivery of a low-cost, secure and flexible renewables-led energy system. However, it is important also to recognise, as the Climate Change Committee has said, that there are advantages to protecting the UK’s marine and coastal environments, given that they
“represent potentially very large natural carbon stores and may provide extremely efficient carbon removal”.
If we are imaginative and committed, we can ensure that the aims of generating renewable energy can go hand in hand with other aims, particularly in respect of our responsibilities to the natural environment and nature-based solutions for both the seabed and land. With a joined-up strategic approach, there are major opportunities for achieving both.
However, there will inevitably be times when these priorities may be perceived to be in competition with one another and times when it will then be important that we make decisions, and that we do so in a transparent way. This need not impinge in any way on the independence of the commissioners’ decision-making. Indeed, the provisions on the Crown Estate’s independence, set out in the 1961 Act, are extremely robust and will remain in place. Rather, it is a clearer and better articulation of what value and good management mean in the long term.
We are now getting to the stage where the detail of how we deliver the transition to clean energy really matters, and the Bill is a positive opportunity to link how the Crown Estate will achieve both delivering more renewable energy and infrastructure, while at the same time navigating the best ways to protect and enhance our natural environment. Drawing these different aspects together clearly in the context of the Bill would ensure transparency to the Government, the public, developers and wider stakeholders around how different considerations are being factored into decisions when the inevitable arguments arise about, for example, where to site projects, the need to preserve views of the countryside and to protect wildlife species, and how to balance those views against the opportunities for more clean energy, job creation and green growth—and, of course, the ever-present need to provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Both our nature and our energy aspirations need to be in the context of other broader issues: most obviously, as has been described by others, the interface and interaction with the urgent work on upgrading the transmission grid and securing our skills pipeline, so that the 20 gigawatts to 30 gigawatts of offshore wind the Crown Estate believes it can unlock is connected up to the places it needs to power.
So, I am afraid that it is not a simple jigsaw puzzle to fit together. However, the Bill gives us a chance to review the Crown Estate’s role in the context of not only enabling more offshore wind as an end in itself but rather as part of the whole landscape of net zero and environmental solutions that we will need to deliver in order to achieve our own environmental and climate targets and to lead from the front on the global challenges we face.
We are taking important and necessary steps with the Bill but we could make a major leap forward if we commit and understand that contributing towards the delivery of climate and environment targets is secured within the remit of all our institutions with a public function, and especially those with substantial investment muscle to generate public value, and that includes the Crown Estate.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Aldustria Ltd, a very modest battery storage company which is plugging into the grid, as that is around a grid connection as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, some good work got done over the last year, in terms of not just grid connections but setting up the National Energy System Operator; it might be publicly owned, but I think National Grid still has responsibility for it. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about when the national energy system operator will operate from; it was due to be this summer, but I do not think it is quite going yet.
I thank the Minister for his time talking about the Bill at the end of last week. I think I welcome the Bill. I absolutely welcomed it to begin with but, as with all Bills, the more you get into it, the more you understand its limitations and perhaps some of the questions that arise.
The first subject I want to talk about is geography. I am afraid that I am going to talk about not Wales—I will come to Wales later, maybe—and not even Cornwall, but Scotland. It seems slightly strange that quite a large proportion of future offshore wind, which a lot of the Bill is about, is going to be in Scottish waters, and, as I understand it, GB Energy is going to be a Scottish company not an English one. There seems to me a disjointedness about the Bill ignoring Scotland—although it says that it includes Scotland, but not the Scottish Crown Estate—and the fact that GB Energy and a lot of future development will be north of the border.
My question to the Minister is: what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government about extending the same freedoms to the Scottish Crown Estate? I specifically ask whether the option of using a legislative Consent Motion to allow amendments to the Bill to deliver that parity of treatment have been considered. Something like that seems necessary to bring the aspiration, which I think we all welcome, about offshore wind and its contribution to the renewable energy targets into the future—and by 2030 in particular.
The other area I want to talk about is the financial side—with some trepidation, as I am sure that my noble friend Lady Kramer will probably put me right after this debate. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard: the reality is that the Crown Estate is just a wholly owned subsidiary of the Treasury. It is nothing to do with the Crown. Even the proportion that then goes to the Royal Family to do what it needs to can be altered each year—the percentage does not always stay the same. It is an animal of the Treasury, and we should see it as that.
One of the questions that struck me when going through the Bill about re-energising investment through the Crown Estate is that the money it spends, whether investment or current expenditure, is part of the public sector borrowing requirement, so what is the need to do this? Anything the Crown Estate needs to do, you might as well do through a government department anyway. It does not seem to me to make any difference so far as public expenditure.
There is, then, an issue—it comes back to some of the things that other noble Lords have spoken about—about transparency. The Crown Estate is not as transparent as many government departments, even the Treasury itself. Does this in itself become an issue? On finance, even on investment, as we have seen over the last one or two years, the amount that the Crown Estate can retain has been changed, for the capital account, from 9% to 27% to get around existing issues. Why cannot we just do that in future, so that the Crown Estate can benefit from its own cash flow, in terms of the capital account? In some ways, this seems to be complicated financial engineering that may not be necessary, but that is not a fundamental point.
The responsibilities of the Crown Estate—the Minister talked about them—are set out very well in its annual report, around net zero, natural resources and community. Perhaps we could look at some of those. On net zero, I really welcome the Government’s aspiration to bring forward investment, particularly in offshore wind, by preparing the case—environmental studies and all the rest of it that needs to be done beforehand. I was going to say that the Government will make it “oven-ready”, but that is rather a discredited phrase these days. Other European nations have done that. It must take a lot of effort, risk and timescale out of actually delivering those projects, so I very much welcome that.
I also welcome what is I think an aspiration—the Minister can put me right if not—around making licensing and obtaining the finance, bringing together the Crown Estate and the Low Carbon Contracts Company. Perhaps the Government can say whether that is one of their aspirations.
I welcome that ports in the supply chain will be invested in. However, much of the development will be in the other area which we were talking about, the Celtic Sea and the west coast. In the North Sea, a key issue has developed over time: a spaghetti of underwater cables. The EU is trying—we have now been included in the conversation—to make a grid and interconnectors, as has been mentioned already in this debate. It is incredibly important that we do not replicate that in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea. We should co-operate very strongly with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that is not the case. What has been forgotten—I almost expected the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to bring it up—is that the Crown Estate has a lot of terrestrial resources. Therefore, is it going to promote onshore wind as well, now that the Government, quite rightly, are liberating the planning conditions for onshore wind?
I will move on briefly to natural resources and biodiversity, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young of Old Scone. In Cornwall at the moment, there are a large number of applications for seaweed farms. This is part of the Crown Estate trying to be more commercial, yet I do not believe that it is doing that within a context of understanding the ecology of the territorial waters or any of that side. It concerns me that it needs to understand the biodiversity issues around some of the commercialisations that it is looking at. More importantly, perhaps, it always strikes me that, as we know, the Crown Estate owns the territorial waters out to 12 miles. It has a slightly different relationship in our EEZ beyond that.
The 1961 Act imposes that the Crown Estate should maintain the value and condition of its investments. What it has never done, as I understand it, is intervene regarding fishing techniques such as bottom trawling or scallop dredging. It has the ability—that is its property—of pushing forward those vital marine and oceanic conditions where we keep biodiversity. Also, on net zero, whether it is seagrass, maerl or other forms of seabed vegetation, it is not a proper custodian of those resources. Only some 2% of marine protected areas are protected in terms of bottom trawling. That is absolutely not right on biodiversity and our net-zero gains.
Lastly, on community, all I will say follows the debate that we have had on Wales. Where there is offshore development—for example, the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea—why is there not the equivalent, as there was in Shetland, of a regional wealth fund or a feeding back from those developments to regional communities? That is one of the things that I think will be demanded of this expansion of energy that we require. Through all this, we can have a better ecology, we can get closer to net zero and we can have a community that comes along with this legislation.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the constructive manner in which he has approached initial proceedings, including the offer of meetings last week to discuss the Bill. In my contribution today, I will view the Bill from the perspective of its implications for Wales. I have listened carefully to Members from across your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing from more Members.
I will first add comment to some of the contributions heard so far. My noble friend Lord Wigley raised important questions on learnings from the Scotland Act 2016 and the great opportunities in Wales to expand green energy through local supply chains. I look forward to his Private Member’s Bill shortly.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed for the exploration of devolving powers over the Crown Estate to Wales, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, questioned whether Wales is getting a fair deal. I share their interest on that matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also raised important questions in relation to the role that the use of the Crown Estate plays in contributing towards our net-zero goals. I look forward to hearing more in future debates.
I want to address the way in which this legislation does not deliver fairness for Wales, and I will begin by outlining four issues. First, rising Crown Estate profits will not be retained in Wales. The Crown Estate in Wales is seeing rising profits as the demand for renewable energy projects increases. The Bill as it stands will not ensure that these profits are retained for the public purse in Wales; rather, they will go directly to the Treasury and contributing to the sovereign grant. This contrasts with the situation in Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved and profit is transferred to the Scottish Government.
Secondly, the proposed changes to the Crown Estate board do not include Welsh representation. The Bill proposes to expand the number of Crown Estate commissioners, yet there is no requirement for a certain number of these to represent Wales. Expanding the membership and changing the way their salaries are paid does not address the fact that membership of the Crown Estate board is largely outside democratic control, as it is the monarch, not Parliament, who appoints the commissioners who make investment and borrowing decisions.
Thirdly, expanding investment and borrowing powers for the Crown Estate may undermine the Welsh Government. The Bill proposes to expand the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate, seemingly without any cap or limits on the amount that can be borrowed with the consent of the Treasury. I agree with the calls from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to have sight of the draft framework from the Treasury. Meanwhile, the Welsh Government have a cap on their borrowing powers under the Welsh fiscal framework. As the Crown Estate is being vested with new borrowing powers to perform duties such as investment in ports and the seabed, there is a risk that this may undermine the Welsh Government’s ability to shape economic development in Wales, particularly given their limited borrowing powers.
There are a number of areas where the Welsh Government may overlap with the Crown Estate’s responsibility for conducting early development for offshore wind, such as the Welsh national marine plan, devolved responsibility over Welsh ports and responsibility for education in Wales, including skills and apprenticeships, which may form part of the supply chain for offshore wind developments.
Finally, the Bill does not make provisions to promote the economic or social well-being of Wales. It does not put any conditions on the investments that the Crown Estate will make. There is no guarantee that Welsh supply chains will feel the maximum benefit from the investments made or that these investments will promote the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and other Welsh policy aims. The Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 legislated to ensure that management of the Scottish Crown Estate assets must be done such that it is likely to contribute to the
“economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing”
of Scotland. There may be a missed opportunity in this Bill to apply similar duties to the borrowing and investment powers of the Crown Estate. It may also be argued that the Bill’s proposals to require commissioners to be paid out of the profits of the Crown Estate, instead of a salary agreed by Parliament, creates a profit motive that risks superseding other goals, such as environmental and well-being ones.
I hope your Lordships’ House will consider those four points when we proceed to Committee on the Bill.
I now turn back to my first point regarding profits not being retained in Wales. As your Lordships’ House knows, the devolution settlements in Wales and Scotland differ on the Crown Estate, as has been outlined by my noble friend Lord Wigley.
I ask the House to consider whether that is fair for Wales. The Crown Estate’s assets in Wales were valued at more than £850 million in 2023, yet all profits go directly to the UK Treasury. I grew up on the coastline of north Wales, near wealthy seabeds where poverty is rife and families continue to struggle to make ends meet.
In Scotland, the Crown Estate assets were valued at over £650 million, and the profits go to the Scottish Government. According to its latest annual report at the end of 2023, the Scottish Crown Estate had generated £103 million for the Scottish Government’s purse. A portion of net revenues generated from the Scottish Crown Estate’s marine assets are allocated to councils to support community benefit projects in their areas. In 2023-24, this amounted to £11.1 million. Higher amounts of this money were given to rural and relatively deprived areas in Scotland, such as £1.7 million to the Shetland Islands, £2.8 million to the Highlands and £1.5 million to Argyll and Bute. Imagine how such a funding structure could benefit communities in Wales.
In its entirety, the Crown Estate made a record £1.1 billion net revenue profit in 2023-24. That was £660 million higher than in 2022-23. I recently asked the Minister a Written Question on this topic, and the idea of devolving the Crown Estate to Wales was challenged. The Minister said:
“Introducing a new entity would fragment the market, complicate existing processes, and likely delay further development offshore, undermining investment in Welsh waters”.
I ask him to reflect on the success of this in Scotland. It is proof of concept that a devolved Crown Estate does not impede investment by fragmenting the market. The value of the Scottish estate has risen from £568 million to £653 million in the last year alone, through its various initiatives and investments.
I am speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru, but I know that many share this position to devolve the powers of the Crown Estate to Wales. Last year, YouGov found that 58% of people supported devolving the Crown Estate to Wales. There is also widespread political support from within Wales, as your Lordships have briefly heard about.
The organisations that support devolving the Crown Estate include the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, which said that the Crown Estate
“should become the responsibility of the devolved government of Wales, as it is in Scotland”.
The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales said:
“By 2030, The Crown Estate’s functions in Wales should be completely devolved to a new body that has as its principal aim the reinvestment of all funds in Wales for the long-term benefits of the people of Wales in the form of a Sovereign Wealth Fund”.
The Welsh Government said:
“Our longstanding position is that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales in line with the position in Scotland. We have been clear that the current devolution settlement for energy limits our ability to deliver policy in Wales in a way that reflects our policy priorities and the needs of future generations”.
The Bill before us fails to deliver fairness. Constitutionally, we should support Wales to be on an equal footing with Scotland, as there is currently asymmetry in powers between the two nations when it comes to managing their natural resources. We have the opportunity to right this wrong and deliver fairness to Wales. I hope that the House considers these issues ahead of Committee, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s initial response to them.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his introduction to this Bill. I congratulate him. He has a challenge. He said that the Bill will bring the Crown Estate into the 21st century; he has some way to go, as many of the speeches that noble Lords have made have shown, but it is a good start. My remarks will include comments about the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, because they all come under the Crown. I have a number of questions which I would be very grateful if my noble friend could answer at some stage, either tonight or later.
I suppose I start with geography. Many noble Lords have talked about the seabed, but where is the boundary between what is sea and what is land? Is it high water or low water? Other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned what you can do on those bits of water. I have one small example from the Helford river in Cornwall, where the Duchy of Cornwall, which claims to own it, introduced Japanese oysters, which had the rather stupid result not only of those oysters dying but of killing all the other native oysters on the river. One of my neighbours took the Duchy to court and said, “You haven’t done an environmental study on the effect that Japanese oysters might have on the other things in the water and everywhere else”. The secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall, who has now retired, made the classic remark to the tribunal, “To all intents and purposes, we believe that we are above the law”. I call that arrogant, and I shall come back to it later.
We had another problem with what the Crown Estate should, could or could not do in our discussions on the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, on 23 April. A number of noble Lords were not very happy that the Minister tried to allow offshore oil drilling to take place in marine protected areas—that is at col. 496. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is not in his place, basically said that drilling for oil was really much more important than the advice from the JNCC—the statutory committee from Defra—which said that we should not do it. I wonder how the Crown Estate and the Government would look on that in the future: is drilling for oil more important than protecting the marine environment? What criteria should one use?
We have not discussed so much the sideline of how much money the Royal Family gets from the Crown Estate to perform its duties. We have talked about percentages—15% for the King and an extra 10% for doing up Buckingham Palace—but then, of course, the Duchy of Lancaster also gives the Royal Family £20 million and the Duchy of Cornwall £24 million. I compare that—which I think comes to about £132 million and goes to keeping the Royal Family in the state that we presumably think is appropriate—with the equivalent £49 million for the Dutch royal family, and the same for the Norwegian royal family. Figures for other royal families go down from there. Who decides what the percentage should be or how it should be allocated? Should not Parliament decide?
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was very kind about a previous speech that I made about the problems of the freehold, which is next on my shopping list and still uncertain, because none of the Crown bodies has yet published how they intend to deal with the freeholds on properties that they own. It makes me wonder why it is that, hundreds of years after George III did a deal with the Treasury where he gave Crown land in return for a yearly stipend, the Duchy of Cornwall was not included in that. It must be the only organisation that receives a blank cheque without doing anything at all. I will not repeat what the noble Lord said, because we will probably have to discuss that on another occasion.
I cannot see how this behaviour justifies the sort of largesse that is given by the state—which is us—to its constitutional monarchy. The Crown is clearly not going to treat its tenants as other landlords have agreed to do by the passing of the Bill. It may publish its own rules on tenancy when it feels like it. It is uncertain whether the other landlords will behave in the same way, but I expect that the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Northumberland and all the other big landowners will comply, because that is what the law says. But there is no debate with the Duchy of Cornwall or the Crown Estate, and there is no appeal, and Ministers often seem frightened of engaging. On this side of the House, we are members of the Labour Party, and parliamentary democracy should mean that we take this very seriously and try to deal with it in a way that means everybody is treated equally.
I have some suggestions that could simplify things. I suspect they will be rejected by my noble friend, but it is worth outlining them because, at the end of today’s debate, many noble Lords will wonder, with so many things going on, what can be done—especially as we all want the Bill to go through.
One suggestion would be to incorporate the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster into the Crown Estate and remove all the exemptions; in other words, everybody would have to behave in the same way, with no special terms. The relationship between the Crown Estate, the Duchies, the Treasury and Parliament needs clarity, and the ability to debate, challenge and reach agreement. We cannot do that at the moment. The system is, frankly, medieval and feudal. Nobody dares to challenge the Duchy of Cornwall or the Crown Estate, but I think that we should.
My last suggestion is probably even more radical. I have listened to some wonderful speeches this afternoon. It would not take much to nationalise the Crown Estate or to include the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster in a nationalised body that owns the seabed and a few other things. Noble Lords will find that in many other countries the seabed is owned by the state. There is no reason why ours should not be. Parliament could allocate an annual grant to the King to cover all his royal expenses. It might stop us pussyfooting around. We do not want to upset anybody, but we want answers. I have a horrible feeling that Ministers may shy away from confronting what needs to be confronted. More power to my noble friend’s elbow if he takes this forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. As Mark Twain entreated:
“Buy land, they’re not making it any more”.
The Crown Estate has a diverse portfolio of land, shore and sea assets, which gives it a unique opportunity to play a role in our transition not just to green energy but to a new economy and a new future for the nation. I will focus my comments around economic, environmental and governance issues, and will deal with economic issues first.
I note the proposal for increased borrowing powers for the Crown Estate, but what limits are on this? It seems to me that if we want to enable the Crown Estate to be more connected to the country and to the communities that it ultimately serves, perhaps we should consider financial instruments, such as public bond issues, for people to participate directly in some of these proposed schemes. Similarly, does the legislation allow for joint ventures going far beyond just leases for the Crown Estate to play its part in a particular development? On land, if we look at some of the issues around the new technologies that we will need for our future economy and development, would the Crown Estate be allowed to, for example, exchange rent for equity shares?
One of the most promising opportunities, as mentioned by other noble Lords, is floating offshore. It is a nascent technology in which the United Kingdom could play a leading role. To that extent, are the proposals set out in the documentation realistic in suggesting five gigawatts by 2030? Is this a large enough stretch target in that it will largely be in this area where we really drive opportunities beyond the simple receipts we get from static platforms? This is where we can drive new technologies, IP, skills and employment far more than the existing offshore wind, which in many ways, from the United Kingdom’s perspective, has somewhat passed us by from a technology point of view.
What will be in place to speed up the timeline for developing these projects? Is it proposed that the CfD and seabed licences processes will be integrated, which would be a positive move? Can the Minister clarify that? Similarly, what work is being done to ensure that this will always be crowding in, rather than potentially crowding out, private sector investment?
Many noble Lords have rightly mentioned grid connectivity. It is vital, and more important than wind generation itself, because we must appreciate that not only is there no point in generating from wind if we cannot bring it on grid but worse than that is paying billions to generators not to produce, as is currently the case, and those billions currently go on to bill payers’ accounts. What is the plan to ensure that the grid will not lag but will be ahead to take on all this increased generation? Indeed, as noble Lords have commented, at certain points in the year we may well be able to export this wind capacity.
Moving on to environmental questions, does the Minister agree with noble Lords’ comments that the Crown Estate could do much more in terms of biodiversity and in taking steps to help with climate adaptation, such as sea-grasses, kelp and the amount of the estate that is currently not used for those measures? Does he agree that the Bill provides the opportunity to bring forward a prohibition on all sea-bottom trawling and other practices that are effectively damaging and destroying these vital assets?
Similarly, does the Minister agree that there is an opportunity for the Crown Estate, with its nature and its shoreline resources, to play a key role in helping mental well-being? The concepts of social prescribing and nature prescribing have already been rolled out in various parts of the country. It seems to me that the Crown Estate could play a lead role, perhaps partnering with NHS England and health organisations in the devolved nations, in bringing about such a positive element for the well-being of citizens right around the United Kingdom.
While we are on the United Kingdom and devolution, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Surely the Minister must accept that there is no logic or consistency and that the current Crown Estate situation in Scotland and Wales cannot continue. The Bill provides the opportunity to put the situation in Wales and Scotland on a similar footing for the benefit of the entire United Kingdom.
On the question of governance—as other noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have mentioned—does the Minister agree that what is currently set out in the Bill does not go far enough to enable the claim that this is bringing the Crown Estate into the 21st century? The Bill makes some good suggestions, but far more should and could be done. For example, how are we ensuring that these new Crown commissioner posts will really bring the full richness of inclusion and diversity that exists right across this country? Similarly, does the Minister agree that the opportunity exists to clarify a number of provisions in the 1961 Act that are not currently addressed in the Bill?
The Crown Estate has a unique place, as has been identified by speeches around the House, and it has a unique potential role to play in environmental security, economic security, technology and cybersecurity. Perhaps the greatest question we should focus on as we go into the latter stages of the Bill is to ensure that we realise all these benefits while having a laser focus, not least during this transition period, on who pays.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise, as I hope increasingly often to rise, to offer some kudos to the Government. We are seeing reflected in this Bill an increased ambition for offshore wind, and we are also seeing ambition for other renewables. That has to be applauded. Renewables are our energy future, together with energy conservation, on which I am afraid we have as yet seen sadly little ambition from the new Ministers. That does not mean that the Green group will not call out government actions when they need to be called out, so I have to note that while we are hearing about this admirable pursuit of renewables and the decarbonisation of our electricity supply, the Government have just given the go-ahead for the expansion of City Airport, which puts the interests of a small wealthy elite over the well-being of local people and the climate. It is a facility that operates planes flying on routes where rail is a very feasible alternative.
I also note that we are holding this debate in a setting where Ofgem has just raised the price cap for energy by 9.5%, just before the onset of winter, which is deeply worrying for people still strongly affected by the continuing cost of living crisis. The Government have said that establishing GB Energy will reduce bills in the future, but that aim will be achieved only if the Government invest in improving the energy efficiency of homes as well.
As a number of noble Lords have already said, this Bill is very closely linked to the creation of GB Energy, so it is unfortunate that we are not able to consider these two issues together. Your Lordships’ House will perhaps particularly understand the desire not to have Christmas tree Bills as we saw so often under the last Government, but we also need a joined-up legislative procedure.
As Greens, we would say that we need to see far more community-owned assets and schemes that genuinely benefit local people, rather than—often large, multinational—private companies seeking to use public funds, channelled through Great British Energy, to continue profiteering while the planet burns, and people’s bills remain too high. The very structure of the Crown Estate, which many noble Lords have already reflected on, is one of extreme centralisation and, as I will come back to later, extreme lack of transparency about its activities. It seems better aligned to work with giant multinational companies rather than a small, local community energy group, which might, want to develop run-of-stream local tidal energy schemes, for example.
I will reflect briefly on another couple of points that have also already been raised. For new offshore wind projects to be delivered, we need significant investment in grid capacity, yet that needs to be done with sensitivity to local environments and communities. Again, if that grid capacity is an issue for the Crown Estate, it seems ill-equipped to make good consultation and liaison with local communities.
I also want to raise an issue that no one has yet raised and which the Minister in his introduction did not raise either. We have seen in other references from the Government the suggestion that this Bill might allow for carbon capture and storage schemes offshore. I have to reflect, as I reflected to the previous Government, that this is an unproven, struggling technology. The claim that these will appear and work in the future must not be allowed to excuse the continued burning of fossil fuels.
I want, in particular, to bounce off the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is not currently in her place—while joining in a number of declarations for my membership of Peers for the Planet—that we need to see in this Bill a much stronger focus and push towards nature recovery, alongside the ability to invest in related technology, infrastructure and research, as part of the Crown Estate’s role. It is worth noting that the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 led the way on this with a duty to manage its assets to improve environmental well-being.
When we think about wildlife, the parlous state of our land is often the focus, but nature in and on the seas is struggling just as badly, if not even more so. I note that the RSPB last week, for example, highlighted a major decline of herring and other gulls. As elsewhere, nature is in a terrible state. I want to focus, as I do not think anyone yet has, on the issue of sea-grass, which is a potential major carbon store as well as being hugely significant for the life cycle of many marine species. The majority of UK sea-grass beds, an estimated 92%, have been lost or damaged in the past century. Worldwide, 35% have been lost in just the last 40 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised a point about the seaweed farms in Cornwall. Industrial monoculture is just as bad in the seas and on our shorelines as it is on our land. The Crown Estate in Scotland, in particular, has been the site of significant fish farming. This is factory farming which has major environmental impacts. It involves taking protein to be fed to carnivores, to produce a tiny fraction of that protein. There are problems with the spread of disease and antimicrobial resistance. How are we going to ensure that the Crown Estate, under this Bill, considers all these issues?
Looking specifically at Cornwall, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the issue of bottom trawling, which is a huge environmental issue. Just in July this year, the BBC reported that large new—that is newly known to us—beds of maerl, calcified seaweed, have been discovered off the Roseland Peninsula and St Austell Bay. Natural England said these were irreplaceable habitats within sight of the shore. A spokesperson also reflected that it is incredible that we still have such “completely undiscovered” sites. We have to ask what kind of job the Crown Estate is doing to safeguard its assets if we have only just discovered that that is there. We come back to the question in this Bill of investing in research. Perhaps we need to make sure there is investment in research so that we know what is there before we wreck it. That is surely an essential point.
I would appreciate a response from the Minister on another point: how will this Bill, or how will the Government, by guidance or other action to the Crown Estate, ensure that these new activities happening offshore are part of a just transition, assisting offshore workers in particular to move from high-emission sectors to those that contribute to tackling the climate emergency?
The next issue I want to raise has been extensively canvassed, so I will be very brief. I have noted that the loudest “Hear, hears” around your Lordships’ House have been on the issue of the devolution of the Crown Estate for Wales, so that Welsh people are given control over their own resources to be used for local benefit. Those arguments were powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, among others. This issue featured in the Green Party of Wales manifesto in the recent election and is an issue that I am pleased to say we will be supporting as strongly as possible. However, I note that, if that were to happen, as would appear to be the view of your Lordships’ House, it would only highlight the lack of democratic oversight that would remain in England.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the Crown Estate is a big thing, with enormous amounts of resources under the control of a sort of public, but mostly private, corporation—the control of a handful of individuals appointed by the Crown. Like many others, I can applaud the small steps towards modernisation of an institution that dates back most immediately to the 1961 Act but originally to 1760. Like so many of our constitutional and legal arrangements, this would appear to be the result of historical accidents over centuries—except that, of course, one has to ask: are these accidents? I pick up here the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Somehow, these “accidents” often seem to put in the hands of the few the power to control what should be public resources, while the profits from public resources go to the few rather than to the many.
I finish, and round up those points about democracy and lack thereof, by raising, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, issues—we are on land now—for tenants and leaseholders of the Crown Estate. A report in openDemocracy in July notes that the Crown Estate has earned more than £344,000 in housing benefit since the pandemic. It seems circular, given that the Crown Estate is, as some have said, an arm of the Treasury; it is paying housing benefit essentially to itself.
Over the same period, the Crown Estate delivered eviction notices and warnings to at least 31 tenants. I note that among the properties of the Crown Estate is a three-bedroom flat near Buckingham Palace, which was recently advertised for rent for £19,067 per month. I am not quite sure where the public benefit is here, but we are where we are. Reports in 2019 said that the Crown Estate had received more than 100 complaints about its residential properties in just two years, including grievances about rent hikes, leaks and faulty electrical goods. Here I come to one of my main points. When approached by openDemocracy, a spokesperson for the Crown Estate declined to comment. How much is this a public asset and working for public good?
We need the Crown Estate to be sensitive to the concerns and interests of local communities, across England as well as in Wales. What plans do the Government have, through this Bill or otherwise, to ensure that the Crown Estate—with this lack of accountability, and environmental and social responsibility, and with structures from the 18th century or, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, sometimes going back further into the medieval period—can be made fit for the 21st century?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I welcome this short Bill and the discussion I had last week with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Livermore, where I raised two specific points. While I welcome the Bill, these two points relate to, first, the establishment of Great British Energy, and, secondly, the potential impact or squeeze on the space available in the marine environment seabed for our fishing industry. In the Irish Sea, that industry fishes the 12 miles that cover the Crown Estate area.
On the day the Bill was introduced, the Government also introduced a partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments, something I welcome. But since the provisions of the Bill extend to Northern Ireland, and obviously to the Irish Sea, and since the electricity market in Ireland, north and south, is organised on an all-island basis, with the supply of electricity in Northern Ireland controlled in large part by the Irish Government as part of that all-island electricity market, I therefore ask: what function will Great British Energy have and what impact will it have on our all-island electricity market? Will it enhance or limit the provision of electricity? Has there been a partnership with the department for energy and energy providers on the island of Ireland, north and south? What discussions have taken place with the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government?
Moving swiftly on to the fishing industry, particularly the fish producer organisations and fishers who use the marine environment of the Irish Sea, what impact will the implications of this Bill, with the creation of offshore renewables, have on the ability and capacity of the sea-fish industry in Northern Ireland? I have to point out that the fishing industry, particularly in the County Down ports, already provides safeguarding for some of those offshore renewables, not only in the Irish Sea but in the Celtic and North Seas, so that work is ongoing. My issue is about the space available to fishers to actually fish and undertake their industry.
Some weeks ago, I met representatives of the fishing industry. I am going to provide some of their testimony on the potential impact of the Bill and its implications for the industry, particularly as they use and fish the area within 12 nautical miles of the coast, which includes part of the Crown Estate bed. A selection of that testimony is as follows. They believe that the Bill has
“potentially significant implications for the fishing industry. The enhanced ability of the Crown Estate to manage its portfolio, borrow capital and invest in projects aligned with the UK’s net zero commitments could lead to increased competition for marine space, particularly with respect to the expansion of offshore wind farms. Modernisation of the Crown Estate’s investment strategies could also lead to the expansion of other marine developments”.
They continue:
“As there is a finite amount of space in the Irish Sea with important nephrops fishing grounds condensed into geographically tight areas and lying adjacent to productive areas for crab, lobster, scallop and commercial fish species, the expansion of offshore renewable and other marine developments could create challenges for the fishing industry. In addition to the increased competition for space and loss or disruption to key fishing grounds, the Crown Estate’s ability to borrow and invest more flexibly could lead to broader economic changes that indirectly impact the fishing industry. The increased focus on sustainable and renewable energy may shift policy priorities which could influence how the fishing industry operates within UK waters”.
I therefore have some questions for the Minister, which are along similar lines to what I discussed with him on Thursday of last week. I am looking for assurances for the fishing industry that there will be no diminution of fishing effort. Did the Crown Estate undertake consultation with the fishing industry and the fish producer organisations? If so, what was the result and outcome from that engagement? Apparently, the Department for the Economy and DAERA in Northern Ireland undertook joint stakeholder engagement with the fishing industry there regarding spatial planning in the marine environment. From my memory, my noble friend Lord Livermore referred to that in our discussion. Did they consult the fish industry and, if so, how did that happen and who was involved? Were the results documented and published? Was the consultation actively done on a boat, in collaboration with the industry? Who, if any, were consulted and what was the result of such stakeholder engagement? Did consultation take place with the UK-based National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and with the Marine Management Organisation?
Having had further consultation with the fishing industry on Friday of last week, they have informed me that they did not have consultation with the Crown Estate but did have consultation with the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, which in their view proved unhelpful and inadequate. Information regarding fishing grounds delineated on maps was provided to the Department for the Economy in May, following an inconclusive meeting, yet they have not received any response. In that regard, I look forward to the responses from my noble friend the Minister on the issues which I have raised.
My final point has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as the chair of Peers for the Planet, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This matter has been raised by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which thinks that there are some issues missing from the Bill, such as a commitment to nature recovery alongside investment in climate. It is looking for the Bill to be given
“a nature recovery objective, alongside the ability to invest in the technology, infrastructure and research required”
for further investment in climate. I would like my noble friend the Minister to provide us with some detail on that. Why was this not included in the Bill and, if amendments were put to it, would he accept from the Front Bench such amendments?
I look forward to the Minister’s answers on the foregoing issues about Great British Energy and its impact on our all-island electricity market, as it was mentioned on the day that the Bill was brought forward, and on the issues to do with nature recovery and the fishing industry.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to return refreshed from recess. I trust that the Government are refreshed as well, despite their rather riotous summer.
This is, as has been recognised, a slim Bill, but it offers a rare opportunity to explore important fundamentals at the outset of the Government’s ambitious legislative agenda. These include the nature and future of the Crown Estate itself, the renewable energy transition, and the tricky balancing act inherent in achieving sustainable economic growth within a five-year election cycle without damaging long-term consequences for our nation’s stock of natural capital. The Bill’s silence on biodiversity, particularly in our sensitive marine ecosystems, is regrettable. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on that point.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has made much of his ambition to fix the foundations of our nation; you do not get much more foundational than the Crown Estate. The helpful Library briefing states that the Crown Estate dates from
“1760, when King George III handed land and property over to the government … in return for a fixed salary”—
now the sovereign grant. This is not strictly accurate in at least two regards. First, the Crown Estate dates from the Norman conquest, when William, Duke of Normandy, took England by force. By 1086’s Domesday audit, it amounted to some 18% of the country and it is therefore an unapologetically feudal landholding.
Secondly, the Crown Estate was not handed over to Parliament. The land and its associated capital still belong to the King in right of the Crown; they are simply managed by the Crown Estate commissioners and the surplus income is directed to the Treasury. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this point. The Crown Estate is therefore a hereditary feudal estate. It is far from the only hereditary feudal estate in the country—here I should note my interests—but it does have the best PR.
I noted in recent debates on leasehold reform how “feudal” is consistently adopted in parliamentary discourse as a pejorative term, used unfairly to denigrate long-established roles, rights and interests that have served our nation well over the last millennium, such as the monarchy. I also note that the current Labour Government’s own manifesto has labelled hereditary interests as “indefensible”. How then do the Government justify, as their first order of business, the modernisation of the hereditary feudal institution of the Crown Estate, particularly when a subsequent order of business is the abolition of the hereditary peerage, one of the other feudal and hereditary mainstays of our constitutional settlement? This seems a little insensitive. Is it perhaps because the Government see a golden opportunity to extract more revenue for Treasury coffers as a quid pro quo for the Crown Estate’s renewal and continued existence? We should ask ourselves what this transaction will do for the long-term health and well-being of the Crown Estate and its precarious constitutional place. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, in this regard.
I note the Crown Estate’s excellent public relations. The current public consensus is that it is a benign body, managing ancient rights and land for the public benefit, but do not be mistaken. Here, I take the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to throw a little more light upon it. The Crown Estate has always been, and will continue to be, an aggressive commercial operator, skirting the edges of the law for maximum gain. Again, I note my interests, particularly as Earl of Devon, as in that capacity I can vouch for the Crown Estate’s dubious foundations. I trust that noble Lords will forgive me the trip down memory lane as I vent the frustrations of the past 800 years.
Take for example, the Isle of Wight—just as the Crown did. Until 1293, it was a largely independent kingdom, governed initially by a Norman comrade of William the Conqueror, Richard de Redvers, whose son Baldwin became Earl of Devon in 1142. The last de Redvers Earl of Devon was a woman—perhaps surprising given the reluctance of Parliament today to countenance female succession to hereditary peerages. The great Countess Isabella de Fortibus expanded Carisbrooke Castle, built the Countess Wear over the River Exe, long outlived her husband and brother and became one of Plantagenet England’s greatest landholders.
Edward I pursued her relentlessly for the Isle of Wight, of which she was titular queen, but she consistently refused him—that is, until her deathbed, to which the King dispatched two bishops to persuade her to give up the island, plus three valuable manors, in return for a cash payment of 6,000 marks. She was an elderly lady in declining health. The deed was drawn up on 9 November 1293. She never signed it, but rather—according to those bishops—waved her hand in acquiescence and died on 10 November, the very next day. Her heir Hugh de Courtenay, the first Courtenay Earl of Devon, never received the payment.
Later raids on Courtenay lands were less subtle. In 1538, Henry VIII simply beheaded his cousin, Henry Courtenay, the Earl of Devon, on baseless conspiracy charges arising from his Plantagenet bloodline. The King seized 13 manors by attainder, and they now form the core of the Duchy of Cornwall. Your Lordships may find this history lesson a little self-indulgent; it is, but in a few months your Lordships will not have many hereditaries present with memories by which to hold our sovereign to account, and our Parliament will be poorer for that.
I also note that this avaricious conduct did not cease with George III’s transfer of the management of his feudal estates to Parliament. As recently as the 1990s, my father endured a long-running battle with the Crown Estate over title to the fundus and foreshore of the River Exe estuary. Neither attainders, beheadings nor disingenuous bishops were available to the Crown Estate this time around, and after many years my father was able to reassert his ancient manorial rights. Tensions with the Crown Estate continue. Ownership of Salcombe Castle is unsettled and a harbour revision order governing the Exe estuary is yet to be resolved. The expansion of the Crown Estate’s powers will therefore have very real impacts upon arguably more traditional, and certainly more indigenous and communal, interests. This begs the important question of what safeguards will be placed upon the exercise of these new powers to ensure that local interests are not trampled upon.
In particular, I note that the Crown Estate Bill removes restrictive limitations found in Section 3(4) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, affording Crown Estate commissioners a considerable expansion of powers. The Crown Estate’s briefing note suggests that these powers will be used to “mobilise investment” and
“expand activities across our diverse portfolio to accelerate our strategy”,
with a focus on clean power, including offshore wind; infrastructure and skills; and urban regeneration. These are all worthy and very important tasks, but can the Minister clarify the manner in which this massive expansion of activities will be subject to the control of Parliament?
I note, for example, that until now the Crown Estate commissioners have been paid by Parliament to undertake their closely prescribed investment powers. However, it is now proposed that they pay themselves out of the money they generate, using a vastly broader array of investment and borrowing powers. This raises the uneasy prospect of conflicts of interests and potential cronyism, about which I know the Prime Minister is very sensitive.
It would help our understanding if the Minister could explain why, in the Crown Estate Act 1961, it was felt necessary to restrict the Crown Estate’s investment powers so much. Nowhere in the Government’s or the Crown Estate’s briefings, nor in the Explanatory Notes, is the purpose of these original Section 3(4) restrictions explained. If the noble Lord, Lord Young, is correct, I do not think Hansard will be much help either. We should not be asked to remove these powers without knowing their original role and why it is no longer applicable.
It is suggested that the current investment powers enjoyed by the Crown Estate are unduly restrictive, but what is the benchmark against which that is to be judged? A quick look at the Crown Estate’s finances reveals that its revenue profits have increased in the last decade from £256 million in 2012 to £1.1 billion in 2022. Its net assets, which still belong to the sovereign, have increased from £8.1 billion to £15.5 billion over the same period. By any measure, the Crown Estate is doing very well. I note it is doing vastly better than any of its traditional land-based feudal competitors.
I also noticed the comment in briefings that in recent years, given such financial abundance, statutory transfers have ensured that revenue profits have been added to the Crown Estate’s capital reserves. As I understand it, in layman’s terms, this is the conversion of Treasury revenue to enhance the value of the hereditary Crown Estate, as owned by the sovereign. Is that really true?
How can we be certain that these new investments and expanded activities are undertaken in a way that is regionally equitable? For example, Great British Energy, with which the Crown Estate recently announced an expansive new partnership, is based in Scotland. Will it therefore not naturally favour Scottish interests over those of other regions? I note here my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Great South West and the importance to the south-west peninsula of the Celtic Sea floating offshore wind project, which is highly dependent upon the Crown Estate for its success. It is important to Wales too, I understand. With that in mind, what reassurance can the Minister provide that the south-west will see equal support from the investment from the Crown Estate and GBE, alongside investment in regional skills and the network and infrastructure necessary to deliver the project?
How will the Crown Estate and GBE be forced to ensure that the communities that bear the greatest infrastructure burden of offshore renewables will get their fair share of the revenue generated by such projects? Is it appropriate to delegate all this complex political decision-making to the apolitical Crown Estate commissioners and the commercial management of Great British Energy? What is Parliament’s role in all this? I am particularly sympathetic to the concerns of the Welsh Government that the profits from the exploitation of the Crown Estate in Wales should revert to the benefit of the Welsh. Likewise, the profits from the south-west should revert to the people of the peninsula, please.
Further, how have the Government satisfied themselves that the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy is free from conflicts of interest and fully compliant with the necessary procurement regulations? Both partners are emanations of the state, and I am not aware that Great British Energy sought open bids or applications from any other marine fundus owners for partnership to deliver renewable energy from their land holdings. I admit that most of those land holdings are less extensive than the Crown Estates, but that is due to nefarious historical reasons we have already noticed.
Finally, and perhaps of most fundamental foundational importance, how will these amendments to the Crown Estate Act contribute to the lasting shared prosperity of the nation, which is the Crown Estate’s stated mission? How can we in Parliament be certain that the glut of offshore energy development engendered by this legislation will not permanently damage the health and vitality of our most important and vulnerable national asset: our natural capital?
Many of your Lordships will recall the ground-breaking report of Professor Dasgupta on the economics of biodiversity, commissioned by the Treasury some years ago. Noble Lords may also remember his damning conclusion that our myopic pursuit of economic growth, without accounting for the consumption of natural capital, renders us all poorer in the long run. How can Parliament ensure that the vast economic expansion enabled by this legislation will not come at the cost of the biodiversity of our unique and most precious marine ecosystems?
In particular, can the Minister please provide us with an update on Defra’s progress on marine net gain, following the consultation of 2022? I understand that this legislation, and the vast expansion in offshore energy that will follow, should not occur until MNG is properly legislated and in force. Otherwise, we will be closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted, leaving our marine ecosystems in tatters. I will be willing to forgo my claim to the Isle of Wight if the Government can provide satisfactory assurance that our marine ecosystems will be better safeguarded pursuant to this legislation.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad I was in the Chamber to hear that speech. I know it is almost traditional for the last Back-Bench speaker to say that everything they want to say has been said but they will still say it. Well, in my case, what I want to say has not been said. I know we have all had a funny letter today from the management telling us to be nice to each other, but when I started to look at this, I read the annual report that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to.
I agree with the Bill’s content and the reasons for it, but I have one question about it. I would have asked for it to be addressed in the wind-up, but I did not know I would be the last speaker when I wrote this. I note the questions posed on page 13 of the latest Private Eye, issue 1631. An interesting point is raised there, and I am sure the civil servants of the Treasury are aware of it and probably put it in the box for the Minister’s wind-up. So I will keep off the Bill and stick to the work of the Crown Estate.
There are some nuggets in the annual report for 2023-24 that explain, better than new Ministers have, the legacy that this new Government inherited from the Tories. I will give some examples, and I will make sure I quote the Crown Estate so I cannot be accused by the management of being nasty, given its letter today. As we heard, most of the activity is in the south-east and coastal areas. Either way, the profits are for public use by the Treasury. As people have said in technical terms that I am not qualified to comment on, it is neither traditional nor private, and it is a bit of an unsung operational situation. When I read the report, I noted that it is almost like a national co-op, which of course contradicts some of the points we have made about where the money comes from.
The annual report is very clear on the situation in the UK. The modest language used makes it a more powerful indictment of the Tory Government operating until 4 July. For example, regarding the external context in which the Crown Estate works, it says:
“UK investment attractiveness continues to be challenged”.
It says that, with higher inflation and weak economic growth,
“it is harder to remain globally competitive”.
The Crown Estate’s commitment is to bring the public and private sectors together to “catalyse investment in innovation”.
The report recognises a shifting political landscape:
“The public sector remains fiscally constrained, making institutional capital, along with private-sector partnerships, critical to delivering … net zero”
and to tackling the housing crisis. It also recognises that:
“An ageing population is straining national infrastructure”.
It accepts that:
“The UK is experiencing the most precipitous two-year drop in living standards since records began in the 1950s, and individuals and families are feeling the strain”—
I stress that. The report goes on:
“More than one million households are waiting for social homes amid a national housing shortage, while the cost of living has seen the highest rise among OECD economies”.
Why are new Ministers not using these descriptions of the Tory legacy instead of those from their spin doctors? It is much more effective coming from an organisation like the Crown Estate.
The Crown Estate sees an opportunity to play a convening role to help the UK out of what we have inherited. On the need to focus on higher growth and lower inequality, it says it will “listen to and involve” partners as a means of informing its response. That approach is incredibly welcome.
The one area above all in which I commend the Crown Estate’s annual report’s honesty is regional inequality. After the table setting out the uneven GDP per worker in the regions of this country, it points out:
“The UK has greater inequality than any large European country, and regional disparities continue to widen”.
This is the Crown Estate, not me. This is written by the people who have been doing all the things everybody has been talking about. Their analysis is that the UK has greater inequality than any large European country and that regional disparities continue to widen. So much for the levelling-up policies of the former Government.
The Crown Estate response is to use its integrated place-based approach to unlock economic potential and contribute at local and regional level, and I am going to give some examples before I finish. The basic theme is working in partnership, bringing sectors together and strong collaboration.
I was struck—I think this is in the part of the annual report with the chief exec’s long analysis—by the help given to farmers to create 200 kilometres of new hedgerows in the first two years of the economic fund. I know, and I suspect that others in the Chamber know, that there was a period in the 1980s and early 1990s when farmers grubbed out 25% of their hedges under the then Tory Government arrangements. Now we are having to use the Crown Estates to try to put some of that back.
I have a really first-class example. I commend the work being carried out with the DWP, in partnership with the Crown Estate, which discovered that the front-line job coaches had a lack of knowledge to tell jobseekers about roles and skills involved in the renewable energy sector. The Crown Estate discovered it—why did not Tory Ministers and the Tory independent board members discover that gap? The Crown Estate said:
“To bridge the gap, we have convened a group, including industry partners and the Offshore Wind Learning Platform, to help an initial group of 60 jobs coaches in the East of England to learn more about the industry”.
If it works, it will roll it out. The job coaches did not even know anything about the renewable industry. The Crown Estate, in partnership with the department, discovered it, not the Ministers. I find that lapse astonishing.
I give three examples of new skills being developed by the Crown Estate in partnership. I shall not go into massive detail because that would be unfair. In Cornwall, there are plans for innovative new GCSEs for 14 to 16 year-olds. At Pembrokeshire College they are developing manufacturing and technical skills and in Grimsby there is an educational project to inspire clean energy experts of the next generation. Those are three good examples and there are lots more in the annual report.
In ports and marine sectors, it is obviously the case that marine aggregates are very important to the construction industry, and the Crown Estate is working to ensure best practice and sustainable credentials for this industry. Crown Estate customers in north-east England are developing projects related to the extraction of polyhalite, a new type of low-carbon fertiliser, assisting jobs in north Yorkshire and Redcar.
On HR, I highlight the work to close the gender pay gap which has increased in the Crown Estate, mainly due to more recruitment at entry-level roles. Using coaching for those returning to work after parental or adoption leave is helping make recruitment policy more equitable.
The risk appetite section is split into six levels and is commendable. I will highlight one. It is clear that the Crown Estate sees real issues if it does not control the supply chain. It says:
“We regard effective control of our extended enterprise as fundamental to our good operation.”.
I wish I could say the same about the private sector, because that is absolutely crucial.
My one concern, buried deep in the report, concerns the pension scheme. There is a three-year block on company contributions to the pension fund. As a former Pensions Minister, I understand the reasons and figures given to back up the decision, but it must be really carefully monitored by the trustees. There have been so many incidents in the past when that has happened and carried on to cause problems for the pension funds.
My final point concerns the massive effort in the retrofit to New Zealand House, an iconic landmark a few hundred yards from here. It is the only tower block allowed to overlook Buckingham Palace and was planned as a thank you for the New Zealand war effort. It is proof that retrofitting need not involve demolition and the dumping of materials containing a large carbon footprint. That is the reality: the first thing that some developers do is to say that it is easier to knock a building down and build something else. It is possible to retrofit. Some 1,300 square metres of marble are to be reused out of New Zealand House and 7,000 items in the building will be used in other schemes, while 90% of the structure is planned to be retained. It is a real example to others, such as those who signed the letter to the Times last Saturday about Marks & Spencer in Regent Street; the signatories want to modernise buildings rather knock them down, which both the private sector and central government have used as first option too often in the past.
The work to retrofit New Zealand House is much to be supported—and this is where I should declare an interest from my time as Defra Minister and chair of the Food Standards Agency, when I enjoyed the views and hospitality from the top floor, the 17th floor, of New Zealand House. It was enhanced in a meeting of dairy producers whom I met while on a private family visit to New Zealand when I and my wife took time out to marry in Christchurch.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, that was an innovative speech at the end of a long day—so thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I thank the Minister and officials for the engagement with me and others last week, which was exceedingly useful.
The Crown Estates, as we have heard very clearly today, are a unique animal sponsored by Treasury; they are completely operationally independent, sitting between the public and private realm, undertaking a vast range of activities in pursuit of a set of objectives which, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, are essentially very benign. In that context, like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, after my first brief glance at the Bill I thought that it was rather insignificant. It was only on a second look that I realised that this represents a very consequential expansion of the powers of the Crown Estate, first to run down its very extensive cash reserves and then to move into borrowing. In principle, we as a party have no objection to that expansion, given the stated beneficial objectives that the Crown Estate has, including sustainable growth, zero carbon, energy security and community development. But today we have heard a very wide range of issues raised, and those issues need to be addressed.
Much of the debate today focused on issues ranging across the environment and I thank my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Teverson for speaking from my party’s perspective, which means that I do not have to repeat all that. But so many others spoke today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, speaking for Peers for the Planet, the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Scone and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. There was a whole series of speeches that underscored that, within this scope, there is a great deal of tension between the development of renewable energy and new opportunities for energy, the natural world and biodiversity and regional issues. There is a great deal of choice and issue based on the expanded role that the Crown Estates see themselves playing.
What I do not understand—and I speak now with more of a Treasury and business hat on—is why there is no business case to accompany this request for such a large expansion of power and investment capacity, as well as borrowing capacity. Should it go wrong, you can be quite sure that the borrowing will have consequences in restricting other activities that the Crown Estates actually carry out, or falling back on the public purse either directly or indirectly through the National Loans Fund. Why is no business case sitting behind this to provide us with detail, direction and explanation and tease out and answer some of those very obvious tensions? It is bad practice. I say that to the Minister because that message has to go back to the Crown Estates and sit in the back of the minds of government as they go forward over the next several years and bring issues like this forward to us.
As I say, when I looked at the Bill, I decided that the best thing to do was to focus on the nitty-gritty within it. My heart went out to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in dealing with the issues of freehold negotiation with the Crown Estate—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised some of those issues in a very extended context. Frankly, this is an aggressive commercial organisation. Over the years, I have dealt with many people who have held leases from the Crown Estate as freeholders, and they are extremely difficult and complex negotiations. That there seems to be no accountability and that aspects of the law do not necessarily apply are among the issues that have to be addressed as we offer the Crown Estate a much more expanded role and much more expanded powers.
I want also to pick up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—that with this expanded range of powers, adding four seats to the board creates a real opportunity to bring in some additional resource and expertise, but again, we do not have a discussion of that. What kind of expertise is it? What are they looking to use those additional roles for? What kind of additional capacity is it? Once again, I think this is bad practice and it should come before the House.
On the sovereign grant, raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, but picked up by others, I have to say that it is not an area of expertise of mine, but it certainly seems to be an opportunity to separate out a real idiosyncrasy and to recognise the Crown Estate in the new, modern role it is going to play rather than trying to run a sort of pretence that it is some sort of self-funding operation for the monarch.
When I looked at the business case—and we are talking about an operation that has over £1 billion in revenues, £14 billion in property and £15 billion in total assets, so it has enormous capacity to do such things as develop a business case and look into the future—I could pick up almost nothing from the existing annual report. Nowhere in that annual report did there seem to be to be a sense of, “We wish to do this, but we can’t”, or “We need additional resource to achieve this, but it isn’t there”. We must have this additional information fed back.
As noble Lords will gather from looking at the Bill and the notes attached to it, the Crown Estate framework agreement between the Crown Estate and the Treasury sits outside the Bill but actually governs the capacity at present for the Crown Estate to raise funds and to spend. I think that even the Treasury would admit—in fact, I know it would—that the framework agreement as it sits today is not fit for purpose. It is written from the perspective that the Crown Estate is not permitted to borrow, so it provides it with a workaround that, in essence, lets it borrow indirectly by creating vehicles with various partners, typically in the private sector. Through those joint ventures it is, in effect, at present able to borrow, and the amount that it can borrow is limited, both by vehicle and in aggregate, under Clause 22. As we provide the additional powers, Clause 22 becomes completely irrelevant. My question to the Minister is: where is the revised framework agreement? If we are saying that it is urgent that these powers are passed, it is therefore surely urgent that we have the framework agreement in hand, and if not the finalised framework agreement, then surely at least a draft version of either the framework agreement or an MoU between the Crown Estate and the Treasury on what this will look like. As many people have said, we cannot allow this to be a body that has completely unlimited borrowing powers, unconstrained by shareholders or by other kinds of clauses or constraints, or unconstrained by bank agreements. We are going to have to have a framework agreement and I really will push the Treasury on this, because I think that, in principle, that kind of work needs to be done in time and brought to Parliament. Parliament should not be asked to sign off powers blind when information can and should be provided.
Almost finally, I want to comment on the Crown Estate in Wales. My party is a very strong believer in devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales to Wales, so that the proceeds are then used for Wales. I am very taken, I must say, by the proposal of my noble friend Lord Teverson for regional wealth funds to be a mechanism to make sure that in regional areas where the Crown Estate is at play in England those funds flow back into the local community, where the Crown Estate will increasingly operate.
We shall not oppose this legislation, but we can see areas where it is weak and where there is weak practice. I hope that the Government will address those issues. The underlying principle of using the Crown Estate and its assets effectively to achieve our goals in renewable energy and in the environment is obviously one that we support.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and to have had the opportunity to hear so many wise contributions from across your Lordships’ House today. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton is unable to be here today, but I anticipate that she will take part in the Bill’s later stages.
I am pleased that the Crown Estate Bill has been brought forward by the Government early in this Session as they work to develop what I am sure will be more challenging legislation in the months ahead. The Opposition support the aims of the Bill, and I will restrict my remarks to five areas: the relationship with GB Energy; the new investment powers; the new borrowing powers; accountability; and the Crown Estate’s relationship with other stakeholders. I have a number of questions which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to, but of course a letter at a later date before Committee would be fine.
The most significant development is in the presentation of the Bill. It had its First Reading on 25 July and then the Government announced a partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate which was described as “major” and “unprecedented”, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The Minister subsequently described it to my noble friend as “a strategic partnership”, which does not sound quite so grand, but it is worth taking a step back. The Crown Estate essentially operates independently. As other noble Lords have said, it is a collection of public assets being managed on commercial terms for the benefit of the nation, including for Treasury coffers. Revenue targets are agreed with the board and discussed with the Treasury. The Crown Estate’s obligations, as other noble Lords have said, are set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961 and, quite reasonably, they relate to enhancing and maintaining the value of the estate and the return obtained.
The strategic objectives of GB Energy are somewhat different, and it is reasonable to expect that they might not always be aligned with those of the Crown Estate. Ditto the priorities pursued as part of His Majesty’s Government’s clean energy superpower mission, in which the Crown Estate is to play a key role via this new partnership. In this context, what practical difference will the recently announced “unprecedented partnership” with GB Energy make to the Crown Estate? What activities will the Crown Estate undertake that it would not otherwise have done? Will returns be higher, lower or about the same as other investment opportunities? If the answer is that there will be no change to the Crown Estate’s investment strategy, given the statutory duty to maximise returns, what is the point of the partnership and what is the role of the Crown Estate in this mission? My noble friend has looked for more clarity on the partnership, but to no avail. Will the Minister publish the partnership agreement so that parliamentarians can see what has been agreed?
I turn to broader issues relating to investments. One key change in the Bill is that it gives the ability to undertake activities not expressly mentioned in the Crown Estate Act 1961. Examples given in the Minister’s letter include
“investing in the infrastructure of a port owned by a third party to facilitate seabed development”,
investing in seabed mapping technologies, and funding research and development. On the face of it, some of this is perfectly reasonable, but I am concerned about what guardrails exist around these new investments—and, I presume, divestment powers, as the change relates to activities.
Has the Crown Estate identified privately owned ports, for example, currently unwilling to invest in infrastructure and how much does it intend to allocate to these investments? Would this investment not more rationally sit with GB Energy, if at all? Is there a risk that such a public statement of intent ends up crowding out investment by the private sector? It is worth pressing further on the ill-defined activity of research and development. How much will the Crown Estate spend in this area and on what sorts of activities? Why would these activities not be supported by the private sector or other government R&D funding pots?
Finally in this area, I return to divestments. The Crown Estate holds a collection of national assets and seeks, in its own words, to
“leave a positive legacy for generations to come”.
When my noble friend spoke to the Minister and his officials last week about the Bill, she asked about the decision-making process around the asset base. She was told that the Crown Estate “would not sell off part of the seabed, but may decide to divest part of Regent Street”. I am not sure that I see the difference. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that if—I recognise it is just an “if”—some of the new Crown Estate investments do not go as well as I am sure all noble Lords hope, there are appropriate mechanisms by which significant changes to the asset base are approved by the Treasury and notified to Parliament.
A further key part of the Bill, as mentioned by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, gives the Crown Estate the power to borrow. From a purely commercial perspective, a bit of leverage is a good thing and we support it. But I also note that in the last financial year the Crown Estate generated free cash flow of over £1.5 billion and had £3 billion of cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year. By borrowing or setting up borrowing facilities, the Crown Estate will have less need of such a large cash cushion. In the light of this, will the Government press the Crown Estate to increase the payment to the Consolidated Fund this year or in subsequent years, or will the freed-up funds be used to invest? All borrowing must be approved by the Treasury, which we support. Will the Government commit to a maximum borrowing level for the Crown Estate, to be set annually or in agreement with the Crown Estate commissioners and then laid before Parliament?
This brings me to accountability. I recognise that the Crown Estate is an unusual organisation that plays an important part in our nation’s future and prosperity, and that it is the guardian and steward of assets that belong to everyone. I welcome what the Minister said about the increase in the number of Crown Estate commissioners and the other changes which will modernise its governance. However, I press him on oversight by the Government and Parliament, which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned.
On the first, will the Minister put on record the relationship between the Treasury, Ministers and the Crown Estate? How often are meetings held and what is discussed? Is the Crown Estate open to input from the Government and in what circumstances does it cite independence? Essentially, how does the relationship work? Will it change given the Crown Estate’s role in the mission via the partnership with GB Energy? I am aware that the Government have the power to direct the Crown Estate, in accordance with the statutory duties, and that this power has never been used. I hope that it never is, but can the Minister reflect on the sort of circumstances in which Ministers would have to step in? Are there red lines that, if crossed, could prompt quick action?
It is not clear to me how accountability to Parliament will work. One element of the Bill shifts the funding of the Crown Estate’s office from funds agreed by Parliament to payment directly by the Crown Estate. This removes an important lever and reduces accountability. Given this, what mechanisms exist by which Parliament can raise legitimate questions and concerns over the management of these national assets? The Crown Estate is currently recruiting for the key role of chair of the commissioners within its structure. Might it be appropriate for the selected candidate to appear before the Treasury Committee, for example, before final appointment? Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
Finally, I will touch briefly on ensuring that the Crown Estate is a good neighbour. Many noble Lords have noted the key role of the Crown Estate and the enormous responsibility that rests with its leadership. There is pressure for that leadership to perform, to meet the statutory duty to maximise returns to the Treasury, and to meet performance targets for pay. Yet sometimes the most profitable course of action for the Crown Estate may not be the one that increases the overall prosperity of the nation—for example, as mentioned by noble Lords, access to and use of the sea above the seabed, which is owned and managed by the Crown Estate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that well-established rights and routes of navigation for shipping, fisheries and other sectors will be maintained as offshore wind is developed further.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made an important point about how much the Crown Estate has changed in recent history. He also asked whether its current structure, even with this modernisation, will be in line with best practice of modern governance. My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and many others mentioned the relationship with Wales. As I am sure other noble Lords do, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
As I said at the start of my remarks, we support the aims of this Bill. I recognise too that the Crown Estate is keen for the changes to be made. I am keen only to test that, given the haste with which the Bill has been brought forward by the new Government, their thinking behind those aims is fully developed, particularly in light of the setting up of GB Energy and the clean energy superpower mission. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate on the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and questions. As I noted in opening, the purpose of this Bill is to make a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance. Without this Bill, the Crown Estate would continue to be restricted in its ability to compete and invest, and therefore to deliver returns for the public purse. This Bill therefore broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to invest further in the energy transition, and empowers it to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked whether the current governance arrangements of the Crown Estate were fit for purpose. The Crown Estate is subject to the same governance as other central government bodies. As such, its accounts are laid before Parliament and audited by the NAO. In addition, it has an accounting officer who is answerable to Parliament for the stewardship of Crown Estate resources. However, ensuring that the Crown Estate has the best possible governance arrangements is central to this Bill. The Bill therefore increases the number of Crown Estate commissioners from eight to 12. This change will ensure that the Crown Estate can meet best practice standards for modern corporate governance. This will help to broaden the diversity of the board and provide more expertise and capacity to enable the commissioners to operate more effectively in the constantly evolving business environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, also raised concerns about escheat, which relates to the complex process by which land that is ownerless falls to the Crown. On the specific example he raised, I will raise this with the Crown Estate and come back to the noble Lord with a more detailed response in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about borrowing by the Crown Estate. The exact profile of lending would depend on a number of factors, including the timing and financing requirements of specific investments, as well as the extent to which the Crown Estate can generate funding by the disposal of non-strategic assets. The current expectations are that borrowing will not be needed until 2029 and is expected initially to be in the low hundreds of millions.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, also asked about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers. To clarify, the Crown Estate will have those powers as soon as the legislation is passed, but the first impact of the borrowing powers will be to enable the Crown Estate to run down its cash assets and make more efficient use of them. It therefore does not envisage using those borrowing powers, as I said, until the end of the decade.
My noble friend Lord Liddle asked about wider borrowing to meet our net-zero objectives. These borrowing powers are essentially about enabling the Crown Estate to make better use of its existing assets and to compete in the marketplace. They are, of course, not the full extent of our ambitions for new investment in clean energy. I point my noble friend, for example, to the national wealth fund that the Chancellor has announced, amounting to some £7 billion.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, these borrowing powers in no way politicise or compromise the independence of the Crown Estate. It is the Crown Estate that has asked for the powers to make better use of its assets and to continue to maintain its estate. All borrowing will be subject to Treasury consent and will be within the fiscal rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, mentioned additional financial instruments in terms of borrowing. The provisions contained in the Bill do not change the Crown Estate’s existing powers to enter into joint ventures. With the benefit of the measures proposed in the Bill, though, the Crown Estate is less likely to engage in joint ventures and equity share opportunities as it will have greater flexibility to fund its capital investments.
Several noble Lords asked about the partnership with GB Energy, including my noble friend Lord Liddle, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and the noble Earls, Lord Courtown and Lord Russell. As important as the strategic partnership with GB Energy is, the Bill is not about that strategic partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, nor about setting up GB Energy. The Government obviously share many of the ambitions set out by noble Lords ahead of the introduction of the GB Energy Bill; the Great British Energy Bill led by DESNZ has been introduced in the other place and its Second Reading is due to take place on Thursday. Throughout the next few months, DESNZ will take the important steps to put Great British Energy on a delivery footing, including announcing the location in Scotland of its headquarters and starting to recruit key roles into the organisation.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the initial investment criteria for the Crown Estate will remain unchanged. The partnership will facilitate strategic alignment through a co-ordinated approach to deliver clean power. The Crown Estate will continue to be independent of the Government and the King; the partnership with Great British Energy will not affect its independence, which is set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley asked about the sovereign grant. The reforms contained in the Bill are separate to funding provided to the King; the King is not involved in the management of the Crown Estate. Since 1760, each monarch has surrendered the Crown Estate’s revenue to the Exchequer in return for government support. Government support for the King is provided by the sovereign grant, which is currently set by a reference to 12% of Crown Estate profits.
However, the Sovereign Grant Act includes a statutory requirement to review the percentage rate used in the calculation every five years to determine whether it remains appropriate. Under the Sovereign Grant Act, the grant will next be reviewed in 2026. The review is conducted by the three royal trustees: the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. Where necessary, the Government lay a statutory instrument to amend the percentage used. For example, following the royal trustees’ review last year, the rate was cut from 25% to the current 12%.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley also asked about the Duchy of Cornwall. As he knows, it is a long-established principle that income from the Duchy is independent of any government control.
My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone asked specific questions on housing, nature recovery and biodiversity, supply chains, grid and environmental performance. On her question on the Crown Estate and housing, I agree wholeheartedly with the objectives she set out for the affordability and quality of housing. Housing is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I hope that its forthcoming legislation will achieve many of the objectives she set out. However, while the Crown Estate is not a housebuilder at scale, it recently committed to supporting the country’s need for better-quality housing. With the support of the measures proposed in the Bill, the Crown Estate can leverage its pipeline of 20,000 homes over the next 20 years and further its commitment to quality, sustainability and innovation.
On her question on nature recovery and biodiversity—which the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also touched on—stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity is core to the Crown Estate’s strategy. These powers will accelerate the Crown Estate’s leadership of nature recovery across land and sea through investment into the latest remote sensing and geospatial tools to map natural assets, developing its rural portfolio into an exemplar of large-scale, sustainable agriculture and environmental best practice.
On my noble friend’s third question on supply chains, the Crown Estate prioritises the ethics of its suppliers, focusing on ethical and inclusive practices, health, safety and well-being, sustainability, privacy and information security and innovative business practices. Its suppliers must also commit to diversity, equity and inclusion, pay the living wage and comply with legal and industry standards.
Several noble Lords also touched on questions of the grid—which my noble friend originally raised—including the noble Lords, Lord Bourne, Lord Teverson and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Liddle. The Government are committed to speeding up connections to the grid. Ofgem and government published a joint Connections Action Plan at the end of 2023 to improve the connections process and reduce connections timescales, which this Government are taking on.
The Crown Estate is already using its experience, data and expertise as managers of the seabed to feed into the new strategic spatial energy plan. The Crown Estate is also already working in partnership with National Grid to ensure that its current pipeline of projects, including its round 5 floating offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic Sea, can benefit from a more co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front.
On the question of environmental performance, the Crown Estate is committed to net zero within its own operations and developing net-zero targets and pathways to reduce emissions within its wider value chain, in line with a 1.5 degrees centigrade trajectory. To meet this ambition, its commitments include removing fossil fuels from its activity, reducing operational emissions for all assets and producing decarbonisation road maps for all assets and sectors.
The noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Teverson, asked about transparency. Ensuring the Crown Estate has the best possible governance arrangements is central to this Bill. The Crown Estate is subject to the same governance as other central government bodies. As such, its accounts are laid before Parliament and audited by the NAO. In addition, the Crown Estate has an accounting officer who is answerable to Parliament for the stewardship of Crown Estate resources.
The noble Lords, Lord Bourne, Lord Wigley and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on the question of devolution to Wales. The Government believe there is greater benefit—for both the people of Wales and the wider UK—in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. I know that the noble Lords who raised these points will not agree with me, but the Government’s view remains that devolving the Crown Estate to Wales at this time would significantly risk fragmenting the energy market, undermining international investor confidence and delaying the progress towards net zero by an estimated 10 to 20 years, to the detriment of the whole nation. I know that we will discuss these issues further in the noble Lord’s Private Member’s Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the communities of Wales benefiting from wealth generated by offshore activity in the Celtic Sea. The Crown Estate pays all its net revenue surplus into the Consolidated Fund—a combined total of more than £4 billion in the last decade—which is used to fund vital public services. Local communities already benefit from wider decisions on public spending as well as the investment by the Crown Estate.
Over the last 20 years, the Crown Estate has enabled successful delivery of a number of renewable energy projects in Wales, investing to position it at the vanguard of clean energy technology and growth. The Crown Estate has looked to ensure that the benefits of these projects are felt through communities and supply chains across Wales, including through the design of its most recent leasing round 5 and the launch of a pilot £10 million supply chain accelerator fund in 2024. Furthermore, while the scale of investment in Wales remains under development, it is anticipated that it could take up to 10 to 15 years to see a return on that investment. The breadth and diversity of the Crown Estate’s broad asset base means that it is well placed to support these longer-term investments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also asked about the Bill applying to Scotland. The 1961 Act applies to Scotland and, under that Act, the commissioners can exercise their functions in relation to Scotland—so extending the Bill to Scotland is consistent with that position. The Crown Estate retains powers in relation to its ability to operate in Scotland. The Bill does not affect the management of property, which was devolved in 2016.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the possibility of introducing an objective for the Crown Estate to ensure that it has due regard for the environment and climate. The Bill does not propose a statutory objective, given the importance of preserving the independence of the Crown Estate and enabling it to compete on an equal footing with other private sector operators. However, the Crown Estate has existing governance structures in place to ensure that environmental impacts are a central consideration of its investment decisions. This includes a value creation framework, to ensure that decisions about its strategy, investments and other decisions are all reviewed through an environmental and social filter.
The noble Baroness also rightly raised the need to balance different priorities, particularly the need to ensure that there are adequate environmental protections in place for the development of offshore wind—a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. As with any developer, the Crown Estate’s proposals go through standard planning approval processes, which include relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate’s strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering on this aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates the recovery of, our marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Government on this Bill. Government officials have met with Scottish Government officials to discuss the nature and content of the Bill.
The noble Lord also asked about the responsibility for bottom trawling across the UK seabed, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The scope of the Crown Estate’s authority does not include the regulation of commercial fishing, which includes trawling. The regulation of fishing, including trawling, falls under the jurisdiction of the fisheries management regime, which is managed by the relevant marine environment management organisation of each devolved Government. A new by-law protecting an area of almost 4,000 square kilometres of our seas from damaging fishing activity, such as bottom trawling, came into force on Friday 26 March 2024. It prohibits the use of bottom-towed gear in specific areas in 13 English offshore marine protected areas that contain valuable reef and rocky habitats.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, asked about how the Crown Estate will bring forward the development of the seabed and speed up offshore wind. The borrowing powers for the Crown Estate proposed by the Bill will act to accelerate and de-risk the sustainable delivery of offshore wind and other technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, wave, tidal and hydrogen. That activity may include but is not limited to: finding the best locations for energy projects, while considering nature and other seabed users, delivered via a new marine delivery route map; conducting technical and environmental surveys early to speed up development and approval processes; facilitating earlier co-ordinated grid connections by working with NESO, developers and stakeholders aligned with other strategic planning processes for the energy sector; and supporting the growth of the UK’s energy supply chain with targeted investment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked about the skills needs of the energy transition in relation to the North Sea. I completely agree with her that that must be key factor in, and a key part of, our skills agenda. The Government recognise that our offshore workers have vital skills that will unlock the clean industries of the future. We will continue to recognise the ongoing role of the oil and gas industry and workforce in our current energy mix, while ensuring that the sector contributes more to our clean energy transition.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised some concerns about the development of offshore wind and the fishing industry. The Crown Estate is committed to the sustainable management of the seabed and, where appropriate, collaborates with industry stakeholders, marine licensing bodies and environmental NGOs to ensure that activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly. I will seek more information on the specifics of the consultation she asked about and will gladly write to her about them. I add that the Crown Estate will be happy to offer a further meeting with the relevant fishing representatives.
My noble friend also asked about how the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy would work for Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate has a diverse portfolio that includes the management of the seabed and half the foreshore around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It plays a fundamental role in the sustainable development of those assets, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind, renewables and greenhouse gas reduction technologies. Together, Great British Energy and the Crown Estate will accelerate the development of the seabed in supporting infrastructure along the coasts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, creating a pipeline of sites for private developers to invest in. That means more clean power happening faster than would otherwise be the case.
My noble friend also asked about the extent of the engagement between the Crown Estate and the Northern Ireland Executive. As custodians of the seabed, the Crown Estate has a role to play in supporting Northern Ireland’s energy strategy, which includes the goal of delivering 1 gigawatt of electricity from offshore wind from 2030. As such, the Crown Estate works closely with stakeholders and officials in Northern Ireland across the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Crown Estate also collaborates with Northern Ireland in relation to the offshore renewable energy action plan, as it sits on its steering group. In the last 12 months, the Crown Estate has had more than 30 meetings with stakeholders in Northern Ireland on offshore wind and coastal and rural matters.
My noble friend Lord Rooker rightly drew attention to the nature of this Government’s economic and wider inheritance—points I hope that he will have heard the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers make repeatedly.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised concerns about the framework agreement underpinning any borrowing. The noble Baroness also asked about the business case. The business case was agreed by the previous Government in February 2023. I am happy now to commit to publish a version of that which removes any commercially sensitive information.
The specific information setting out the detail underpinning the borrowing powers will comprise two elements: a framework agreement and a memorandum of understanding. The framework agreement, which will be incorporated into the Crown Estate’s existing framework document, will set out broad principles, such as limits on overall loan-to-value ratios and the requirement for borrowing to be at market rates. The memorandum of understanding will be in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate and will govern how the borrowing powers will be exercised. The relevant work on the document has, until now, been on a slower timeframe than the legislation we are debating today. The Crown Estate does not expect to borrow until towards the end of the decade. I add that the changing investment landscape, with the creation of the national wealth fund and Great British Energy, may also make it sensible to complete this work to a slightly different timescale.
It is important to be clear that any such detailed borrowing contained in the memorandum of understanding is, by necessity, likely to include commercially sensitive information, and there has never been any intention that the MoU will be published. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the memorandum of understanding will make clear that any borrowing by the Crown Estate will be at commercial rates, for subsidy control reasons, and be subject to Treasury consent. Values will be based on the total gross audited asset value of the enterprise, as reported in the annual report and accounts.
The noble Baroness is right to push us on a timeframe for the publication of the framework agreement, and I commit to write to her, before Committee stage, setting out the expected contents of the framework. I further commit that the framework will be published in draft by November.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked me a number of very specific questions. In the interests of time, if he does not mind, I will write to him with specific answers on each.
This Bill broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition. It empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. Critically, these measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the contribution of the Crown Estate to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I remind him that I asked a number of specific questions, as well as making some general points. I also emailed him in advance with those questions. I note that none was addressed in his summing up. Will he please undertake to write to me?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Of course, I am happy to write to the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Monday 14th October 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Oct 2024)
Lord Wigley
“(4B) The functions of the Crown Estate in Wales may not be exercised without the consent of the Welsh Government.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that the Crown Estate must receive the consent of the Welsh Government before exercising its powers in Wales.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 23, both of which are in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for adding her name to the amendment, and of course to my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes, who no doubt will wish to address Amendment 21 in her name, which I support. I also support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, which we will come to later.
At Second Reading, I outlined the case for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved as it is in Scotland. That is the subject of a Private Member’s Bill that I have awaiting a Second Reading debate. Although many of these amendments overlap with that fundamental approach, there are other amendments not going quite as far as full devolution proposals which, none the less, could help meet Welsh grievances regarding how it is widely seen that the Crown Estate, as currently administered, does not address Welsh needs or concerns, and, indeed, sucks valuable resources out of Wales.
This issue has boiled up further since Second Reading, with a number of local authorities in Wales that are really strapped for cash, as indeed local authorities are in England, protesting at the bill demands which the Crown Estate makes of them. Let us take as an example the position of my own local authority, Gwynedd Council. This year it is being asked to pay a staggering bill of £160,000 to the Crown Estate to permit access to and full use of its own land and facilities within its own territory. The council has to pay the Crown Estate an annual rent for access to the beach in Bangor, Barmouth and Llanaber and a staggering £144,000 a year in rent relating to the marina in Pwllheli. Access to beaches touches a raw nerve in Wales; when private citizens have tried to close a footpath access, they have triggered massive protest and have had to back down. Yet the Crown is allowed to tell us that we have to pay for use of our own land and our own coast in our own country and can charge for the use of that privilege with impunity.
Gwynedd Council now faces cutting back on other services to pay the Crown Estate. A motion was moved by councillor Dewi Llewelyn in full council meeting on 3 October, and the council resolved to refuse to pay this charge. The motion also called for the control of Crown Estate land and profits in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Government. We await developments, but other councils in Wales are also now considering similar steps. No one can say that there has not been adequate warning that the Crown Estate issue in Wales is flaring up in the direction of taking the form of a Boston Tea Party.
Conservative Governments over the past 10 years have known that this issue has been festering, but while they accepted the need to make adjustments in Scotland, which led to the devolving of the Crown Estate through the Scotland Act 2016, the situation in Wales was left to fester. This situation has been strenuously criticised by the Labour Government in the Senedd. I will not repeat the lengthy quotation which I presented to the House at Second Reading, when I drew attention to the words of the then Labour Climate Change Minister, Julie James, who, in a nutshell, said that the Crown Estate in Wales should be devolved, as in Scotland, and that the current situation is “outrageous”. Both the former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and our erstwhile colleague, the current First Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, have also called for the Crown Estate to be devolved in Wales.
In moving the first amendment, we are offering the Committee, and indeed the new Labour Government, an opportunity to take a small step towards redressing the balance. This does not provide for the full devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales, but it gives the Welsh Government a veto grip over the Crown Estate by way of the words which appear in the amendment:
“The functions of the Crown Estate in Wales may not be exercised without the consent of the Welsh Government”.
The mechanisms for granting that consent—indeed, for pinpointing the issues that would need to be addressed to secure that consent—can be open to negotiation between the Welsh Government and the Crown Estate. What this does is to establish beyond doubt that our Government in Wales will have the final word on such matters.
I will briefly mention Amendment 23, standing in my name and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes and Lady Humphreys, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It also provides a mechanism, short of devolving the full Crown Estate to Wales, to require the Crown Estate to pass to the Welsh Government all the net profit that it has generated from Wales; and thereby to enable the Welsh Government to pass an appropriate part of such funds to the local authorities that I mentioned to ensure that they are not out of pocket from the bills that they have to pay to the Crown Estate.
The Labour Government at Westminster should be delighted to facilitate developments provided by the amendment, which I have highlighted. If they are not, they will need to make a very persuasive case because, if these modest proposals are not acceptable, the only answer might be for the devolution—lock, stock and barrel—of the Crown Estate in Wales to Wales, as has been the case in Scotland. I welcome support for these proposals from all quarters of the Committee and I await the Minister’s response with fascination. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I do so as a former Labour Secretary of State for Wales who was responsible for the 2006 devolution Act. Before that, as a Welsh Minister, I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others, was closely involved in winning the 1997 referendum, which brought in the 1998 devolution Act to establish the Welsh Assembly, now Senedd. I have also lived in Wales for 34 years now.
Welsh Labour’s programme for government in the Senedd includes a commitment to pursue the devolution of powers needed to help reach net zero, including management of the Crown Estate in Wales. The Crown Estate is devolved in Scotland; surely there is no reason why the same powers should not be devolved to Wales, especially by a new Westminster Labour Government committed to partnership rather than confrontation with the devolved Administrations. That was the essence of the Prime Minister’s message to the special summit of the nations and regions last Friday, and in visiting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in July within days of moving into Downing Street.
The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended that the Crown Estate be devolved, and Welsh Labour is committed to working with UK Labour in government to implement the recommendations from that commission.
Taking control of the management of Crown Estate assets in Wales would allow the Welsh Government greater autonomy over the speed and direction of the development of Welsh-sited Crown Estate property. The Welsh Government would have the opportunity to better align the management of Crown assets in Wales with the needs of Welsh citizens. The management of Crown assets also generates significant revenue to the UK Exchequer. Devolution of the Crown Estate would better align revenues from Wales with the income available for the Welsh Government to deliver on their priorities for Welsh citizens.
Marine planning is a holistic, statutory process for managing the UK’s seas including the seabed. Aligning Welsh marine planning with seabed leasing rounds for new developments, such as renewable energy, would help to ensure joined-up and plan-led decision-making.
Currently, there are stand-alone leasing rounds for certain types of activity, such as offshore wind or marine aggregates extraction. These leasing rounds, which occur from time to time, take account of relevant government policy, but devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland has allowed a reshaping of the process, whereby the marine planning process sets the overall policy direction with leasing rounds only progressed after it has set national strategic policy. This ensures that marine management is better joined up and delivered. Taking control of the management of the seabed would allow Welsh Government Ministers both to better implement their policy decisions and priorities for the marine area and to ensure that all relevant interests can be reflected in a way that is simply not as possible with a top-heavy, centralised and London-centric agenda.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my Amendment 21 is included in this group. I endorse the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Wigley in making the case for the other amendments in this group, and thank him for supporting my amendment. I will now speak to Amendment 21.
I spoke at Second Reading outlining why the Bill, as drafted, does not deliver fairness for Wales. Therefore, I will not repeat my case today. However, I will highlight that at Second Reading there appeared to be a sense of agreement from around the House that Wales was not being treated fairly when it comes to powers over the Crown Estate—in particular, the stark contrast between the powers given to Scotland but not to Wales.
Amendment 21 simply aims to resolve this unfairness and would transfer the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of commencement of this Act. Devolving these powers would also support the Welsh Government in the delivery of policies in the areas already in their control, such as energy and the environment. This lever would open up more opportunities to deliver for the people of Wales. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his support of this amendment and for his contribution, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding his name to it.
A move to devolve this power is supported by many in Wales, including senior colleagues in Wales of the new Labour Government here. Additionally, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales also recommends that the devolution of the Crown Estate is progressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, outlined. Campaigning for this change has heated up across all parts of Wales in recent months. In addition to Cyngor Gwynedd’s motion, which my noble friend Lord Wigley raised, we have seen similar motions passed by Swansea Council, and I expect momentum to build across Wales if no progress continues to be made. This amendment offers this Committee and the new Labour Government an opportunity to make that progress, right this wrong and deliver fairness to Wales.
This amendment goes hand in hand with Amendment 23 in this group, which I support, as Wales must also receive the profits that result from the use of the land in Wales. These profits should be invested directly into the communities of Wales. I welcome support for this group of amendments from all corners of this Chamber, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, unusually, as a former Treasury official, I am generally in favour of greater devolution—the more so when the likes of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas support a proposal. But on this occasion I fear I should advocate a degree of caution.
I speak having been in the Treasury when the Crown Estate in Scotland was devolved. With hindsight, I think that was a mistake, particularly because there is considerable benefit in looking at offshore wind policy at a UK level. Indeed, the then Government missed a trick. They should have followed the example of I think the Wilson Government in the 1960s, who hived off oil sea exploration from the Crown Estate. The then coalition Government should have hived off offshore wind from the Crown Estate, not least because it gives the Royal Family, who no doubt are a deserving cause, a massive windfall, as my noble friend Lord Turnbull pointed out at Second Reading.
Although I very much understand the case that noble Lords have made on both sides of the House, I think this is something that should not be rushed. There may be a case for devolving further powers to Wales, not least because there is a case for giving Wales similar treatment to Scotland. But if the Government are sympathetic to this amendment, I encourage them to spend a bit more time working through whether there are unintended consequences and, in particular, looking through the financial implications. One thing I would not want to see happen is Wales being disadvantaged financially by devolution. This might be the right thing to do for the longer term, but I encourage the Minister to think twice before agreeing to it today.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests and my membership of the board of Community and Voluntary Support Conwy, CVSC.
I rise to speak to Amendment 26 in my name and Amendments 1, 21 and 23 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. My Amendment 26 calls for the devolution of the Crown Estate’s powers to Wales and would require the Treasury to devolve Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.
There are increasing calls within Wales for the devolution of these powers. It is a policy of my party, the Welsh Liberal Democrats, having been debated and agreed in our Welsh conference in 2023. It would ensure that the profit from offshore energy lease agreements stays in Wales.
In July 2023, Senedd Members voted by a majority of 35 to 13 in favour of a Plaid Cymru debate calling for the devolution of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. As we have heard, there are similar calls at local government level. Last week, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, detailed, councillors in Gwynedd Council debated a motion asking their chief executive to open negotiations with the Crown Estate over “access fees”. The council paid its annual fee of £161,000 to the Crown Estate in 2023 to allow public access to beaches in Gwynedd, of which £144,000 was paid to allow access to Hafan Pwllheli marina. Councillors also believed that responsibility for the Crown Estate should be devolved to the Welsh Government, with their motion stating:
“Any profits generated by the Crown Estate, here on Welsh lands and waters, should remain in Wales, for the benefit of our residents and communities”.
In addition to all this, social media videos provide information about the Crown Estate and explain why the promoters want change, leading to greater awareness of the issue among the public.
The Crown Estate owns land estimated to be worth more than £600 million in Wales. This includes 65% of the coast of Wales and 300,000 acres of land, including any gold and silver on it. Profits on these numbers are unclear, however.
Let me be clear: there is no criticism of the Crown Estate commissioners implicit in this amendment. The commissioners operate within a system that was established 63 years ago but with a history going back to 1760, and they cannot diverge from the status quo without an Act of Parliament similar to that which devolved similar powers to Scotland in 2017. So, while the commissioners operate the system from the 1960s, history for us in Wales has moved on. Devolution has opened the eyes of the people in Wales to the opportunities and responsibilities that the new order has brought.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith Llanfaes, respectively. I do so, following what has been said by a number of others on some detailed points, because there is an important constitutional issue and an interesting constitutional test for this Government.
It seems clear to me that in our union, it is accepted as things stand that the Crown Estate is not a union function. That is shown by the fact that it has been devolved to Scotland and therefore is quite unlike monetary policy, defence or other matters that are union functions. I see the powerful argument, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that our constitution should be slightly different—that this should be seen as an energy issue and reserved to the central Government—but this is not the current position and we must address things as they are. Therefore, it is very clear that when the Government look at this question, they must do so from the point of the constitution. This is a power capable of devolution and the question therefore arises, if it can be devolved to Scotland, why is it not devolved to Wales?
It is also important that we stand at a turning point in devolution. I had hoped, and still hope, that the advent of this new Government means that we think for the first time in a long time about the structure of our union—that we look on it as something that should be based on principle and good co-operation between the nations. The latter is extremely important in this policy area, bearing in mind the current constitutional structure. I keep on using the word “constitutional” because we sometimes forget that what is critical to our country is good governance based on a sound constitution.
It is said by the Scottish authority that runs the Crown Estate that they
“invest in property, natural resources and people to generate lasting value for Scotland”.
Why cannot that be given to Wales? It has been said in the past that the Welsh are not up to it, or that London knows better. I am delighted that those arguments are not being run, and I hope they are consigned to the dustbin of history. However, the Minister said the following on Second Reading:
“devolving … would significantly risk fragmenting the energy market, undermining international investor confidence and delaying the progress towards net zero by … 10 to 20 years, to the detriment of the whole nation”.—[Official Report, 2/9/24; col. 1021.]
That is similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, quoted in relation to the position of the last Government. So much, possibly, for new thinking.
It is important to analyse those phrases; there is no evidence to support any of them. I hope it is not unkind to say that the use of the phrase “undermining investor confidence” is often the resort of a politician in distress. Even if there was anything in any of these points, their argument does not touch on the issue of principle: that the management of the Crown property in Wales, historically acquired by the English Crown from the Welsh people, should be for the people of Wales and the money obtained should be transparently accounted for as a distinct amount and used for their benefit, in a way decided by the Government of Wales.
Those are two key points of the devolution of the Crown Estate: management and money. If it is good enough for the Scots, why is it not right for the Welsh? It will be interesting to see how the Minister argues that specific point of constitutional principle.
The Minister knows, from his own considerable experience, that it is of course possible to run things in co-operation. What is promised by this new Government is a new approach to the union: co-operation between the Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London. If there are benefits from matters such as gearing up together to deal with the energy market then that is possible through joint ventures or other arrangements, but it in no way detracts, it seems to me, from the issues of principle—that the management of property in Wales should be for the Welsh Government and the money should go back to Wales.
In relation to that, as someone who comes from the industrial area of Wales, I know it is important to recall what happened in the last century and the century before last. Wales possessed enormous mineral wealth that drove the supplies of energy which powered our industrial revolution. Let us hope that now that there are alternative means of generating the power that is driving our present economy, the people of Wales will not be short-changed as they have been in the past.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a follow-on to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said in relation to Wales, if the Crown Estate is devolved to Scotland, why should it not be devolved to Northern Ireland? The Crown Estate plays a critical role in the stewardship of our seas and terrestrial environment. As well as large landholdings, the estate manages the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with 50% of our coastline, and it will support the tripling of the electricity sector’s capacity, with the deployment of 125 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050.
During Second Reading, I pointed out that, in the Northern Ireland context, the electricity industry is managed on an all-island basis, north-south, through the all-Ireland electricity market. I received a very helpful response from the Minister, my noble friend Lord Livermore, in relation to this issue. Could he give some thought to the devolution of the Crown Estate to Northern Ireland, in the context of the electricity market and how the electricity supply is managed? Can he say whether there will be a connection and co-operation with the Irish Government on the Great British energy market and the all-Ireland energy market and the Irish Sea?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments. I get involved, along with many other noble Lords, in offshore energy issues, particularly in Cornwall. I can see a time coming when there will be enormous pressure on central government as to where these great big tanks—the floating windmills or whatever you want to call them—are manufactured, where they are located, from where they are serviced and, probably most important of all, where the power lines come ashore. There has already been lots of talk about Port Talbot as the only possible place for their manufacture for the south-west. There is lots of flat land there and it is probably very good, but, living in Cornwall, I would like to make sure that some benefits come to the ports in Cornwall from some of those issues.
It would seem, from what many noble Lords have said, that there is a strong argument for drawing a line down the Bristol Channel out to the medium and sticking to it, then using that line for any kind of debate or discussion that takes place on offshore oil or offshore wind, or anything else like that. If not, we are going to have this kind of debate every time: “How much does Wales get?”, “How much does Cornwall get?”, “How much does Devon get?”. It would be much better if it was agreed—I am not sure by whom, but there has to be someone in this Government—where this line was and everything that leads from there.
While I am on my feet, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister where the Duchy of Cornwall and its offshore or beach interests come into this, if at all. The Duchy of Cornwall has the right to treasure trove if treasure is found in Cornwall, and that goes into the coffers of the Duke of Cornwall—as opposed to in the rest of the country, where it would go into the coffers of the Government. Again, it would be nice to know where the boundaries are. It would be much easier to have a good debate about them if we knew where the start and finish were.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Humphreys spoke not just for the Welsh Liberal Democrats but for all of us on these Benches. At Second Reading I, among others, raised the significance of devolution to Wales and asked that this should come as rapidly as possible, for a variety of reasons which have been discussed today. I do not want to repeat arguments but there are a couple of points I will pick up.
First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that this nonsense that the money for the monarchy is then translated into a percentage of the profits that come from the Crown Estate is idiosyncratic and should stop right now. These are two entirely different sets of decisions, and we should separate them. I hope the Government will at some point in the process of the Bill deal with that particular nonsense—if not, if they could deal with it in the Budget that would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, the Crown Estate of the past is not the Crown Estate of the future. In the past we have had a body that has been focused on property management, very gradually getting into economic growth, levelling up and sustainability; now, the borrowing powers envisaged make for a complete step-change in that area. Not having the proper authority resting with the Welsh Government that devolution would provide therefore becomes far more egregious than it has been historically. The time has definitely come to recognise that, with this Bill, we are changing in many ways the character of the Crown Estate and its level of activity. It is time, therefore, to make the appropriate step and ensure that Wales and the Welsh voice are properly reflected through the Welsh Government’s control of the Crown Estate in Wales.
Thirdly, my last point is one that was reflected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and somewhat in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The argument has always been put that, if we split off the Crown Estate in Wales, we are building in an inefficiency, particularly within the energy sector: we would have another player; it would be more complicated; and the management would be somewhat split.
It made me interested to take a look at the Crown Estate in Scotland. The Committee will be aware from various speeches that the assets controlled by the Crown Estate in both England and Wales are in the arena of £15 billion—it is a huge asset bloc. In Scotland, the bloc is far smaller. I looked at the last annual report and found that it is about £650 million in assets. I would guess that Wales is not that much smaller. In other words, we know that Scotland is functioning well—I hear no complaints from voices in Scotland about the way that the Crown Estate is working under the auspices of the Scottish Government—and so I see no reason why there would be necessary inefficiencies by splitting off a similarly sized set of assets to be governed by the Welsh Government.
Building collaboration is obviously the answer. To pick up the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made, collaboration and co-operation is the language that this Government are continually using and the approach that my party supports. It underpins a sense of democracy and fair dealing, which is very important in modern-day politics. I hope that the Government will look again at this and, if they cannot make changes in this specific Bill, promise that those changes are coming, and coming soon.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken before me in this debate today. Predominantly, this is obviously around the devolution of powers over the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. On these Benches, we have thought long and hard about this, and I hear the concerns of some noble Lords about how the devolved powers differ between Wales and Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland. But this is not a unique situation and I have concluded that I would encourage the Minister to resist any change at this time.
A number of noble Lords have raised certain challenges as to why this might be a good or a bad idea, and I look at this in a purely practical sense. If I look at the documents that have been provided and are available not only for the Crown Estate but also the Crown Estate’s relationship with GB Energy—the enormous commitment that the Crown Estate has made in terms of the amount of seabed licences it wishes to grant to enable energy generation by 2030—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that change is coming and coming very significantly for the Crown Estate. In 10 years’ time, it is not going to look the same as it does now. Therefore, I think that we would introduce risk into what is already a very ambitious target set down by the Government to develop offshore wind should we be sidetracked by the desire to devolve limited powers over the Crown Estate at this time.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Crown Estate is very clear in its documents—and I think the Committee will discuss this a bit more later—that it is an independent business and competes against the private sector. Splitting it at this time and taking out a chunk of the assets and going through all the procedures as to how you recognise those assets—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—and how you think about which revenue streams go where would be a sideshow.
I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but I am going to run with it slightly. At the moment, the Labour-run Welsh Government do not have the best record of governance. Of course, that might improve in the future and progress may well be made, so I conclude by saying that we encourage the Minister to resist these amendments and we believe that they would be unwise at this time.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in response to the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Humphreys. I hope to be able to explain the Government’s rationale for retaining the existing structure of the Crown Estate.
First, let me set out how the Crown Estate currently operates and why the Government believe this remains the best approach. The Crown Estate Act 1961 requires the Crown Estate commissioners to manage the Crown Estate as a commercial enterprise to enhance long-term value and generate profit and to do so with due regard to the requirements of good management. A key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously which were hampering the effective management of the estate. By focusing the commissioners’ duties on enhancing the estate’s value and the returns generated, the commissioners have a clear objective for which they can be held to account.
While the Crown Estate has goals which under its own strategy align with wider national policy objectives, the 1961 Act provides the Crown Estate with independence and autonomy to set and achieve its goals. The Government believe that the Crown Estate should continue to operate in this way, as a commercial business independent from government, because it has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation, with a proven track record in effective management.
The Crown Estate is multibillion-pound public corporation, which is required to pay its profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year, worth more than £4 billion over the past decade. Those revenues are then allocated to public service priorities by the Government, subject to the usual parliamentary controls. That is a valuable outcome, which we need to be careful not to undermine.
I turn to the amendments that deal with devolving the Crown Estate in Wales. I fully recognise that there are now two Labour Governments in the UK. While I believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form, I shall of course continue to discuss these issues with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that Wales sees the full benefits of the Crown Estate and other forms of investment.
In response to the arguments made by noble Lords during this debate, I make a number of points. First, devolving the Crown Estate to Wales would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the role of the Crown Estate in Wales. This by definition would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. As my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to, this would indeed 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 and disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-systems approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. That reform aims to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid. The cumulative impact of these effects would likely delay the pathway to net zero by decades.
Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s marine investments are currently made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. To devolve to Wales would disrupt these existing investments, since they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh-specific entity. Let me give two examples. The first is the Crown Estate’s £50 million supply chain accelerator, which will match-fund early stage projects related to offshore wind leasing round 5, and the £50 million investment in the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which brings together government bodies, the industry and key stakeholders from across the UK to better understand environmental impacts of offshore wind.
Lord Wigley (PC)
The Minister has explained the need for a restructure. As Scotland has devolution of this dimension already, clearly it is not impossible for people to come together after devolution for Wales, too.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I shall go on to address some of those points further in my speech.
To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would also risk jeopardising the existing pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic Sea planned into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic Sea. It was launched in February this year and is expected to contribute 4.5 gigawatts of total energy capacity, or enough to power 4 million homes. In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply-chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider UK. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and create a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy.
As I have said, devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as managers of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. For Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its current pipeline of Welsh projects, the biggest of which is the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic Sea, can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front. Introducing a new entity, which would have control of assets only within Wales, into this complex operating environment, where partnerships have already been formed, would not make commercial sense.
Secondly, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales, as compared to its assets in England, are of a fundamentally smaller magnitude, which would very likely not be commercially viable if the costs were unsupported by the wider Crown Estate portfolio. The Crown Estate, in its present form, has the ability to take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the costs of those investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability, nor would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades in delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch, midway through a multimillion-pound commercial tendering process, at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I want to ask him specifically about what he said in relation to Welsh Government Ministers. I pressed him hard to talk to Welsh Government Ministers and consult on this matter. Nobody expects this to be done overnight or, indeed, relatively soon, given everything else and what he has said, but that seems to me the crucial thing which would release me from an obligation at least to press this on Report.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to reiterate what I said: I will, of course, discuss these issues with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that Wales sees the full benefits of the Crown Estate and other forms of investment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, listened to that response, as I did, with some amusement. If the line that the Minister is going to take in discussion with Welsh Ministers, who have very strong opinions on this matter, is the line that he has taken in responding to this debate, there is quite clearly not going to be a meeting of minds. We are talking about a Labour Government in Cardiff and a Labour Government in London, and this is going to be the backdrop to the politics that are running through the next few years, including the run-up to the 2026 election. I beseech the Minister to think more carefully about the way he is handling this.
The way in which the Crown Estate has been devolved in Scotland has not caused immense difficulties. They have been able to disaggregate the things that need to be disaggregated. It has been possible for the Scottish Government to get the benefits they need. The most important thing that I regard as coming from this sort of structural change is to give the Welsh Government the levers and powers—and the encouragement—to take initiatives themselves, to maximise the economic return that they can get in Wales and thereby to generate the income we need to run our government services. We do not want to be for ever and a day coming with cap in hand to the Treasury in Whitehall, begging for money.
On that point, perhaps it was the same noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who was at the Treasury in 2010-11, when the Welsh Government had aggregated £400 million from money they had not spent on a revenue basis, in order to have a capital fund to build hospitals and schools, and the Treasury took back the whole £400 million. Being careful how they spent money at year end was a policy that the Labour Government in Wales could be proud of, but that is what the Treasury did to us. The Treasury is still, with the same game, trying to stop us taking initiatives on our own behalf to sort out our own problems.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made a persuasive argument, and I hope we return to these matters on Report. I was naturally grateful to my noble friend Baroness Smith of Llanfaes—she will possibly come in on other debates on these matters. I realise where the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, comes from on these issues. I too had a financial background; I was a financial controller in manufacturing industry and I know the responsibilities that go with finance. I also know the need to have the incentive and inducement to create the money that can then be used for the social services and all the other responsibilities of government —that is what we want to trigger and encourage in Wales.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her substantial speech, which laid out her party’s view. I am glad to see that the Labour Party in the Senedd Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru stand together on this, and, indeed, a number of Conservatives there do too, which perhaps Conservative colleagues could bear in mind.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, excellently summed up the whole thing. The problem that we have had down the years when it has come to wanting to take responsibility for doing things for ourselves rather than always going cap in hand to others to bail us out is that we are told we cannot do it, or that it will cut across the unity or the way the commercial sector sees it, et cetera. We have got to be able to stand on our own two feet, whether it is in the context of the structures of government we have now or different ones. As in the case of Scotland, we want to stand on our two feet and be able to pay our way in the world, and at least take responsibility on our own shoulders for doing that.
I take the point about Northern Ireland made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and, indeed, Northern Ireland is mentioned in some of these amendments. There is, of course, a need for a co-ordinated approach, but that does not mean that we have all to be lumped together under one overarching structure. The whole point of devolution is to give power and responsibility to those who are best placed to make the most of it, and, in this context, to develop and use our own resources. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the situation in Cornwall, where there are resources that can be used and maximised for, I hope, the benefit of the people of Cornwall rather than for profits to be syphoned off elsewhere. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned our experience with coal, where we were left with the coal tips, industrial disease and all the environmental problems to clear up at our own cost, but when we try to do something about it, we are told we are not capable of doing so. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for painting her party’s viewpoint on a UK basis so clearly. Obviously, the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is not one I identify with; I am not entirely surprised as we have had such responses from Conservative Governments for many years. I am, however, surprised at the response from the Labour Front Bench, where we would have hoped for more.
There is currently a shortfall in the Welsh budget of some £250 million a year, which the Government are going to have to find. There is also an increasing dynamic to that figure: it will reach some £750 million by 2028. We want to be able to do something about it ourselves, so why do they not give us the tools we need to do the job when we are willing to take the responsibility to do it? I beseech the Labour Government to look at this again between now and Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, they should speak to colleagues in Cardiff and try to get a solution that enables us to do more to help ourselves, rather than telling us for ever and a day to come with a begging bowl and hope that somebody will bail us out. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a cap on the amount the Commissioners may borrow.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 I will speak also to Amendment 5. Together, they seek to place a cap of £150 million on the amount of money that Crown Estate commissioners may borrow. To be clear, we broadly welcome and support the measures proposed in the Bill. My amendments do not change the purpose of the Bill; they are simply about the need for parliamentary oversight and scrutiny over the new borrowing powers and how they will be exercised in practice.
As the Bill stands, there is no cap on the amount the Crown Estate may borrow, subject only to Treasury approval and being within the fiscal rules. To quote the Minister at Second Reading,
“any borrowing by the Crown Estate will be at commercial rates, for subsidy control reasons, and be subject to Treasury consent. Values will be based on the total gross audited asset value of the enterprise, as reported in the annual report and accounts”.—[Official Report, 2/9/24; col. 1024.]
I struggle to think of any other examples of this kind of arrangement, where Parliament gives permanent rights for borrowing subject only to Treasury approval. If the Bill passes as it stands, there will be no further parliamentary oversight or review of these powers. There are, in effect, no limits on the amount that can be borrowed in either cash terms or as a percentage of holdings.
While employing different methods, my amendments and the others in this group all have a similar purpose: balancing the competing objectives with applying some overall financial oversight, while not being so restrictive as to be burdensome to the work of the Crown Estate and our common objective of reaching net zero.
Since borrowing powers lie at the heart of the Bill, it would be remiss of us not to examine fully their purpose, extent, impact and further oversight. We welcome the key partnership with Great British Energy, which was announced at the same time that GB Energy was launched. We welcome the plan to gain greater investment and make better use of the Crown Estate’s lands to generate new sustainable energy projects. We support the aims of updating the Crown Estate Act 1961 so that the Crown Estate can make best use of its cash reserves, subject to Treasury approval. Much has changed since the original Act was passed, and it makes sense to update the borrowing provisions in it.
The Crown Estate is a commercial business set up by the 1961 Act. It is independent of government and managed by commissioners who operate to secure profits that are returned to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation. To grow and to help it play a more useful role in our path to achieving net zero, the Crown Estate should have broader powers to borrow and to invest, so that it is best able to prosper, to compete in a commercial marketplace and to make best use of the assets under its control. The restrictions under the 1961 Act have created an unhelpful situation, where the Crown Estate, in the past, has been forced to sell our national assets to generate capital for investment. This is not a situation we wish to see continue.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, this is an interesting and important amendment that goes to the heart of Treasury control. Historically, it is fair to say that, when it came to nationalised industries, the Treasury set external finance limits that were not subject to constraints ex ante from Parliament. The proposal to borrow is definitely the right one. I recall having to jump through extraordinary hoops to enable the Crown Estate to invest in creating special purpose vehicles, usually with foreign sovereign wealth funds, to support the financing of investment. So moving to give the Crown Estate borrowing powers is the right approach.
The question then is: to what extent do those need to be constrained by Parliament? There are precedents. For example, Scotland is constrained in the quantity of its borrowing. However, the Crown Estate has more in common with nationalised industries. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in each Budget and spending review, the Treasury will publish three-year to five-year plans for the external financing limit of the Crown Estate. This will allow Parliament to scrutinise those proposals along with the rest of the Budget but should not require overarching constraint in legislation, which would effectively constrain the Treasury’s decisions on who should borrow across government and how best to allocate borrowing resources.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8. There should be a limit on the level of borrowings that the Crown Estate can have. It would be irresponsible to issue a blank cheque that risks, even encourages, abuse by the political system. At Second Reading, I suggested that a limit could be set as a percentage of capital reserves, and I proposed 10% as an appropriate amount. When added to the Crown Estate’s cash position, 10% would retain a generous amount of flexibility while guarding against the risk of abuse and overborrowing. Amendment 8 does just this. I thank the Minister for seeing me to discuss my amendment, but regret that he did not agree with the principle that a limit on borrowing is necessary. He believes that the approval needed by His Majesty’s Treasury would act as a sufficient safeguard. There are two important reasons why I believe that this is not the case.
First, relying on the good intentions of His Majesty’s Treasury to provide the necessary safeguards is simply insufficient. The First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister. There is also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who could, if the political ambition was sufficient, persuade His Majesty’s Treasury that a loan to the Crown Estate was desirable. The Minister said at Second Reading that he did not envisage the Crown Estate borrowing in the near future. However, there may be a less responsible Government in the future who may make use of this possible sleight of hand to encourage profligate or political spending.
Secondly, if a current or future Government wished to disguise spending, it is possible for the Crown Estate commissioners to carry out the desired spending for the Government with funds provided by the Treasury. Loans to the Crown Estate would be classed as an asset, meaning that the spending would be seen not as an expense but as a capital asset. Without restrictions on borrowing, there is an incentive for future less responsible Governments to increase lending to very high levels. A limit on the Crown Estate’s borrowing would go some way towards safeguarding against this. However, I also welcome Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, which provides another safeguard against this happening by ensuring that loans made to the Crown Estate are included in the Government’s assessment of the national debt.
I remain concerned about the lack of safeguarding against excessive borrowing, which poses a significant and unnecessary risk that the Crown Estate does not need to continue operating successfully. As we have heard, I am not the only member of this House who has concerns about permitting the Crown Estate limitless borrowings from His Majesty’s Treasury. Amendments 2 and 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 7, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton, all propose alternative limits to borrowing which would be quite acceptable. Should the Minister find these amendments too restrictive, Amendment 8 provides him with a generous alternative.
Finally, as the Minister has been made aware, I would like to degroup Amendment 9; as such, I will save my comments on it for the next group. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause the House, but having reflected on the matter, I feel it important to deal with that amendment separately.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and agree with many of his comments, and to give more than a nod to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton.
I rise to speak to Amendment 20 in my name. The Crown Estate has a unique position in our society, our economy, across many of our communities and right around our shoreline. This position will only be increased and enhanced through many of the measures set out in this Bill, not least the yet to be discovered tie-up with GB Energy. To this end, my Amendment 20 seeks to put in statute the principle of additionality for all spending decisions of the Crown Estate. It seems sound that, given the potential not least of offshore wind, the activities of the Crown Estate cannot at any point be seen to be crowding out other private funds. An additionality principle which seeks to apply measures on crowding out and ensure crowding in, and a report to that effect, would be not just a principle of additionality but a good addition to this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. That would be an attractive proposition if we were dealing with a “have regard”, but asking the Crown Estate to go through an extensive exercise to find out what every competitor wants to invest in would be far too challenging. However, as an underlying principle, through a “have regard”, that might be a workable way to address that issue.
I want to come back to the body of the amendments. I was fairly hopeful that we would not have to come forward with these amendments because we would have seen the language, or at least the essence of the language, that was going to be in the new framework agreement. The Minister fully accepts that the existing framework agreement completely misses the point and is unfit for purpose when it comes to adding new borrowing powers. For those who have not made the effort to look the current framework, it says that the Crown Estate may not borrow money “on security or otherwise”. There are some small exceptions for day-to-day running and working capital-type things, but that is about it. Then, the framework says that the Crown Estate’s exposure to indirect borrowing through joint ventures—this is the way the Crown Estate, in effect, has borrowed: by creating joint ventures that then go out into the market—will be no more than 40% in one vehicle, and in aggregate should not exceed 10% of the Crown Estate’s net asset value. Something along those lines strikes me as extremely appropriate and would, I think, seem appropriate to most of this House.
I raised ahead of Second Reading, and on Second Reading with the Minister, that we have never seen a business case that argues why additional borrowing or additional funds are necessary. This is an entity that is sitting on some £2 billion in cash—why is this necessary? I do not think we are opposed to this, but if we are going to approve it, it makes sense to see the thought process behind it. The Minister was quite hopeful: he said that he was happy now to commit to publishing a version of the business plan, approved by the last Government, which removes any commercially sensitive information. That was a really satisfactory step, but we have not seen it. I suppose I am slightly surprised that it is been so difficult to just black out the commercially sensitive bits, and I wonder when we are going to see it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments on the investment and borrowing powers in the Bill for the most part seeks to put in place limits on borrowing by the Crown Estate. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who introduced the group, and I agree with him that there should be a limit on the borrowing powers that the Government intend to extend to the Crown Estate commissioners.
I also associate myself with the comments made by both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the absence of the business case and the draft framework agreement. This is not the first Treasury Bill where accompanying documents have not appeared, but this is a new Government.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for his Amendment 8—I understand that the Committee will come back to his Amendment 9 separately—which seeks to probe the Government’s intention on borrowing. My noble friend made his points clearly: it is not just about this current Government, or the subsequent Government, but any future Government under whom there may need to be checks and balances in place to prevent the overleveraging of a very important group of national assets run by an independent company or organisation.
Extending the borrowing powers was planned by the previous Conservative Government, and we absolutely support the principle of the Bill. As I said on the previous group, the Crown Estate will be a very different organisation in 10 years and so has to do a lot of things very quickly. It is going to need money and there is an opportunity here. However, I am struggling to figure out how its relationships with GB Energy, on which I still lack clarity, and—one step removed—the national wealth fund, which I understand does not have as much money as was originally planned, will all fit together. Therefore, to protect the integrity of the Crown Estate it is important that a borrowing limit is put in place.
Previously, the Crown Estate commissioners were constrained by the 1961 Act, but we support other noble Lords who have spoken today on considering what the mechanism might be. Different noble Lords have proposed different mechanisms. I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, picked a number, and I accept that that might be an outcome, but of course it is not really inflation-proofed; it would be in the Bill and therefore it might not be helpful in due course. I went away and thought about having 2% of total assets as the limit. If one looks at the portfolio as it stands for 2022-23—£15.5 billion—one sees that a 2% cap would represent a cash limit of around £310 million. That would be a more generous cap than that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but it is broadly equivalent to the “hundreds of millions”—I think that was the phrase—envisaged by the Minister. We are just trying to be helpful here, by putting a statutory footing underneath the Minister’s intention in any event.
Another thought I had was not only doing this as a percentage of total assets but giving Parliament some sort of say over a five-year horizon. I think this was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, was making, but in a separate way. I was not actually aware that borrowing forecasts appear in documents relating to the Crown Estate—maybe they do, and in any event it would be worthwhile to have a look at them. There is a significant loss of parliamentary oversight in this Bill. There is very little parliamentary oversight at all of the Crown Estate anyway, despite it holding some of our national assets, but the Bill takes even more of that parliamentary oversight away, which I will come to in a subsequent group.
I believe that there is an opportunity to add some oversight, and therefore I came up with the idea that Parliament should be required to pass regulations that set out, by year, a five-year borrowing cap. Parliament could do that every year quite simply. That would obviously give flexibility, and it would enable debates to happen about the Crown Estate and whether it was heading in the right direction. The Treasury could be challenged about its involvement—apparently there is a transparent relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, although I have found no notes relating to that which would indicate such transparency. That was my other idea.
There are many ways that the House might decide on Report to put a limit on borrowings. I am happy to hear the views of the Minister; I very much hope that he will appreciate that many noble Lords are trying to help.
Briefly, my Amendment 10 picks up the point made by my noble friend Lord Howard about the situation where the Treasury is going to be lending to the Crown Estate, and that will be down as an asset, and then that money could circulate back and go into day-to-day government spending. To me, that seems slightly odd. It would be good to get some sort of commitment to ensure that that sort of mechanism is somehow broken.
I am grateful to all noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I might come to his element about additionality when we come on to the reporting of the investment strategy of the Crown Estate in a later group.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords on this group of amendments. I recognise that the issue of controls on borrowing is an important consideration, and I hope to offer some reassurance. I agree with very many of the points raised during this debate, in particular that controls on borrowing by the Crown Estate must be in place. I assure noble Lords that such controls will be set out in the memorandum of understanding that will be in place between the Crown Estate and the Treasury, and will be set at a loan to value ratio not to exceed 25%.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Is the Minister saying that it will be an MoU rather than a framework agreement, or are they the same thing by another name?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
They are the same thing by another name.
By way of background, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, said, the Bill we are considering was conceived under the previous Government, and it was continued by this Government as we share the same objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and to invest. The default starting position I inherited was that the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury could contain commercially sensitive information and would therefore not be published.
I listened carefully to views expressed by many noble Lords at Second Reading that it should in fact be published. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke particularly persuasively on this issue, and I gave her the commitment at Second Reading that it would be published in draft before November. I can confirm to noble Lords that it will, as a result, definitely be published before Report. In hindsight, though, I recognise that I could have reversed the position I inherited sooner and that this would have been more helpful to noble Lords considering this group of amendments. I am also grateful for the conversation I had last week with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, which I found informative and persuasive. I thank him for his time. I believe the question is not whether such controls on borrowing should exist but what those controls are and whether they should be set out in statute or in the memorandum of understanding.
I will briefly recap the purpose of this legislation. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities, but to compete effectively, and to invest in order to maximise its returns to the Exchequer, it needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. That is the purpose of this legislation, and we should consider the controls we wish to place on its ability to borrow in the context of not undermining that objective. It is important to note that any borrowing by the Crown Estate will be for investment in activities that will drive increases in revenues, therefore increasing the returns it provides to the Government.
The Government’s strong intention is for the Crown Estate to borrow at levels that are proportionate to the nature of the business. I must emphasise that the powers proposed by the Bill are both targeted and measured. The Crown Estate will not be permitted to borrow without the consent of the Treasury. This is a strong safeguard and ensures that borrowing by the Crown Estate will not be uncontrolled. Furthermore, as I set out at the beginning of my comments, the memorandum of understanding will set a loan-to-value ratio not to exceed 25%. It will also set out other operating parameters in regard to the Crown Estate’s borrowing ability.
I turn to Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 8 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. These amendments each seek to cap the level of borrowing out of the National Loans Fund by the Crown Estate in specific ways. Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would restrict borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than 2% of the value of total assets of the Crown Estate. Measuring 2% against Crown Estate assets would currently equate to £354 million. Amendment 2 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would limit Crown Estate borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than £150 million, while similarly Amendment 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, would restrict borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than 10% of capital and reserves, which on current figures equates to approximately £1.5 billion. So there is a wide range of views on the specific size of the limit. Based on current asset values, the proposed 25% loan-to-value parameter would equate to approximately £3 billion.
The principal issue here is whether a specific cap should be set out in the Bill. The Government’s considered view is that such a limit should not exist in statute. The purpose of the Bill is to afford the Crown Estate greater flexibility so that it can continue to deliver on its success, support wider national policy objectives and generate maximum returns for the Exchequer. As such, the measures proposed in the Bill are intended to endure without further amendment for many decades to come. For this reason, the Government’s view is that controls on borrowing are best set outside primary legislation, as is the case for some other public bodies with borrowing powers.
The controls on borrowing for the Crown Estate will instead be set out in the underpinning memorandum of understanding agreed with the Treasury, which I have referred to previously. I remind noble Lords that the fundamental duties of the Crown Estate commissioners, and their general duty, will remain to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, with due regard to the requirements of good management. Excessive borrowing would not be consistent with this duty.
We should also be mindful of what an appropriate maximum level of debt for an organisation such as the Crown Estate may be. It has an asset base in excess of £15 billion, overwhelmingly in the form of land and property. Included in the Crown Estate’s original business case, which I have also committed to publish before Report, is information on the loan-to-value ratio of the Crown Estate’s peers in the UK real estate sector. At the most conservative end of this scale is the Duchy of Cornwall, with a loan-to-value ratio of 14%. By contrast, a £150 million limit on Crown Estate borrowing would equate to a loan-to-value ratio of less than 1%.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken on this group of amendments. It has been a useful and helpful discussion from us all. There was a feeling from all parties across the Committee that there was a need for some movement on these issues, and I thank the Minister for listening to the will of the Committee and responding so positively. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson. It is an interesting idea to review the borrowing limits, which could be published. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for his amendment proposing that borrowing should not exceed 10%, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her amendments.
The Minister has really listened. The important thing we have here is a commitment from the Minister to publish the memorandum of understanding and the business case before Report. That information will be helpful to Members from all parties in making decisions about what they want to do, so I thank him greatly for that. He also said very clearly that his understanding is that the loan-to-value rate should not be more than 25%, which would be a sum equivalent to £3 billion of the total £15 billion of value within the Crown Estate. We have some things to go away and think about.
I heard what the Minister said about the Government’s position. His view is that there should not be a value that exists in statute. That is something that we probably all need to go away and think about to move it forward, but I thank him for the concessions that he has made. Providing that information will help Members of this House to make their decisions, so I thank him very much.
Lord Howard of Rising
“(c) borrowing by the Commissioners must not exceed an amount equal to 200% of capital and reserves of the Crown Estate.”
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the principle that there should be a limit on lending; 25% is probably more than I would have liked to go for, but nevertheless I am grateful that the principle has been accepted. That would probably be better in statute than in a memorandum of understanding, but perhaps I could reflect on that. Really, the Minister has taken the wind out of the sails of my Amendment 9, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
As the noble Lord has spoken to the amendment, the Government may reply if they so wish.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“5A The Chair of Commissioners and each Commissioner may not be appointed until the appointment has been scrutinised by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, or any successor committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the appointment of the Chair of Commissioners of The Crown Estate to be subject to scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, my Amendments 12 and 36 focus broadly on the governance and management of the Crown Estate. Amendment 12 in my name seeks to introduce a process by which Parliament can scrutinise the appointment of new Crown Estate commissioners. If passed, the Bill will increase the number of commissioners from eight to 12. The Government have not given a clear reason for this change, arguing merely that the new number will bring the number of commissioners in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. Further information and thoughts on that from the Minister would be welcome. It would be interesting to hear what problems this change will solve, what particular skills he feels the Crown Estate is missing and why those additional four commissioners will deliver the change needed.
As many noble Lords have remarked already in Committee today, the Crown Estate bears the most enormous responsibility as the custodian of many of the nation’s important assets. That responsibility is significant, yet the level of parliamentary oversight—over not only the activity of the commissioners but their stewardship of these billions of pounds’ worth of incredibly important assets—is weak and has been further weakened by the Bill.
My Amendment 12 would give Parliament a role in scrutinising commissioner appointments to ensure that candidates were qualified for the role that they are anticipated to play. That would include the new commissioners who will be introduced after the Bill becomes law, as well as the chair of commissioners, for which I believe a recruitment process is currently under way. The chair of the commissioners will be an incredibly important role. Again, I believe it would be beneficial and reassuring to all parliamentarians if a committee—for example, the Treasury Select Committee—had the opportunity to question the candidate for that role before they took up the reins.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham identifies a specific issue when it comes to oversight. Commitments are made on behalf of the Crown Estate but there is no mechanism to ensure that those commitments are implemented. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what my noble friend has to say, and will agree that the amendment in my noble friend’s name would improve the Bill.
Amendment 36 also seeks to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the governance of the Crown Estate, by ensuring that the disposal of assets owned by the Crown Estate is reported to the Treasury and then to Parliament. The Minister will know that I was concerned about this, as I asked in a meeting what restrictions there were over sale of assets. I did not receive a satisfactory response at all. Again, I note that the Crown Estate owns some of our most important landmarks. These are valuable pieces of land, buildings or indeed seabed, but they are not just valuable; they are iconic.
There is limited transparency to the decisions of the Crown Estate beyond the annual report. This measure is simply designed to ensure that Parliament has some visibility in the decision to dispose of assets. In this case, I picked an amount of £10 million, but it could be higher than that. This seeks to discourage the commissioners from taking inappropriate short-term decisions about the ownership of national landmarks, and indeed the natural environment, for short-term gain.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendments in this group about creating public good, and I will listen with great interest to the response from the Minister. The spirit of my noble friend’s Amendment 19 aligns closely with my Amendments 37A, 37B and 37C in a later group, and will touch on that there.
Finally, I was interested to note the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to grant the Crown Estate commissioners the power to grant leases in exchange for full or part ownership of any project. Again, that is something the Minister may wish to consider.
I hope the Minister will look carefully at these constructive amendments, and specifically confirm to the Committee whether he agrees that Parliament should have a greater role—or indeed, in my view, any role at all at this stage—in scrutinising the work of the Crown Estate. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 13 in my name is a follow-up to an issue I raised at Second Reading, where I spoke about a case where the Crown Estates were not honouring an undertaking that they gave to your Lordships’ House earlier this year: that they would adhere to the terms of the various Leasehold Reform Acts on the statute book. By appointing a commissioner, as my noble friend has just mentioned, with the specific responsibility of ensuring that such undertakings are honoured, we could reduce the risk of this happening.
To recap, briefly, Parliament has given certain rights to leaseholders. Included in those rights is the right to buy out the freehold or to extend the lease on specified terms. The Crown is, as a general rule, exempt from legislation but it agrees to abide by its terms. The relevant undertaking to so abide was given by me in 1983, when I took what is now the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act through the other place. The undertaking was repeated by my noble friend Lady Anelay, then the Government Chief Whip, on 24 May this year as the then Leasehold Reform Bill got its Third Reading; it can be found in Hansard for that day and says that
“The Crown … agrees to the enfranchisement or extension of … leases”—[Official Report, 24/5/24; col. 1368.]
as set out in the various Acts.
How does the Crown acquire new freeholds? When a freeholder disappears or goes bankrupt, the Crown Estate takes possession under a process known as escheat. At that point, leaseholders appear to lose the rights that Parliament has given them. In the case that I cited, leaseholders applied to buy the freehold but were told by agents acting for the Crown Estate that it was not obliged to dispose of the freehold under the relevant formula in the legislation, but offered to sell it at a far higher price—over four times as high.
Solicitors acting for the Crown Estate conceded that, until this issue is resolved:
“Where a block of flats is subject to escheat lessees will generally be unable to sell”,
and that is indeed the case. We have a stalemate, as described at Second Reading, with longer-terms risks to the fabric of a building. I referred then to the framework document, which sets out the terms of agreement between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, in particular the sentence which says the Treasury shall
“inform The Crown Estate of relevant government policy in a timely manner”.
I suggested that the Minister told the Crown Estate that policy on enfranchisement has been clear for many years and that the Crown Estate should respect it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to add a little extra interest to the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. We discussed this at Second Reading and my Amendment 42, which will come at the end of tomorrow night if we ever get that far, is about the same issue. I go back to the statement made by the Chief Whip of the previous Government, who basically said that the Crown will comply with the legislation if it chooses to; that is a summary. The way it chooses to do it will be published at some time, which is relevant to my amendment.
The reason I am speaking now is because the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, beg the question: who is in charge? Is it the Government or the Crown Estate or, in my case, the Duchy of Cornwall? Each one blames the other and says that they are not in charge, but they actually probably are. They then refuse to have correspondence. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Young, got a letter.
I have a good friend, Dr John Kirkhope, who advises on many issues around the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not much different to the Crown Estate. He tried to get a freedom of information decision on whether he could seek copies of correspondence between the Duchy and the Government—I think that includes the Crown Estate, the Duchy and the Government—on matters of policy. The answer was no. He went back and said, “Here you have an unelected body apparently advising government on matters of policy and that does not seem very right to me”.
Paragraph 16 of the eight-page response from the Information Commissioner’s Office on whether any information should be disclosed says:
“The Commissioner considers that the following factors will be key indicators of the formulation or the development of government policy”.
There are then three bullet points.
“the final decision will be made either by the Cabinet or the relevant minister; … the government intends to achieve a particular outcome or change in the real world; and … the consequences of the decision will be wide-ranging”.
The Crown Estate therefore
“advised that it considered direct correspondence as well as correspondence where the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall had been copied into”
and decided that it is reasonable to withhold information.
It looks as if the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall—we never mention the Duchy of Lancaster, but I think it is rather less difficult—seem to be a Government of their own. This is back to the feudal system, where Ministers, whom we elect and appoint, are unable to effect any legislation regarding the Crown Estate or the Duchy because they are not so important. It is back to the feudal system, and I shall come back to this on Amendment 42.
I hope my noble friend will give the noble Lord, Lord Young, a pretty strong response, because this is something that will go on and on—whether it is escheat or something else. The people affected are getting pretty fed up with the Duchy and Crown Estate playing them and not coming back with a decent response.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments, not least to give full-throated support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who gave us an excellent lesson in escheat and how it is being applied by the Crown Estate. He took us on a whirlwind journey, from “Monty Python” to “Yes, Minister”, without needing at any point to go near Mornington Crescent. He also added greatly to the work of land law scholars across the country with the new common-law concept of the resting parrot freehold. I hope the Minister will respond in the only way possible to such a clear and erudite presentation from my noble friend—with a clear, unequivocal agreement to every last word.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 31. I apologise in advance that I have no “Monty Python” sketch references, but I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the other amendments already spoken to.
Amendment 31 seeks to give an explicit power to Crown Estate commissioners to lease parts of their holding in exchange for either part or full ownership of any project or development, as the commissioners see fit. For the sake of clarity, the full wording of the proposed new Section 3(1)(a) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 is:
“The Commissioners may waive lease fees in exchange for full or part ownership of any project or development”.
I say this only as the Member’s explanatory statement used the word “land”. My amendment is intended to—and does, as far as I am concerned—cover all the Crown Estate’s holdings. That is particularly important because, as we all know, most of its money comes from the leases of the seabed. This amendment is designed to help the Government and the partnership with GB Energy. It is designed to help the Crown Estate itself. I want to see a transition to net-zero power by 2030. I welcome that commitment from this Government.
But I also want to see us grow and develop as an economy and as a country. I want the energy transition, which is arguably one of the greatest transitions in our use of energy since the Industrial Revolution, to be of benefit to ordinary people. I want the UK to be able to own at least parts of our new energy infrastructure—the energy infrastructure of the future. That is my thinking in my amendment. I want the UK to receive long-term benefits above and beyond just the green and environmental benefits that come with these things.
The Crown Estate generates its income primarily from the lease of seabed plots for offshore wind and floating offshore wind developments. The Crown Estate reported record profits for 2023-24 of £1.1 billion, boosted by round 4 sales. Round 5 of the offshore wind auction was not as successful but we have just had a successful round 6, which I welcome, which generated some 4.9 gigawatts of capacity but at somewhat lower prices than in round 4. Labour has plans to generate 20 to 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. For context, that is enough to power 20 million homes.
We still have quite a long way to go with this offshore wind and floating offshore wind transition in particular. The hope is that £8.3 billion of investment by the Government will help to leverage some £60 billion of private investment. It is interesting that we are talking about this today, the day on which the Labour Government are holding their investment summit. I wish them well with that because the UK economy needs to grow and we need inward investment to do that.
We welcome, obviously, the plans for GB Energy and this partnership and tie-up with the Crown Estate. But although I very much welcome Labour’s ambition to decarbonise our power generation by 2030, it is worth noting that GB Energy will not be an energy supplier or own any energy generation assets. To my mind, that is a missed opportunity and I think we could do better.
To quote the Labour Energy Forum document title, Who Owns the Wind, Owns the Future. The Floating Offshore Wind Task Force has predicted that floating offshore wind could be the UK’s biggest industrial success by 2030, worth £47 billion to the UK economy and employing some 10,000 people. We should never lose sight of the fact that the UK is well placed and is estimated to be the third-best country in the world for the generation of wind energy. We are extremely lucky in that regard.
Other significant parts of the Bill seek to make rights that were implicit in the 1961 Act explicit. From my reading of the original Act, I can see no reason why the Crown Estate could not waive lease fees in exchange for part-ownership of offshore or floating offshore energy wind projects—but, at the same time, I can find no implicit right in the original Act. Frankly, I think there should be an implicit right.
As far as I can tell, the Crown Estate does not own or part-own any offshore wind installations now. It has a helpful page on its website that shows who owns all the offshore wind under its control. In many cases it is foreign Governments, hedge funds and other nations and their capital which own it. In 2022, for example, nearly half the UK’s offshore wind capacity was owned by state-owned or majority state-owned foreign companies. They are getting the long-term benefit of the investment in our third-best wind energy in the world and are using it to support their economies.
I want our wind energy to generate and support our economy. While leasing plots brings in revenues, part-ownership of the infrastructure itself could bring in much-needed longer-term and consistent revenue streams to the Crown Estate. I believe there is greater long-term financial gain from part-ownership of energy infrastructure than from simply leasing the seabed.
This would be good for the Crown Estate. As we have heard today, the Crown Estate is in a period of transition and allowing it the ability to explore this, if it wants to, would be useful at the start of the partnership. I also believe that allowing this to happen could be useful for the generation of small-scale community energy projects. This is something that I believe in strongly and would like to see the Government do a lot more of, and this amendment would be useful in helping that to happen. It could be the basis of a new model for the way the Crown Estate works, generating much smaller, local community benefit projects.
This would be good for energy transition, good for the Crown Estate, good for the UK economy and good for jobs and growth. I welcome your Lordships’ responses and look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that this amendment finds approval.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 22 in my name, which is included in this group of amendments. I also add my support to Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on inclusion in governance and Amendment 24—my noble friend Lord Wigley will follow with further commentary—on the transparency of financial reporting.
One of the aims of bringing forward the Crown Estate Bill was to increase the number of commissioners on the board. Increasing the size of the board is a good opportunity to reflect on its composition, and I share the curiosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in relation to what the Government hope the additional commissioners will add, specifically, to the committee.
At present there is no representation from our national Parliaments on the board, which makes investment and borrowing decisions across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Having representation from our national Parliaments on the board will improve the Crown Estate’s alignment with the public policy aims of our national Parliament, in particular on crossovers with policy on devolved areas such as energy and the environment. My amendment would give each of our national Parliaments where the Crown Estate has activities the opportunity to nominate a representative to the board.
This amendment provides a meaningful mechanism for our democratically elected Parliaments to have a say on decisions made by the Crown Estate. I welcome support for this amendment from all corners of the Chamber and look forward to hearing the Government’s position too.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group of amendments, not least to support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in the point he made. I think it raised—as did Amendment 31 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the question of the interpretation and interaction of the powers in the 1961 Act and how they are being used. I want particularly to raise one issue with the Minister. I should also say that in the register of interests noble Lords will see that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and the Crown Estate is a member of that, although I do not think any of its activities or that interest impinge on this Bill in any way.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to the way in which the Crown Estate interprets its statutory duty in Section 3(1) of the 1961 Act, which says that it must secure
“the best consideration in money or money’s worth”
in
“all the circumstances of the case”.
That is indeed what the statute says, but I have had the benefit of looking at the Crown Estate Act and talking with officials. I am grateful for their time, not least because it seems to me that there is an inherent restriction on the function of the commissioners which, as the Minister earlier made clear, is in Section 1(3) and sets out that they should “maintain and enhance” the value and return obtained from the estate with
“regard to the requirements of good management”.
As far as I understand it, the view of the Government and the Crown Estate is that, over 60 years or thereabouts, the requirements to obtain best consideration in money or money’s worth have effectively been trumped where necessary by the function of the commissioners, particularly as regards securing the requirements of good management. My first question to the Minister is: in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was saying, does he agree that the requirements of good management in that instance mean that the Crown Estate would live by the practice of other public authorities, or those with public responsibilities, in relation to the interests of the leaseholders?
Lord Wigley (PC)
Before I pursue the subject of the amendment, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that subject. I suggest that, if the Crown Estate has the powers, it also has the responsibilities that go with it. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has highlighted some important responsibilities, and I suspect that it will need a lot more attention in coming months and years.
I shall speak primarily once again on issues relating to the devolved dimension. It is to better understand the financial dealings of the Crown Estate in Wales that Amendment 24 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Humphreys, is on the Marshalled List. It asks for the disaggregation of the annual reporting of capital and revenue items to provide transparency in regard to the Crown Estate finances relating to Wales, England and Northern Ireland respectively. We have gone through some of the general arguments in this sphere, so I am not going to repeat them, but I stress that this is a modest proposal that surely cannot be rejected by any Government who have some sympathy with the position of the devolved Government.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I shall make a short contribution in agreement with Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
When I was preparing for this debate, I looked at some figures, but they are very difficult to find. On the first group in Committee, I referred to the fact that we know that the Crown Estate has land worth more than £600 million in Wales, that it owns 65% of the coast and that it has 300,000 acres of land in Wales, but we do not know exactly how much money that raises in Wales. We know that, across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, profits have more than doubled in the past year, growing from £443 million in 2022-23 to £1.1 billion in 2023-24, but there is very little clarity about the contribution of each individual nation to the total. In the interests of transparency, I certainly support Amendment 24. On Amendment 22, I cannot understand why none of the Parliaments of the UK sends a representative to sit on the board of the commission. I support those two amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I very much endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Humphreys. I too believe that this is another opportunity to make sure that there is a far stronger voice for Wales, so let us seize it and use that as a template for how the Crown Estate goes forward.
I wanted to focus more on a couple of other issues. In a sense, I see a linkage between the comments made by my noble friend Lord Russell suggesting that, by forgoing receiving lease income and instead taking an ownership tranche in a whole series of new energy projects, the long-term income to the Crown Estate and to England and Wales would be significantly larger than the much shallower and shorter-term benefit of charging lease rent. That relates to the same kind of issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Please could the Minister sort that problem out? This really is an unfair situation, and it will just take a Minister to absolutely slap his hand on the table and get it done.
In both cases there is a tendency, which I noticed at Second Reading, for Members of this House to think of the Crown Estate as some sort of cuddly organisation. It may be very generous, and if you read its annual report you can see that it does wonderful things for local communities and talks incredibly sympathetically about disadvantaged people, but when it operates as a commercial entity, my goodness, it is one of the most aggressive commercial entities that anyone could run into—and when you say that within the property sector, you are really saying something. It is infected by the same position adopted by many other property companies, which is to go for very short-term profit and to forget about the long term.
Everything that we hear from the Government is about patient capital—and, if you are going to look for the long term, surely you follow the pattern proposed by my noble friend Lord Russell, which says that, over the long term, you will do much better if you take some serious equity positions and perhaps make an in-kind contribution to a project, rather than charging rent over a relatively short-term period. If it acts in the same way as a commercial entity, surely in its commercial activities the Crown Estate should be treated as a commercial entity and therefore have to live up to the law that applies to other commercial entities operating in that same sector, and not to have an out because of its peculiar status, sitting somewhere between public and private. If that were done, the noble Lord, Lord Young, would not be asking why on earth it was not living up to the terms of the law for other commercial entities in dealing with leaseholders and freehold. It has to be recognised for what it is, and there are changes, consequently, that the Government may wish to make—first to create long-term thinking but also to make sure that, when it operates on a commercial basis, it is subject to the same regulations and requirements as other similar commercial properties.
I want to address very briefly the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It is wonderful the change that comes when a body moves into opposition —the road to Damascus. The number of times I have asked a Conservative Government: when we have appointments, could we please have pre-appointment scrutiny by a committee of this House? In fact, I may even have requested them of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, concerning various appointments at the Treasury—I cannot quite remember, there have been so many over the years. I am so glad of this Damascene conversion. We now have a Conservative party that is also supporting pre-appointment scrutiny. I do believe that pre-appointment scrutiny was often the Labour Party position. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is shaking his head but I think I may have a longer memory. I have certainly heard it from other Members, both on the Treasury Select Committee when I was in the other House, and on the Economic Affairs Committee. Pre-appointment scrutiny does make sense as a general underlying principle, and it would seem to make sense for the four new commissioners that are to be added to the existing eight.
Like others, I am really curious to know: going from eight to 12, they say, is good practice, but why? What will they do? Where will they come from? I can perfectly well see that this is a great opportunity for regional representation, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, touched on a very important point: we now look at most boards and want to see clearly that they understand that the ethics and attitudes of today require inclusivity; that it is not just some token item somewhere in an ethics statement by the company, but that someone is actually taking responsibility, based on knowledge, at a very senior level within the decision-making structure, and implementing that role. Here is an opportunity to seize that, and I hope very much that the Government will do so.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Smith, the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Holmes and Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising these very important issues concerning the governance and management of the Crown Estate. I should emphasise again that the intention of the Bill is to afford the Crown Estate greater flexibility to ensure that it can successfully compete in commercial markets to deliver maximum benefits for the nation.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Vere, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, asked about the number of commissioners. This change reflects the growing diversity of the Crown Estate’s business and will ensure that the Crown Estate can meet best practice standards for modern corporate governance. This will help to broaden the diversity of the board and provide more breadth of expertise and capacity to enable the commissioners to operate more effectively in the constantly evolving business environment. The Bill provides for a maximum number of 12 commissioners, up from eight at present. However, within this limit, the exact number of commissioners serving at any one time will be in the light of advice from the Crown Estate’s board on where it considers additional board-level expertise would be beneficial to the business.
I will start by addressing the issue of the appointment of commissioners to the Crown Estate’s board, reflecting on Amendments 12 and 22, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Smith. Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee or any successor committee of all future proposed commissioner appointments, including the chair, before any appointment can be made. Let me first emphasise that all Crown Estate commissioner appointments are governed by the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The code is clear that commissioners must be selected based on expertise and experience.
As I have previously set out, the Crown Estate operates independently of the King and of government. Affording Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise potential appointments before they are made would significantly alter the appointments process, in a way that would change the relationship between the Crown Estate, government and Parliament. The Cabinet Office’s existing guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny is clear that it should apply only where posts play a key role in the regulation of actions by the Government, protecting and safeguarding the public’s rights and interests in relation to decisions and actions of the Government, or roles where organisations have a direct major impact on public life. It is the Government’s view, as it was of the previous Government, that the Crown Estate’s commissioner posts do not fit these criteria and that it would therefore be inappropriate to require pre-appointment scrutiny.
It should also be noted that pre-appointment scrutiny of roles elsewhere in public life is limited largely to the role of chairs. Therefore, even if the Cabinet Office’s criteria were satisfied, it would be disproportionate and unusual for all commissioner appointments to be subject to such scrutiny. In addition, requiring pre-appointment scrutiny for non-executive commissioner posts, which are not high profile or public facing, may deter some candidates from applying. As I have set out, this would be inconsistent with existing pre-scrutiny arrangements, which are generally restricted to chair positions. Consequently, this might put at risk securing candidates of the necessary quality and calibre to the board and present a more fundamental risk to the overall management of the Crown Estate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for what he said. Can he confirm that he has not ruled out amending the draft memorandum of understanding in the way that I proposed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I would like to be helpful to the noble Lord. I am told that the memorandum of understanding deals exclusively with borrowing powers, so it may not be the most appropriate vehicle to insert that into.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I have a very simple question to ask him. We have had a very interesting debate, and I have understood much of it, but who does the Crown Estate—and therefore the Duchy of Cornwall—report to? Is it the Government or Parliament? Who controls them, or are they a law unto themselves? In spite of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I do not think the King comes into it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is a very good question, and I shall endeavour to find the answer and write to my noble friend.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords. That was an excellent debate and a lot of ground was covered. My favourite line of the debate came from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She put her finger on it when she said that the Crown Estate was not a “cuddly organisation”. It does not need to be—it does not report to anybody, apart from its commissioners, and that is at the heart of the issue that I think many noble Lords are grappling with. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was pleased with my recent conversion to pre-appointment scrutiny. I cannot guarantee that that will continue. I understand a new leader is in the offing in my party, so who knows what will happen?
The amendment that I put down was a useful way of probing some thinking around why the number of commissioners had to go from eight to 12. The response from the Minister was the sort of management jargon I used to learn at business school about 25 years ago. I am not much the wiser, but I will go back to Hansard and study his words carefully. Pre-appointment scrutiny, for the chair in particular, would be a very small but important change, particularly as we are dealing not with a cuddly organisation but with one which happens to own and manage some very important and valuable national assets. Therein lies the tension, and that is my concern.
Turning to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Young, it was a forensic analysis. I am sure many noble Lords learned much from it, not least how to structure a really good argument, which has stumped the Minister. I am pleased that he is stumped because I am sure that he will go away and look at it—indeed, I implore him to do so, such that we do not have to return to this, at length, on Report.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Holmes feels satisfied by the Minister’s response to his amendments. On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I presume that both he and I are pleased that the Crown Estate can already do what he wants it to do. I agree with him that it sounds completely obvious.
I am afraid that I am not happy with the Minister’s response on the question of disposals; in fact, I am probably more concerned by his response than I was beforehand. I am not sure that the nation would expect the complexion of the assets held by the Crown Estate to significantly change, so we may well come back to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Duty: protection of the seabed(1) The Crown Estate Commissioners must take steps to protect the seabed which forms part of the Crown Estate.(2) Protection under subsection (1) includes prohibiting all activities, business practices, leisure pursuits and other actions which damage permanently or temporarily the seabed.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin the next group of amendments. I shall move Amendment 14 and speak to Amendments 15 and 17 in my name. In doing so, I draw attention to my technology interests as set out in the register. I also had a Private Member’s Bill, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, in the last Session.
We have already covered a wide range of incredibly important issues pertaining to the activities and operations of the Crown Estate. I gently and delicately suggest that Amendment 14 goes to perhaps the most significant issue that we could consider: the protection of the seabed around the United Kingdom. It is not an asset, nor a funding decision or a piece of plant or machinery, but the very bedrock of the ocean—one of the most important parts of our planet. There are currently practices, business and otherwise, carried on daily that temporarily and permanently damage the seabed. If such activities were taking place on the Crown Estate’s lands—for example, stripping away all the topsoil or taking away all the foundations of the buildings—it would of course not be permitted and be swiftly stopped, so why can the seabed which comes under the custody of the Crown Estate be so abused? Again, it is not an asset or a property, or a piece of land, but Poseidon’s pastures, and we must take this opportunity to protect them.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet—oh, I am not co-chair, I am chair now! I am sorry, I must have an old version of my speech.
I will speak to Amendment 25 in my name in this group. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Young of Cookham. I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, in his widening of the debate about the role of the Crown Estate into some of the huge challenges that we face as a nation and as a society.
This group of amendments takes up the themes suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which challenge us to answer the question of how the core responsibilities of the Crown Estate —the financial responsibilities and the objectives of creating an income stream for the Treasury—fit in and interact with other major responsibilities and other pieces of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was talking about this in relation to tenancy questions, while the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was asking whether the Crown Estate is constrained in some of the things it wants to do—the environmental and climate change issues that I am interested in, for example—by the 1961 Act, and whether it is unable to recognise other responsibilities and objectives that the Government have put into legislation since that Act.
My amendment tries to ensure that the Crown Estate does what it can as an important part of our national wealth to contribute to combating the nature and climate crises. It would equip the Crown Estate to play its role and future-proof that commitment against a future change of government. It does so by ensuring the Crown Estate has a statutory duty to contribute to national efforts to meet our climate and nature targets, as set out in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. In relation to the seabed, about which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke so eloquently, the amendment would also safeguard the Crown Estate’s ability to fulfil its stated mission to,
“take a leading role in stewarding the UK’s natural environment”,
by requiring seabed leaseholders to meet a new conservation condition.
The amendment would enable the Crown Estate to continue to fulfil its role of creating wealth for His Majesty’s Treasury while recognising that, as it moves away from being solely an asset owner and takes on new borrowing and investment powers, it should also be accompanied by obligations to deliver for nature and the climate. The last significant modernisation of the Crown Estate was over 60 years ago, when the issues relating to climate change and the threats to the natural environment were far less understood and far lower down the national and global agenda. Today, however, the impacts of climate change are undeniable. Only last week, a new report on the state of the world’s climate led by international scientists concluded that:
“Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperilled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis”.
The report highlights that we are still moving in the wrong direction, with emissions and their often catastrophic effects, which we have seen so recently, still rising.
At Second Reading, the Government did not seek to deny the threat or the urgency of the climate and nature crises, nor the need for the Crown Estate to play its part in combatting them. Rather, they suggested that a statutory duty was not necessary because:
“the Crown Estate has existing governance structures in place to ensure that environmental impacts are a central consideration of its investment decisions”.—[Official Report, 2/9/24; col. 1021.]
But there is an important difference between considering environmental impacts in investment decisions and making sure that those decisions actually contribute to our nature and climate targets.
My amendment supports the Crown Estate not just to think about minimising the impacts on the environment but to look at the contribution it can make that will bring us closer to our climate and nature goals. I welcome the important progress that the Crown Estate is making through its new nature goals and the initiatives it has taken, including the Marine Delivery Routemap, but our amendment seeks to embed such initiatives in legislative form. It is constructive work that is already being done, but—I go back to it not being a cuddly organisation—we need to embed it and to future-proof it, and we can do that only by changing the Bill.
The need for a legislative base to underpin environmental responsibilities was, in fact, recognised in the Scottish Crown Estate Act. I believe that my amendment reflects a similar, and indeed even stronger, objective by linking the contribution to our legally binding targets. I know that there is concern about the possibility of these provisions in some way encroaching on the commercial independence of the Crown Estate, but my amendment does not seek to constrain that commercial independence. It simply commits the organisation only to
“take all reasonable steps to contribute to … the achievement of”
our nature and climate targets, in line with the legally binding targets the Government have already committed to.
There is a growing recognition that we have to integrate nature and climate responsibilities across our national and local bodies and across all organisations that discharge public duties. As the Minister will recall, there have been a number of Bills affecting regulators and public bodies on which we have brought forward amendments similar to this and often succeeded in integrating nature and climate responsibilities into legislation—but we are doing it piecemeal at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has a Private Member’s Bill before the House this week that gives us the opportunity to take a more coherent and comprehensive approach. I support that—I hope we will have coherent and comprehensive support—but today, and as we go through this Bill, we have the opportunity to make a very specific contribution through the work of the Crown Estate. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to amending the Bill in the ways that I suggest.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, to which I have put my name, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Young of Cookham.
I think that we have all agreed that the Crown Estate is not cuddly, but it is also big and hugely important. It is the third-biggest landowner in this country and it is a major owner of the seabed, covering an area twice the landmass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so it is absolutely crucial that it does the right thing. The decisions it makes about land and sea are important not just for energy and climate change but for biodiversity, food resilience, flood risk, water management, and the quality and quantity of water—a whole plethora of things. That is why I bang on about the need for a land use framework, but you could almost say that the Crown Estate could have a mini land use framework and a mini sea use framework all of its own, because it is sufficiently large a player.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we have national targets set in statute for net zero and biodiversity recovery. It is absolutely clear that the Government will simply not be able to make these targets without the Crown Estate playing a full role, as it is one of the big boys on the block. For example, the offshore wind partnerships that we have heard about in collaboration with Great British Energy will leverage £60 billion of private investment and provide energy to nearly 2 million homes.
The Crown Estate is also fundamental to economic and environmental issues, including flood risks, owning as it does great tracts of the coast. Carbon capture, use and storage, if you believe in it, is a big part of the net zero strategy—I have my doubts that it will actually play that role—but it depends hugely on the Crown Estate playing its role, otherwise it simply will not be able to happen. We have to recognise that the Crown Estate is a massive player, including in coastal habitats which are uniquely important in UK terms. We are a major staging post for marine and bird migration as a result of our globally important coastal habitats. The Crown Estate is big in all of those things.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I will be over in the Isles of Scilly on Wednesday and I hope that I can bring good news from this debate, but we will see when the Minister responds.
My noble friend Lady Kramer is absolutely right, as other Members have said, that the Crown Estate is an organisation very focused on its financial returns and helping the Treasury out with raising cash on behalf of taxpayers. That is all very noble—in fact, it acts very much as if it is looking at its fiduciary duty as we would see in a financial organisation or corporate structure.
I congratulate the Crown Estate, first, on its Marine Delivery Routemap. It is an excellent document that came out last month and shows great intention—although I would be interested to hear from the Minister how it will co-ordinate that route map with the Marine Management Organisation and its marine plans. How do the two work together? How do we make sure they are not in conflict? Secondly, I very much welcome its High-Integrity Marine Natural Capital Markets in the UK—another road map for action—that was launched earlier this year, here in Parliament.
The third thing that I welcome, although with some incredulity that we did not do it decades ago, is the detailed mapping of the seabed around our islands. One would think it essential not only that we do that but that we have understood it for some considerable time, given the importance to us of that national asset.
Also, I congratulate the previous Government on declaring a ban on bottom trawling and similar measures—dredging—in 13 marine protected areas, moving forward in that way in March this year. When I looked at the maps, it was not all those MPAs, and others are not covered, but congratulations on that. I understood that it was the previous Government’s intention that the remaining marine protected areas should be protected in a similar way by the end of this year. I would be very interested to hear from the Government whether they wish to implement that as well. I certainly hope so.
One of the things that particularly came out to me, when I read that Marine Delivery Routemap, began on page 6, where it starts to write its own objectives. Let me read out the first sentence of that and those first two objectives. This is the Crown Estate’s purpose and strategy, in its own document. It says that:
“At the heart of everything we do lie four core objectives”.
I will read out just two, but remember that these are the first two, not the last two. The first is:
“Be a leader in supporting the UK towards a net zero carbon and energy-secure future”.
That is excellent. The second is:
“Take a leading role in stewarding the UK’s natural environment and biodiversity”.
That is excellent as well. I suggest to the Government that we just paste those objectives into this Bill. The Crown Estate clearly would welcome that, and we would have a solution near to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and other noble Lords who signed up to the amendment require. It is there to be accepted.
I also have Amendment 28, which is around the seabed. I very much welcome Amendment 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as well; we are trying to achieve the same thing here. Importantly, the seabed is not just a source of huge biodiversity for us as a nation but a huge carbon store. It is estimated that the first 10 centimetres and the flora and vegetation on the seabed accounts for something like a quarter of a billion tonnes of CO2—which can be disturbed strongly by fishing methods. It is an important carbon sink but one where we have an important well of biodiversity.
It is incredulous to me that the owner of that seabed, an owner of property, allows it to be despoiled in the way very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Surely we need to move beyond those MPAs, to stop those destructive forms of exploitation. If we change the objectives of the Crown Estate to reflect its own intentions, it could indeed take those measures to protect that biodiversity and to grow that carbon sink—sea-grass and marl and the areas of salt marshes and kelp. Those are important areas of carbon reduction and carbon sink as well as of biodiversity. It is absolutely clear. The Government should take up the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which is very much in line with the Crown Estate’s own objective.
One thing has not been mentioned on why this is important. One of the Government’s objectives, which I am fully behind, is to do a lot of the pre-environmental and technical work before licences are given out to offshore wind operators. That will speed up the process. It makes it a lot more holistic and makes a lot of sense. However, given that role with the Crown Estate, there is a conflict of interest that potentially arises between trying to get income from those leases while protecting the environment. At the moment, the emphasis is on the financial side and making money out of the leases. Only by putting these objectives as statutory into the Crown Estate can we be sure that there is not that conflict of interest, and that those objectives are balanced when those leases are put out.
We have boasted of a 30 by 30 objective internationally, nationally and in a number of areas regionally in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There are only five and a quarter years until we get to 1 January 2030. Clearly, in marine—and in terrestrial as well—it is essential that the objectives of the Crown Estate reflect that objective and make it achievable in some way, otherwise there is a huge risk that we will not reach those government objectives.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I congratulate him on the work that he is doing in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
I support these amendments for two reasons. First, earlier this year the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I discovered that Defra’s JNCC had produced a report advising the Government not to drill for oil in MPAs. We had a debate about it and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, basically said, “Drilling for oil is more important than protecting the environment”. I do not know what has happened to that. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could come back to me at some point and say, but that was a very low point. The reports were very good, and I do not think that the oil demand for this country needed to have particular oil wells. I might be wrong, but I think it was in the 33rd oil and gas licensing round. We must be pretty careful about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, there is a balance to be drawn.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has talked to the fishermen’s association in Cornwall. I have been talking to it, at its request, and it is concerned. It is a reasonable concern, because he is quite right about some of the methods used in fishing at the moment, which are pretty unacceptable. On the other hand, those fishermen are frightened that, when we get these wonderful floating windmills in the south-west or anywhere else, they will be told that they cannot finish within several miles of the installation. I do not know whether that applies to the supply cables and everything else like that, but there needs to be a proper consultation about who needs what, how big these areas of protection are and, if necessary, where the fishermen can fish instead.
I am told that there is a report from Defra that was commissioned a year ago, entitled “Working on the Marine Special Protection Project”. I do not know whether the Minister knows about this. It has not been published but it would be a very good contribution to the debate if it could be and discussed with the fishing industry and the other people involved in offshore, and maybe a proper conclusion—
Lord Teverson (LD)
As we are in Committee, I would just like to answer one of those questions. I do speak to the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation and absolutely commend Chris Ranford, who operates it, for his great work in that area. The noble Lord is right. One thing that needs to come out of these planning areas is the fishing industry having the right spaces to fulfil what it wants to do in economic growth and the good things that happen to the local and coastal economies. This is important and I am thankful to him for mentioning it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We both need to have another discussion with Chris and his colleagues, as does the Minister, to make sure we can come up with something that works for everyone. I end by congratulating the noble Lord on his appointment; I look forward to working with him.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 29 and 30 in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for the powerful points he has made, particularly around our 2030 commitment, and I have co-signed his Amendment 28. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young of Old Scone; I very much support Amendment 25 and nearly all the amendments in this group. Adding environmental protections to the Bill is a key element of our work.
My Amendment 29 would require the commissioners to carry out their duties under subsection (3) with regard to sustainable development, economic development, regeneration, social well-being and environmental well-being. We welcome the plans to update the borrowing and investment powers of the Crown Estate, but we strongly feel that new and greater roles should come with updated responsibilities. The Crown Estate sits in a unique space and position. The land assets are owned by the Crown and managed by the Crown Estate and its commissioners, and they are mandated by Parliament to deliver a profit for the Treasury. The Crown Estate, in effect, floats in a unique position: it manages its land holding and assets, which really belong to the nation, but it is managed as a sub-department of the Treasury, away from much parliamentary scrutiny.
The year 1961 was a long time ago; we lived in a very different world then, as has been said. Our understanding of the environment and the need for nature protection was far less developed, as was any sense of facing an acute environmental and nature crisis. The Bill, as the Government have drafted it, is far too narrow; that is why all these amendments have been tabled. I understand the need for expediency and for the Government to put in the two clauses to amend the borrowing powers so that we can get on with GB Energy. That is all fine, but you cannot revisit a 1961 Act and expect to solely put in two clauses without updating all the other aspects of life and the world that have developed since.
My Amendment 29 shamelessly and purposely copies the text from the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as I believe that these provisions are a useful precedent in our deliberation of these matters here today. When the Scottish Parliament considered many of the exact same matters that we are looking at, its conclusion was that these updated powers were useful, necessary and a helpful update to the powers contained in the original Crown Estate Act 1961. Further, they were agreed and enacted by that Parliament, and have been in force for over five years now. Unless the Minister wants to contradict me, my understanding is that, since they were passed, these new powers have not had any undue impacts on the ability of the Scottish Crown Estate to conduct its business free of undue regulation or burden. The devolution question has already been discussed, but my thinking in tabling this amendment was that I felt, in updating responsibilities, that there was value in seeking to ensure the same duties and responsibilities applied to all the devolved aspects of the Crown Estate’s land in Great Britain, and I felt that this was useful for the Crown Estate’s ability to operate and not be burdensome.
My Amendment 30 places a nature recovery duty on the Crown Estate. The amendment defines a nature recovery duty as including
“taking steps to … embed nature into spatial planning and seabed leasing … allocate space for nature recovery in all projects, and … invest in clean energy projects”.
I thank the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefing on the Bill, and its recommendation that this amendment should be included. I recognise and support the critical role that the Crown Estate has in the delivery of offshore wind generation and the role that the Bill has to enhance this going forward, but we really need to decarbonise our power generation, fight climate change and protect nature. However, in updating the 1961 Act, the Bill represents a missed opportunity to ensure that the Crown Estate also has a requirement to support the Government’s obligations towards achieving the nature targets under the Environment Act 2021.
All public bodies in the UK are presently not required to consider the environmental costs and benefits of their decisions and investments, as there is no statutory requirement for them to do so. I support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and will speak when we debate it on Friday; if it is passed, we will not have to amend every Bill one at a time as there will be a cross-cutting duty, so I encourage the Government to look at that Private Member’s Bill and support it.
This duty is particularly important to the Crown Estate due to the very large area of its land and sea holdings and the fact that many of its sites are extremely ecologically sensitive. It is worth reiterating that the Crown Estate has 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 kilometres of coastline and a total seabed area bigger than the combined landmass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate owns more land than the entire landmass of Luxembourg and is the third-largest landowner in the UK. The land under the Crown Estate is vast, diverse and of high ecological importance.
The marine land, and the seabed in particular, are important as blue carbon stores, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Equally important are the foreshore, coastline and many other precious ecological sites. I want to publicly recognise that the Crown Estate has existing governance structures and strong policy objectives in place to try to ensure that environmental impacts are a central consideration in its investment decisions. I also note that the Crown Estate has recently committed to embed nature throughout its policy-making process. It has begun consultation on the specific nature recovery strategy, but I understand that this final document is yet to be released. My amendment is not a criticism of its stewardship role; it is an attempt to support the existing duty but place it on a statutory footing. My amendment supports and builds on the work that the Crown Estate is already doing, which proves to me that the preparatory work is already being done to ensure that this amendment would work in practice.
I feel it is essential that this work is given a statutory basis, and that is exactly what my amendment seeks to do. It is essential that the Crown Estate makes an active contribution to meeting environmental nature recovery targets and contributes to climate mitigation and adaption targets. For this to happen, my belief is that a binding target is required.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will just make two very quick comments. First, there has been a clear message to the Minister that, in one way or another, this Committee feels strongly that we should have in statute an expression of the climate change, environmental and nature issues. That should not be seen as a criticism of the Crown Estate as it is today but simply says that this is so important that the Crown Estate should not be given the freedom to change its mind on those issues without the intervention of Parliament.
I do not want to put the Minister on the spot, but my second brief issue concerns a previous answer, when there may have been some confusion between the memorandum of understanding and the framework agreement. I do not ask him to do this now, but could he go back and look at those two rather different things, as we need to approach them both differently? That would be exceedingly helpful, but I do not want to put him on the spot at this moment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group on the objectives and duties of the Crown Estate. Many of the amendments relate to climate change and nature, and many noble Lords have spoken who are much more knowledgeable about these topics than I am, so I do not propose to add further to those points. As set out in today’s list, one must follow the rules, but I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the Minister on that.
My Amendments 37A to 37C look at another important aspect of potential disruption caused by investments by the Crown Estate, which is to local economies and national economies when it comes to shipping. I am looking to the Minister to reassure me and your Lordships’ House that very important local and national economic activities are considered appropriately by the Crown Estate, and that it does not look at what it does in a narrow and short-term way but thinks about making the cake bigger for everybody over the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made several points about the impact on commercial fishing: it should be quantified, consulted on and mitigated where possible, and I say the same for commercial shipping. Some 90% of our goods arrive by sea, and ports are often quite specialised in the goods they handle. Sadly, you cannot move a port, so you have to be quite careful not to obstruct well-established shipping lanes and ensure that the proximity of offshore developments does not cause excessive risk to vessels, particular larger vessels, were they ever to get into trouble. Comments on that would be greatly appreciated.
I did not put down an amendment on this, but it is strongly related. Where ports want to expand and they are surrounded by Crown Estate land, the balance of power is sometimes a little one sided. I would like some reassurance that the Crown Estate will act not only in its self-interest for short-term gain but will think about the longer term and growing the pie for the whole economy and the Crown Estate within that. I do not propose to add anything further at this point, and I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their powerful arguments made during this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Teverson and Lord Young, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Young and Lady Vere, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which all seek to make changes to the Crown Estate’s objectives and duties.
Before I move on, I will address two specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which I may not pick up in my subsequent remarks. He asked about conflicts of interest with leasing rounds. Under UK habitats regulations, the Crown Estate is deemed to be a competent authority for offshore wind leasing rounds. As such, it has a legal obligation to carry out a plan-level habitats regulation assessment for planned activities such as an offshore wind leasing round. It could be challenged through legal action if it fails to do this in line with the prescribed requirements.
The noble Lord also asked about the marine delivery route map’s interaction with the offshore wind report. The marine delivery route map gives the holistic context across sectors and sea users to support and inform individual sector delivery planning, while the offshore wind report offers technical insights and data, with both working in concert to ensure that offshore land development is efficient, sustainable and aligned with national and environmental goals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about a point of clarification. I will go away and check the questions she raises. Obviously, I apologise if I have inadvertently confused the two things she mentioned.
Amendments 14 and 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seek to introduce new duties for the Crown Estate to protect the condition of the seabed. Amendment 14 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to take steps to protect the seabed, which forms part of the Crown Estate, and would include a prohibition on all activities, business practices, leisure pursuits and other actions that permanently or temporarily cause damage to the seabed.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I make this comment as a former board member of the Marine Management Organisation. The 2010 regulations, in particular, which have come through Europe, have been very ineffective, as has much on the Minister’s list. Hence, I believe it important that we put the responsibility down to the owner, rather than to some high-level legislation and regulations that departments have not paid a lot of attention to in the past.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is much more expert in those things than I am. I take what he says seriously.
The decision to grant leases is informed by advice from the relevant statutory nature conservation body, either via the statutory consent process or, where appropriate, direct engagement. It can include enhancement requirements. Statutory nature conservation bodies are responsible for providing advice to government and regulators on the management, monitoring and assessment of marine protected areas. For those activities that are deemed exempt from statutory consents, the Crown Estate requires applicants to demonstrate that advice has been sought from relevant environmental bodies to inform their decision on leasing.
More broad protections, which would prohibit even temporary damage anywhere on the UK territorial seabed owned by the Crown Estate, would also cause major disruption to many critical marine sectors. These include, for example, offshore renewable energy, which requires the burial of power cables in the seabed to transport energy to shore; the laying of subsea and telecom cables, which carry 99% of all intercontinental data traffic for the UK; the UK’s ports, harbours, marinas and shipping channels within UK waters that require dredging for the creation and maintenance of navigable depths; and the manufacturing industry, which relies on marine aggregates, which are used, for instance, on major construction projects, beach replenishment and coastal protection schemes across the UK. The Government therefore consider these amendments to be unnecessary given the existing statutory protections and the Crown Estate’s existing practices.
I turn next to Amendments 37A, 37B and 37C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, which would all place new duties in respect of granting licences to access the seabed. Amendments 37A and 37B would prohibit the Crown Estate from granting new licences to access the seabed unless it has considered the impact of those licences on commercial fishing and commercial shipping. While the Government support the spirit behind these amendments, the Bill will not directly impact how much commercial fishing or shipping takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate, nor is the Crown Estate responsible for the regulation of these sectors.
The Crown Estate collaborates extensively with industry stakeholders, statutory nature conservation bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations and marine licensing bodies to ensure activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly and enable a restored and thriving marine environment. A recent blog post from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, for example, noted on engagement with the Crown Estate ahead of the offshore wind leasing round 5 in the Celtic Sea that the
“process succeeded in identifying and avoiding the places where it would be most harmful to the fishing industry to see turbines installed. The cooperation between the Crown Estate and fishermen was unprecedented and the outcome was a positive one”.
The Crown Estate has also invested £50 million in the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which includes several initiatives to consider and support the fishing industry. I will give two examples. The first is the fisheries sensitivity mapping and displacement modelling project, which identifies areas of offshore wind development that present risks to the fishing industry to try to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between the two sectors. The second example is the ecological effects of floating offshore wind research programme, which focuses on understanding how marine ecosystems will react to the planned large-scale expansion of floating offshore wind in UK waters over the next decade. The goal of this programme is to change the way the Crown Estate deploys floating offshore wind on a large scale, ensuring nature recovery and enabling co-existence with other sea users, including fisheries.
Amendment 37C would prohibit the Crown Estate from granting new licences to access the seabed unless it has considered the impact of those licences on coastal communities. Coastal communities are already a primary consideration of any investment decision by the Crown Estate. For example, it has specifically designed the leasing process for its offshore wind leasing round 5 opportunity in the Celtic Sea in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of their new wind farms. Tender bidders are required to think innovatively and constructively about how their developments can create a legacy of healthier, more resilient, fairer, more vibrant and more prosperous communities which stretch beyond the lifetime of the wind farm leases for the benefit of generations to come. Commitments made during the tender process will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.
We could of course make this an explicit duty for the Crown Estate in legislation, but if we did that then there are many other points we have debated today that could also be added as statutory duties. As I said earlier, a key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously, to avoid the Crown Estate having to work through a maze of requirements for each investment decision.
I turn next to Amendments 15, 17 and 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. These amendments seek to create new objectives for, or impose new duties on, the Crown Estate. Specifically, Amendment 15 would require the Crown Estate to seek to prioritise the objectives of UK food security and to support the development and promotion of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, in the managing and turning to account of Crown Estate land.
Amendment 17 would require the commissioners to publish a review assessing how Crown Estate assets can be deployed to support nature prescribing. The amendment would also require the commissioners to work with NHS England and devolved counterparts to enable the Crown Estate’s nature assets to form part of a major UK-wide nature prescribing scheme.
Amendment 29 would require the commissioners, when exercising their duty in Section 1(3) of the 1961 Act, to act in a way best calculated to further the achievement of sustainable development and to seek to manage assets in a way likely to contribute to the promotion or improvement of economic development, regeneration, and social and environmental well-being.
Before I speak to these amendments it is worth reiterating that the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities, yet it is currently restricted in its ability to do so. As I have already set out, the Government believe that it is right that the Crown Estate continues to operate as a commercial enterprise. A key purpose of the 1961 Act, as I have noted, was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously, which were hampering the effective management of the estate. Since then, the Crown Estate has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation with a proven track record in effective management. That is a valuable outcome, which I stress we need to be careful not to undermine.
This track record includes its commitment to enable the development of new net-zero technologies and to invest in artificial intelligence to enhance its habitat and environmental monitoring system. The Crown Estate has also made it clear that it is prioritising food security alongside nature recovery and enabling the diversification of income for its tenant farmers. The investment and borrowing powers proposed in this Bill will allow for even greater investment in these areas by the Crown Estate.
The Government believe that the Crown Estate’s existing duties give it a clear focus, leading to a consistently significant return to the Exchequer to support the funding of public services. At the same time, the Crown Estate is already able to, and does, focus on activities which also closely align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. As a public body, the Crown Estate seeks to work with the grain of prevailing government policy.
I turn next to Amendments 25 and 30, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Amendment 25 would create a new duty for the Crown Estate commissioners in the exercise of their functions to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of targets under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; the achievement of biodiversity targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021; and to adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change as identified in the most recent report under Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008. This amendment would also require the Crown Estate to include conditions in all seabed leases for the leaseholder to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.
Amendment 30 would create a new nature recovery duty. This would require the Crown Estate to take steps to embed nature into spatial planning and seabed leasing, allocate space for nature recovery in all projects and invest in clean energy projects.
Before I explain the Government’s position, let me express strong support for the intention behind these amendments. It is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to help achieve our climate change targets, and the Crown Estate should continue to be a national trailblazer in this regard. The Crown Estate has committed to becoming a net-zero carbon business by 2030, aligning with the 1.5 degrees trajectory, and will prioritise activities which help enable a reduction in national carbon emissions, such as building net-zero homes, transitioning its holdings to sustainable agricultural practices and working in partnership with government to meet the national renewable energy targets.
On the biodiversity targets in the Environment Act, the Crown Estate is committed to delivering a measurable increase in biodiversity by 2030. It will publish its delivery plan to meet this goal next year, which will include commitments to restore habitats in line with targets in the Environment Act. As I have already noted, all leases granted by the Crown Estate for development that affects the seabed already require the leaseholder to have the necessary statutory consents in place before development can begin.
The Crown Estate also published its approach on nature recovery last week, where it has committed to delivering increased biodiversity, to protect and restore freshwater, marine and coastal systems, and to increase social well-being benefits from nature. However, as I have already set out, the reforms being introduced in this Bill are not intended to alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate as a commercial business independent from government.
The commissioners operate under a clear commercial objective, as set out in the 1961 Act, to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. I know that some noble Lords take a different view as to how the Crown Estate should operate, but it is the Government’s view that the existing statutory commercial focus, coupled with adherence to environmental and other nature requirements as set out in other legislation, as well as the need in the 1961 Act for the commissioners to have due regard to the requirements of good management, remains the best approach. One of the functions of the Crown Estate is to return its profits to the Exchequer each year, and it has returned a combined total of more than £4 billion in the last decade. This is used to fund the priorities of the Government of the day, which currently include spending on policy that helps achieve our climate change goals.
The more the Crown Estate’s core purpose in legislation is expanded, particularly with additional duties or objectives that may unnecessarily complicate, conflict with or risk compromising the achievement of that core commercial objective, the harder—
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I know the Minister is anxious to get on to the dinner break business, but I think he misunderstands exactly what we are saying by asking for biodiversity and climate change target achievement to be included. The reality is that we want the Crown Estate commissioners to be able to walk, talk and chew gum. They have to be able to be smart enough to deliver on the commercial and economic imperatives that the Minister has been absolutely clear about—he has repeated them several times—and do the biodiversity and net zero delivery at the same time. That is doable but not if, as the Minister has just done, he continues to say and reinforce for the Crown Estate commissioners that their primary purpose is a commercial one, because that will always take precedence.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. With the greatest respect, it is not a lack of understanding; it is just a slight difference of opinion. As I said, I have great sympathy with the motives underlying this amendment, but the Government would seek to achieve them in a slightly different way from my noble friend.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I will make one final intervention. I welcome very much what he said about biodiversity and the wish to do that, but he has not mentioned biodiversity net gain. It is a government policy to introduce marine biodiversity net gain. Will that apply? As one of the co-developers to the Crown Estate, will they be responsible for that when they implement that policy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will be completely honest and say I do not know the answer to that question. I will find out and let the noble Lord know.
I hope these explanations have been helpful and that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Teverson and Lord Young, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young, will feel able not to press their amendments as a result.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this incredibly important debate, and the Minister for his thorough answer. All I would gently suggest is that if all those provisions, policies and words are having impact, how come the scarring, scraping, defacing and destruction of the seabed continues? Not being one to shy away from sporting analogies, I hazard a guess that the issues raised in this group of amendments could well bring the Government to their first game of ping-pong in this new Session; but for now, until Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Monday 14th October 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Oct 2024)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Report: energy generation on the Crown Estate(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Crown Estate Commissioners must publish a report on the potential for energy generation on the Crown Estate, including consideration of offshore wind turbines and onshore wind turbines.(2) The report under subsection (1) must also assess the potential impact of wind turbines on the Crown Estate on grid capacity and energy pricing.(3) The report under subsection (1) must be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. In moving Amendment 16, I will give a nod to the other amendments in the group.
This amendment is incredibly straightforward; it simply seeks to assert that generation must match grid capacity and that we should always consider, when moving to these new modes of generation, who pays and when. I say that generation should match grid capacity, but perhaps that should be put the other way around to make the point that grid capacity must be in place before generation, particularly from offshore wind, comes on stream. I would welcome the Minister’s response as to what is currently set out in the Bill to guarantee that grid capacity will be in place and that we will not have a situation whereby there will be surplus generation that is unable to be taken up by the grid and is still paid for and unused—and that pay comes from the energy customers themselves.
How will it be ensured, as we move to this right green transition for energy production, that where the costs fall does not have catastrophic consequences? Presently, it seems unclear in the current structure of the Bill how this grid connectivity and capacity will come online to match the potential race for supply, particularly from offshore.
Amendment 16, in simple terms, would ensure that grid capacity exists before generation can come onshore and, in that, would ensure that payment is spread fairly across the bill payers—and that those at the sharpest end do not feel the most extreme cost as a result of this transition, as often happens. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I actually want to say something quite positive about the Government’s approach to this at the moment. I understand the issue completely: offshore wind is a complete waste of time if you cannot connect it to the consumers. That is obvious, and it has not been managed well. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to achieve that in future, but we had on 1 October the foundation of the National Energy Systems Operator, whose whole role is to make sure that this works. When we passed the Energy Bill that set this up, we did not really give it enough power. It would be very good to hear from the Minister that that will be in progress and will actually happen.
Secondly, there is so much at risk for offshore developers. Yes, they can get their contract, their lease and their contract for difference in terms of the price for the low-carbon company. But at the end of the day, if developers do not believe that there is going to be a grid connection, they will not carry out their investment, so it is absolutely in everybody’s interest that we do this. A really good point has been made to the Minister, and I look forward to his assuring us that NESO— the new organisation from 1 October—will have some clout in government decision-making and will co-ordinate this effectively. It needs to have the power and influence to do so, rather than simply being an advisory organisation whose recommendations are ignored because of other private or public finance investment reasons.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for introducing his amendment, which leads this group, which is fundamentally concerned with the generation of energy on assets owned by the Crown Estate. This is even more important now that there is a formal relationship with GB Energy, which has been announced, although I accept that details of the relationship are quite thin on the ground. I entirely support the intention of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to require the publication of a report on the potential for energy generation on the Crown Estate, and I draw attention to my Amendment 35, which would ensure that no new electricity generation licences are granted without confirmation that a corresponding grid connection exists.
The problem of grid capacity, connection and storage is real and important. In May of this year, a House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report found that in order to achieve net zero targets,
“the transmission and distribution network must develop and expand alongside the growth in supply and demand”.
It concluded that renewable energy generation may be stunted by “slow grid connections” and “limited grid capacity”. That is the issue I am trying to fix, and that all noble Lords are very much focused on. The Government must continue to look at it urgently if they are to build on the previous Conservative Government’s progress toward our clean energy targets. However, it is not an easy task. Even Green Party parliamentarians have been known to be vociferously opposed to measures to boost national grid capacity. I hear a Liberal Democrat laughing, and I am not entirely sure that that is appropriate. However, in the face of that kind of opposition, I ask the Minister to reassure the House that the Government have a plan to get on with increasing our national grid capacity.
At this point, I think it worth pushing the Minister, although we will come back to this on a later group, on the partnership with Great British Energy, which was announced to great fanfare a few months ago. I am still at a loss to explain how the new partnership between the two organisations, the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, will work and what difference it will make; indeed, this is the point of my amendment.
When the previous Conservative Government announced in the 2023 Autumn Statement plans to work with the Crown Estate to increase offshore wind capacity, that was predicted to unlock a further 20 to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind seabed rights by 2030—great; that seems very fair. The Government have claimed that this new partnership will
“cut the time it takes to get offshore wind projects operating and delivering power to homes by up to half”.
Okay, but their press release of 25 July 2024 stated:
“The Crown Estate estimates this partnership will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.
To coin a phrase, nothing has changed. What difference does the partnership with GB Energy actually make, or did the Crown Estate get it wrong when it was working with the previous Government? Noble Lords can see the issue I have here: I do not understand how the tie-up with GB Energy is going to benefit that organisation, the Crown Estate and, indeed, the nation.
That, among other reasons, is why I tabled Amendment 34, which also requires a report on the energy generation supported by the Crown Estate. Its scope is wider than Amendment 16 and it facilitates greater oversight via reporting. It requires the Crown Estate commissioners to report annually on not only the expected impact of the relationship between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, but the actual impact. It would also include the investment strategy for capital investment in the infrastructure, including port infrastructure. This is where I am confused, because when I speak to the port sector, it tells me that finances are not particularly an issue. In a report published last month, the British Ports Association recognised that the sheer scale and speed of the investment needed to meet the ports’ offshore energy ambitions is significant. However, it called for a carefully managed investment in ports that fills gaps in ports’ supply chains that cannot be met by the private sector. These gaps can be filled by, for example, the national wealth fund, the Crown Estate or Great British Energy. Can the Minister explain who is managing, and which organisation will be investing how much in what, and when? I, for one, am confused. It is right to get some insight into this now, and to monitor progress in the future.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, both of which touch on the topic of energy. I will start by addressing Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord.
This amendment would require the Crown Estate to publish a report within 12 months on the potential for energy generation on the Crown Estate, covering onshore and offshore wind grid capacity and energy pricing. While the Government are not in principle opposed to the Crown Estate producing specific reports on energy generation on its own estate, it is not within its remit or ability to report on grid capacity or pricing. As I have set out previously, the national grid and relevant transmission and distribution network operators are responsible for the UK-wide strategy on grid connectivity, and the new National Energy Systems Operator will be responsible for creating a strategic spatial energy plan, which will provide future clarity on grid connectivity.
The Crown Estate has already published, in September, a 53-page report entitled Future of Offshore Wind: Considerations for Development and Leasing to 2030 and Beyond, which looks at, among other things, the prime areas of opportunity for new wind farms. It has also recently published a Marine Delivery Routemap, which sets out its vision for the seabed and coastline.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require the Government to publish a report on the scope, nature and expected impact of the relationship between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy within six months of the passing of the Act, and thereafter publish an annual report. The Government have no principled objection to such a report, but the timing might be more usefully linked to the passing of the Great British Energy Bill, currently in the other place, rather than the Bill we are discussing today.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his response and for the helpful clarification between the framework document and the MoU. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Offshore wind developments: regional wealth funds(1) The Commissioners must ensure that a percentage of the Crown Estate’s license fee for leases of Crown Estate land for offshore wind power development is given to a regional wealth fund. (2) The Commissioners must agree regional boundaries of the regional wealth fund in consultation with local government.(3) Funds from the Crown Estate’s license fee for such leases must be distributed to the nearest regional wealth fund to the offshore wind power development.(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations set the percentage of the license fee which must be given to a regional wealth fund under subsection (1).(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Crown Estate to ensure all leases for offshore wind power developments contain an agreed percentage that is contributed to a regional wealth fund. The money from this fund would be distributed to local communities.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I make it clear that this is very much a probing amendment. I am trying to find out the Government’s attitude to how regions benefit from the development of offshore wind power.
We have a number of precedents here. We now have onshore wind development, which I very much welcome and which the Government are effectively permitting. Under the previous rules, it was almost impossible in England for onshore wind developments to take place. But it was made clear in very strong guidance that there had to be community benefit from onshore wind. It is very obvious that this is possible and not very difficult to do. A wind turbine or farm is planted in a particular location terrestrially in England, so it is quite obvious which communities are affected: the parishes around it. There is an onshore wind turbine just down the road from me, and two parishes benefit annually from part of that revenue stream. That works out really well; it is important and valuable, and, to a degree, it makes that generation part of the community’s effort towards the local economy. For those who do not particularly like wind turbines—there are not many of them in my local area—this is, if you like, a compensation and a way in which the local authority is rewarded.
Outside England, up in the most northerly parts of the British Isles, we have Shetland, which has its own wealth funds that came from the oil exploration. A very good deal was done by the local authority back in the 1970s, which I think ran out in 2000; it is not so good at the moment. Its wealth funds are related to a local authority, based on the oil development from around the Shetland waters. Again, it is fairly obvious geographically where those benefits should go. There is that precedent—and that system, with some warts, has worked relatively well.
Clearly, the major development of wind technology in future and at present is on the waves. Some of that is going out, such as the Celtic Sea floating offshore wind development. Those developments will be very large. However, even if they are beyond the horizon, which some of the floating offshore wind developments are, those regional communities are still affected by those developments because, as was pointed out on the last group of amendments, we need grid connections that land somewhere on the UK’s shore.
My proposition is that, given the consistency of policy here, there is an imperative and social justice in rewarding regions that have offshore wind coming into them because of developments away in their marine area. To be equitable both for regional communities and of easing the legitimacy of those offshore wind installations, there needs to be payback to those regional communities.
In this amendment, I have put some very general ways in which that would work. Clearly I have no expectation that the Government will copy and paste that into this Bill in future, even if the Minister thought that it was a brilliant idea—which I am sure he does. What I would like to understand from the Government is whether this is a way forward that they see as possible. How should that happen? Would the Government, the Minister and his officials work with us from these Benches to see how such a system could work? I beg to move.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a couple of very quick points. The noble Lord moved that amendment with great clarity and put a strong argument. The angle which I am coming from is the county where I live and which contains the constituency that I once represented, North West Norfolk. Norfolk is host to a number of onshore installations related to the offshore wind industry. Indeed, off the Norfolk and Lincolnshire coasts a number of arrays generate a huge amount of offshore electricity. However, Norfolk is seeing the construction of a very large substation, another having already been completed. As a result of that substation, there will be the need to connect to the grid. That will entail the need for transmission. At the moment, it is going to be along pylons. There is a big debate about the possibility of putting it underground but, in any event, there will be a major infrastructure project.
The idea of these regional wealth funds makes huge sense. The community is obviously the recipient of renewable energy infrastructure that can have great benefits to local communities in terms of electricity and can also have an impact on the local environment. I am thinking particularly of the substations and pylons. Could there be a way to link what the noble Lord has suggested with the original fund to some amelioration of the impact on those communities? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 33 and in favour of Amendment 27 tabled by my noble friend Lord Teverson.
My noble friend laid out Amendment 27 very well. A good positive communication strategy is missing entirely from this Government’s conversation on the energy transition. It is extremely important not only that we meet our climate targets but that we take the public with us and that they see the benefits of that transition. As I said earlier, in energy terms it is the biggest transition since the Industrial Revolution. It will impact bill payers and people’s lives. If they see the environment as something not related to them and see the consequences of the energy transition only as something that costs them money and inconvenience, it will be difficult to bring them with us on this journey that we need to do together.
The Liberal Democrats have always believed in community and community benefit. It is extremely important that the Government work very hard to bring down cost to bill payers as early as possible in the transition. That is why I was so worried about the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment. On a separate note, I say that it sent entirely the wrong message at the start of this Government and this process of taking people with them. I encourage the Government to reconsider that.
On the subject of community energy and community benefit, my noble friend Lord Teverson raises a really interesting point about offshore wind. This is obviously a probing amendment. We know that there are links with onshore wind, but I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether there is scope and whether the Government are listening and are aware and prepared to look at these things in the round over time. They are really important. This is about showing that we are in this together, that the energy transition is for everybody, and that the energy transition brings benefits to local communities—particularly those impacted by overhead pylons, substations, offshore cables coming to shore or because they are near to offshore wind facilities. I encourage the Minister to consider all those points. I hope that he will give us a favourable answer and look at them over time.
My Amendment 33 is also, in a similar vein, a probing amendment, so I will not speak for long on it. It seeks to require the Crown Estate commissioners to direct a percentage of the Crown Estate’s profits, to be agreed by the Secretary of State, to a skills training fund. The fund would work to
“provide persons residing or employed on the boundaries of or on the land of the Crown Estate with skills training”.
The commissioners must
“consult with appropriate national and regional organisations and industry to agree the type of training that the fund will provide”.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I want to thank the Minister for the clarifications he gave on the difference between the framework agreement and the memorandum of understanding—it was really helpful of him to provide that today rather than wait for the next Committee date. While I am on my feet, I will use this opportunity to reinforce the probing amendments of my noble friends Lord Teverson and Lord Russell.
We are in an era of substantial change and I am sure the Minister is very aware of that. The greatest resistance to change comes from a measure of distrust and cynicism; people usually feel that change is not an opportunity, but will be something where they lose and others win. There is also very little trust of very big organisations and of organisations that are controlled at a physical distance from the area that people live in and know. With the proposals for a regional wealth fund and a focus on creating skills within the immediate community, the areas that have visible detriment can now also identify the possibility of benefit in a very real way. That makes change happen more rapidly.
I also come from a party that has great confidence in regional decision-making. Sometimes people use the words “postcode lottery”, but it is not that: it is that people within an area, knowing their local communities and people much more intimately, can target the programmes they put in place to benefit the lives of local people far more effectively than a distant decision-making entity can. I hope the Minister will look at this because, although we are talking about this Bill, we are in a much broader period of change. Creating a strategy such as regional wealth funds, used in this and possibly other instances, will give people the confidence that their community—their people, themselves and their families—will see some direct benefit, rather than being left in a situation where they cynically believe that they are carrying the detriment and that other people will benefit.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both of which touch on the topic of local and community benefits.
Amendment 27, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require that a percentage of the Crown Estate’s licence fee for leases for offshore wind developments is distributed to a regional wealth fund. The Government are committed to working closely with the Crown Estate to support our target of clean power by 2030, by working collaboratively to accelerate and derisk the sustainable delivery of technologies such as offshore wind.
Local communities already benefit from onshore and offshore developments in the form of the economic benefits that such developments bring, including job creation and increased business for local suppliers. Individual developers also contribute to local initiatives. Over the longer term, local communities will also benefit as we accelerate our transition away from volatile fossil fuel markets to clean, home-grown power to boost Britain’s energy independence and security.
The Crown Estate has also specifically designed the leasing process for its offshore wind leasing round 5 opportunity in the Celtic Sea in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of their new wind farms. Tender bidders are required to think innovatively and constructively about how their developments can create a legacy of healthier, more resilient, fairer, vibrant and more prosperous communities, which stretch beyond the lifetime of the wind-farm leases for the benefit of generations to come. Commitments made during the tender process will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.
I recognise that this amendment would go even further, requiring a direct financial contribution from the Crown Estate to local communities. In essence, this is a very similar proposal to that put forward in Amendment 23, requiring a transfer of profits to the Welsh Government, as debated earlier. The concerns I set out there also apply here. Again, agreeing an appropriate level of payment would not be straightforward, because the relevant revenues and costs cannot be easily disentangled from the Crown Estate’s overall financial flows. Any arrangement of this nature would reduce the profits that the Crown Estate pays into the UK Consolidated Fund, reducing the revenues that can be allocated by the Government to the needs and priorities of the day, across all the UK.
Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Crown Estate to pay a percentage of its profits into a skills training fund. It would also require that this fund works to provide skills training to persons residing on or employed by the Crown Estate to equip them to perform jobs in the green economy and that the training is agreed with industry in advance.
The Government are, of course, very supportive of the spirit behind this amendment, and I agree with much of what the noble Earl said about skills. We are committed to clean energy by 2030, accelerating to net zero and promoting biodiversity. To meet these ambitions, we need to make sure our workforce has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the green economy, both now and in the future. As part of this effort the Department for Education has set up Skills England, a new body that will tackle skills shortages and support sustained economic growth. The Government also introduced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill in this House last week, which will, among other things, help support the establishment of Skills England.
The Crown Estate is dedicated to supporting skills and training. As a UK company with a payroll of over £3 million, the Crown Estate pays the apprenticeship levy—0.5% of its payroll over £3 million—and hires apprentices into its business. It also runs various targeted initiatives. For example, it has an existing partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions to address recruitment barriers and is training a pool of 60 job coaches in the east of England, with plans to expand. It is also developing a skills pipeline among the 14 to 16 age group, and has already seed-funded a pilot GCSE qualification in engineering skills for offshore wind, developed by Cornwall College. The Crown Estate also works closely with Pembrokeshire College on the Destination Renewables pilot course, which equips students with skills for careers in renewable energy. In Grimsby, the Crown Estate partners with Projekt Renewable, which aims to spark local community interest in offshore wind activities and encourage careers in that sector.
The Crown Estate consults extensively with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies, to keep them relevant and effective. The Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains this flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered, to ensure it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way.
I hope that these explanations have been helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, feel able to withdraw and not press their amendments as a result.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, strangely enough, I am going to withdraw my amendment, to the shock of the Minister. However, I am seriously disappointed with the response.
I get absolutely all the supply chain arguments about development and maintaining offshore windfarms after the event, once they are operating. However, as the Minister knows himself, although some of the beneficiaries of those supply chains are local, some of them are international and are certainly not anchored to the region and those communities. The great thing about the Shetland example was that while the oil industry did very well—suppliers and lots of people came in—there were whole areas of the population of the Shetland Islands that did not benefit directly from those developments. Yet they did in the end, because of community wealth schemes—two of them, I think—that happened in Shetland. The same is true regionally.
When it comes to the argument that the Crown Estate would lose out on money or whatever from this, I would put the opposite view. A community or regional wealth fund would actually accelerate the ability to deliver these projects, because there would not be the opposition that there might be otherwise. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, and thank him for his contribution. It was good, as always, and emphasised the effect of coming onshore and all the facilities that are required, such as pylons and all the rest of it.
What it comes down to is a matter that I think everybody normally agrees with: a just transition. A regional wealth fund allows a just transition. I was going to quote back the Labour Party manifesto on just transitions, but strangely enough it does not mention that the transition should be just. That is a shame, but I genuinely believe that this will allow this important programme, which the Government are rightly pushing forward, to accelerate, be successful and have local and regional acceptance. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (18 Oct 2024)
Earl Russell
“Report on impact of this Act on the Sovereign GrantThe Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act and each subsequent year, lay before Parliament a report into the effect of this Act on the size of the Sovereign Grant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act on the size of the Sovereign Grant.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act on the size of the sovereign grant. I have tabled it as I feel that, as part of our consideration of the Crown Estate Bill, it is important to look at the direct link between the future planned growth of Crown Estate activities and the increase in profits that will result directly from the partnership with GB Energy, and the interlinked direct impact these changes will also have on the practical workings of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.
The Sovereign Grant Act came into force on 1 April 2012 and changed the arrangements for funding Queen Elizabeth’s official duties. It consolidated four separate sources of funding into one new sovereign grant. The grant is intended to be a more permanent system than the previous one, which was reign specific. The sovereign grant is paid annually by His Majesty’s Treasury at a value indexed as a direct percentage of the revenues from the Crown Estate. It was initially set as an indexed percentage of 15%. The percentage is reviewed every five years by the royal trustees, made up of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The level of the grant is protected by law from decreasing because of falling Crown Estate profits, as there were during the Covid pandemic. With annual accounts published by the Keeper of the Privy Purse and audited by the National Audit Office, the process promised to be more accountable. The level of the grant has risen in recent years to help fund, in part, a £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, which was approved by Parliament. After King Charles III’s accession to the Throne, the new King approved a statutory Order in Council to allow the existing sovereign grant provisions to continue throughout his reign.
This is all very well but, to come to the heart of the matter, my concern is the direct link between the profits that the Crown Estate makes and the calculation of the amount of the sovereign grant going forward. My request is that the direct link is discussed today, and I call on the Government to consider amending it. My amendment calling for an annual review was the closest wording I was able to table on this matter.
There is a world of difference between the direct binary link that we have now, where a set percentage of the Crown Estate’s revenues is used as the only calculation basis in determining the size of the sovereign grant, and the system that I would prefer, where the Government pay due regard to the Crown Estate’s revenues as part of the process of determining the size of the sovereign grant.
I have five areas of concern about the future of these arrangements after this Bill passes. First, my personal feeling is that the present calculation is somewhat obtuse and that the Sovereign Grant Act is not a particularly helpful or appropriate way of determining how, and at what level, we fund the Royal Family. The trouble with all this is that the attempt to link royal funding to the profits of the Crown Estate is a conjurer’s trick; it is an accounting sleight of hand. The two are not related at all. The Crown Estate’s profits are, and always have been, government funds.
I am not here to have a conversation about the role, purpose or future of the Royal Family; I am not anti-monarchy. Nor do I wish to discuss the appropriate levels of funding, as none of this is relevant to the Bill. Before us is a Bill that will see the Crown Estate allowed to borrow from the Treasury, subject to approval, and if all goes well this will result in rapid investment in, and growth at, the core of the Crown Estate’s business, that of leasing seabed plots for offshore floating and offshore wind developments. When the Crown Estate is at the heart of a rapid green energy revolution, and the sovereign grant is calculated as a percentage of revenue profits and reviewed only every five years, it is only sensible for us to take a moment to examine the potential impacts that this rapid growth will have on the calculation of the grant.
My second concern is that this rapid and exceptional period of Crown Estate growth was not foreseen when the 2011 grant Act was passed, and this makes future calculations more difficult.
Thirdly, I am worried that it may potentially put the King personally in a difficult position. Your Lordships should note that, in January 2023, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, speaking on behalf of the King, asked the Government to reduce the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant so that the total did not include the income from new offshore wind leases, calculated to be worth £1 billion annually to the Crown Estate. The request was made by the King, out of his desire that the money described as a “windfall” could be best used for “wider public good” instead of funding the Royal Family during a cost of living crisis, which he had referred to only weeks earlier. In July last year, with further Crown Estate profits, the Government announced that the grant would be changed to 12% in the following year, down from 25%, while maintaining the same level payable.
It is my understanding that a further reduction is planned to come in through primary legislation following 2026-27. In the words of the Report of the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant Review 2023,
“The Crown Estate’s Net Revenue Profits are expected to increase significantly in future years”.
The trustees’ projected figures show an increase from £442 million in 2022-23 to £1.05 billion in 2024-25. With predicted exceptional linear growth forecast for the foreseeable future, will we see newspaper headlines every year to the effect of “Exceptional growth in Crown Estate’s green energy brings huge profits to the King: the King kindly wishes that these are used for the public good”?
My fourth point is that the five-year review is inadequate in this period of exceptional continuous growth. I call on the Government to amend the 2011 Act to make the review annual.
My fifth and final point relates to what is a complex and confusing system that is not only poorly publicly understood but a hostage to fortune. The system is ripe for exploitation by those who are either against the energy transition, are supportive of the old energy architecture or simply wish to use the politicisation of the energy transition to spread disinformation and propaganda. This is my biggest worry. From the challenges to well-established basic climate science to deliberate attempts to undermine the transition to heat pumps and electric vehicles to miscalculations of costs, propaganda is, sadly, ever present. A system that can all too easily be used to link the green energy transition to extra funding to the Royal Family is ripe to be manipulated by those who wish to argue that the green transition will cost you more because all the benefits are funding the Royal Family. A highly effective government communications strategy that works in partnership, wins hearts and minds, extols the benefits and lower bills is essential to support the transition, and this link does not help with that.
The move to green energy and the financial support received by the Royal Family are uneasy bedfellows. I foresee this as an opportunity that will be exploited by those aimed against the transition. My humble opinion is that the calculation of the sovereign grant as a direct percentage of Crown Estate profits represents a weakness in the system that leaves us vulnerable to interference as we transition our power generation. My wish is simply that this Government consider amending the direct nature of this link and conduct an annual review of the sovereign grant during this period of rapid growth. My amendment is here simply to allow this conversation to take place. I look forward to hearing the opinion of your Lordships and the Minister’s response on these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on this group. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not in this place and so was unable to speak to his amendment. I understand why the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled his amendment, and I am grateful to him for his exposition of the background to it. On these Benches, we recognise the unusual role that the Crown Estate has in the stewardship of the assets held in the right of the Crown. We recognise, too, that the revenues from the assets do not belong to the sovereign, nor is any part of them payable directly to the monarch.
The issue here is one of communication. It must be—it is absolutely essential—that there be no perception of any direct financial link between the sovereign and any amounts received under the sovereign grant and the amount of revenue generated by the Crown Estate. Upon the announcement of the partnership with GB Energy, there was a perception from some of the more excitable end of the media that the sovereign was somehow party to, and specifically approving of, the arrangement. I encourage the Minister and commissioners of the Crown Estate to ensure that information in the public domain about the operation of the Crown Estate, but also any further partnerships that may come down the track, cannot possibly suggest any direct involvement from the sovereign and, therefore, that there should be no undue benefit accrued.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and I will seek to address some of the points that he has raised. This amendment would require the Government, within one year of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, to lay before Parliament a report into the effect of this Act on the size of the sovereign grant. The Government agree that it is important that there is transparency in how the sovereign grant is affected by changes in Crown Estate profits. Indeed, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 includes a number of requirements that provide for regular effective review and reporting to Parliament.
As the noble Earl observed, under the Act, the grant for each financial year is set by reference to the profits of the Crown Estate. In broad terms, under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act it is currently the higher of 12% of the Crown Estate profits two years previously or the previous year’s grant. For example, the level of the grant for 2025-26 will be set at 12% of the profits the Crown Estate reported in its annual accounts for 2022-23, published in July.
Section 7 of the Sovereign Grant Act provides for regular reviews of the percentage used in calculation of the grant to ensure the grant remains at an appropriate level. These reviews are conducted by the three royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The trustees must lay a copy of the report of their review before Parliament. The last review concluded in July last year and concluded that the reference rate should be reduced from 25% to 12%, reflecting an expected increase in the Crown Estate’s profits. The next review will commence in 2026, with a view to making any change to the grant calculation for 2027-28 onwards. As with previous reviews, it will consider both the future funding needs of the Royal Household and the likely future path of Crown Estate profits—including, of course, the effect of the Crown Estate Bill that we are debating today on those profits—to determine the appropriate percentage to use.
I should note in this context that the grant for 2026-27 will include the final tranche of funding for the current 10-year programme of reservicing of Buckingham Palace’s infrastructure. The percentage for 2027-28 onwards will therefore need to reflect the significant downward adjustment to the household’s funding requirements. The Sovereign Grant Act currently restricts the level of the grant itself being reduced from one year to the next. That provision was written into the Sovereign Grant Act to reflect the view that many of the duties of the Head of State cannot be abruptly stopped, and therefore it would not be appropriate to significantly reduce funding in response to a sudden drop in Crown Estate profits. That will, however, constrain the ability to reduce the grant by the likely appropriate amount once the reservicing of Buckingham Palace is complete. In 2016, when the previous Government agreed to provide funding for the resurfacing programme, they noted an intention to bring forward legislation to reset the level of the sovereign grant to an appropriate level once the reservicing works have been completed. I can confirm that it is also the intention of this Government.
Those statutory reviews therefore provide Parliament with a report of the impact of this Bill on the sovereign grant. They also provide a mechanism to ensure that additional Crown Estate profits do not lead to excessive funding for the Royal Household. Where that is not possible under the Sovereign Grant Act, the Government will legislate accordingly.
On reporting requirements, the Sovereign Grant Act also requires two further reports on the grant to be produced and laid before Parliament each year. First, Section 5 requires the royal trustees to produce a report annually stating the level of the grant for the following financial year and how that has been determined in line with a prescribed method set out in Section 6 of the Act. This report must be laid before Parliament. Secondly, Section 2 requires the Keeper of the Privy Purse to produce annual accounts relating to the Royal Household, including the use of the sovereign grant. In common with other central government bodies, the accounts are prepared in accordance with an accounts direction issued by the Treasury, audited by the National Audit Office and laid in Parliament. The Crown Estate Act 1961 also contains a requirement for the Crown Estate to produce an annual report and accounts.
The Government therefore agree that it is important that there is regular reporting to Parliament on how the changes in this Bill will impact the sovereign grant. As I have detailed, there is already a considerable set of statutory requirements in this respect and beyond.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments. I appreciate that there is information of which the Government are aware from the reports that come to Parliament on this. Some of my questions might have been answered had I had sight of the business case, so I look forward to that being published.
The only slightly outstanding issue for me is about our communications strategy around the green revolution, making sure that the Government are communicating properly and taking the public with them. I still worry that there is a bit of confusion between us. I will withdraw my amendment and thank the Minister for his response, which I will go away and consider.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Salmon farms on the Crown EstateAfter section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—“3A Salmon farms on the Crown Estate(1) In carrying out their functions under this Act, the Commissioners must assess the—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that a salmon farm—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then they must revoke the licence for the farm in question.(3) The Commissioners must assess the potential—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof applications for licences for salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(4) If the assessment under subsection (3) determines that an application for a licence for a salmon farm—(a) may cause environmental damage, or(b) raises significant animal welfare concerns,then they must refuse the application.””
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move this very modest and uncontroversial amendment, which would place a duty on the Crown Estate, in carrying out its functions under the Bill, to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If an assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or significant animal welfare issues, it must revoke the licence for the farm in question. If assessments of the potential environmental impact and animal welfare standards of applications for salmon farms on the Crown Estate determine that they may cause environmental damage or raise significant animal welfare issues of concern, the Crown Estate must refuse these applications. Who could be against that, except people running salmon farms that do not meet those conditions?
I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a fisherman and my family own one week on the River Tay. I confess that I am absolutely bewitched by the glory of Atlantic salmon, which are now considered an endangered species alongside mountain gorillas and Siberian tigers. This is a really serious issue.
The Crown Estate commissioners on both sides of the border—I regret that the Bill does not cover the commissioners’ activities north of the border because of devolution, but I am sure that if England sets the standard then others will follow—have a responsibility to protect the seabed, which was owned by the Crown and has been vested in the Crown commissioners for centuries. The monarch is not involved, but the commissioners should have a clear duty to protect the environment and nurture the ocean’s wildlife, particularly given the commitment to those ideals of members of the Royal Family, in whose name they act.
I shall concentrate on the impact of farming Atlantic salmon, which has to be licensed by the Crown Estate. There are farming interests that have very high standards, but a wide variation of standards has been applied to salmon farming across the globe. All over the world, salmon farming has resulted in environmental damage to wild fish populations and threatened other species as a result of varying practices.
Salmon are often concentrated in large numbers in open-net cages and flushed with chemicals and antibiotics to combat disease and lice—lice that literally eat the fish alive if not treated. The death rate in the cages is appalling and would never be allowed for conventional farming. Some 20 to 40% of those salmon die and are dumped. Imagine what people would say if they were going past fields of cows or sheep and finding those sorts of casualty levels—there would be an outcry. But of course all this is unseen because it is below the surface of the water.
The list of various toxic chemicals that have been used to tackle lice includes organophosphates, which are highly dangerous, as we were often reminded by a former Member of this House. Other chemicals work by dissolving the bodies of the lice on the salmon, which are crustaceans. That results in the chemicals leaching into the sea and may very well explain why fishermen then start catching lobsters and crabs with half their shells dissolved. I urge anyone listening to this debate to look on YouTube at the horrific condition of salmon in some of these cages as a result of uncontrolled sea life predation. It is a horror movie that is widely available and very easily seen.
The feed that these salmon are given is fishmeal pellets, to which further chemicals are added, including in some cases dioxins and PCBs. These are all controlled, but to present this as a sustainable environmentally-friendly product stretches credibility. Other chemicals are included in the feed in order to change the colour of the flesh. If you are a supermarket, rather like when you want to paint your house, you can get a colour code and choose in which shade of orange or red you would like the fish on your shelves to appear—perhaps, as a result, misleading the customers as to what it is they are buying.
The importance of ensuring effective regulation and best practice hardly needs emphasising. The supply of pellets demands catching gargantuan quantities of small fish. Estimates vary, but those that I have seen are that between 3 and 5 kilograms of anchovies, sardines and other small pelagic fish are needed to produce just 1 kilogram of farmed salmon. That is a ratio, if you are being kind, of 3:1. To describe this as a sustainable business beggars belief. The scale is such that whole fishing communities have lost their livelihoods in west Africa, where the fish are taken by large vessels and turned into fishmeal, creating a lack of employment for local fishermen and a collapse in local economies.
There is also irreversible damage being done to the seabed as fish faeces, chemicals and uneaten food fall through the cages. All that lands on the seabed, creating a disgusting, vile brew on an industrial scale. There are vast numbers of fish. Even in a small tank there will be 20,000 salmon, with up to 90,000 in the larger cages.
Such high concentrations of salmon produce high concentrations of lice. These swarms of lice attach themselves to wild, migrating salmon, with fatal results. Escapees bring diseases to the wild population and whole rivers have been cleaned out of wild fish. Diseases include ISA—infectious salmon anaemia—and bacterial kidney disease. ISA is like AIDS for salmon but without any possible cure. There are many examples of how these viruses have been transmitted. In California, believe it or not, Atlantic salmon were being farmed using eggs transported from Norway. Those eggs contained the virus, which then took out the local population of Pacific salmon.
Some in the industry are in denial. The truth is that, when the salmon farms arrive, it seems that the wild population crashes. Examples include the loss of the sea trout runs on the Scottish west coast and the once-great salmon rivers in Norway. In British Columbia, on the Broughton archipelago, the wild pink salmon population was reduced by 80% by sea lice that came from fish farming. In Chile, ISA—that virus I have just spoken of—resulted in the collapse of the entire industry. Iceland saw huge protests, with about 1% of the population turning up to protest outside the Parliament about the possibility of fish farms being allowed to continue.
Wild fish interbreed, diluting the gene pool and reducing the ability of the progeny to make migratory journeys. This ability has been honed over hundreds of thousands of years by fish that are genetically unique to each river. They are breeding with the salmon from the farms. They are described as “Scottish salmon”. They are no more Scottish salmon than anything else. They are based on Norwegian salmon and are genetically modified to grow quickly. They are a million miles away in terms of their gene pool and structure from the fish that operate in the rivers of Scotland, each of which has a unique genetic identity and as a result is equipped to be able to run the river to spawn and to go out to sea and return after one or three years. If those fish interbreed with this alien species, the result is progeny incapable of making that journey and therefore the destruction of the population in the rivers concerned. And by the way, on the numbers escaping, in Loch Melfort in Scotland 48,000 fish escaped, dwarfing the wild population.
There is a growing realisation around the world of the environmental damage being caused. This is resulting in complete bans on fish farms. Alaska has had a ban since 1990. Argentina has introduced a ban. California has introduced a ban in state waters. In British Columbia, the plan is to phase out open-net farms by 2025 and move to closed systems.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth and have signed Amendment 37. We have now got to the stage of the debate where this amendment has been grouped with Amendments 37F and 37G from my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Douglas-Miller.
This is a really interesting debate, because much of what this involves is in Scotland. Of course, there are aspects of this which are devolved. It might be tempting for the Minister to say that it is nothing to do with him, but I think that would be unwise and unhelpful. I hope that the Minister is not tempted to do that, because Clause 3(1) states:
“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
It would be helpful to know what discussions, if any, have taken place between the Minister’s department and Scotland Office Ministers about the kinds of issues that have been raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I say “eloquently” but I mean vividly as well and, in some cases, very movingly, too.
I am not one of those who has always been implacably opposed to salmon farms around Scotland. What I very much oppose is what my noble friend described and has described in his amendment as lowering “environmental impact” and lowering “animal welfare standards”. It must be in all our interests to ensure that these salmon farms, which provide so much economic activity in relatively marginal areas, should also be run in such a way that we can all be proud of what they are doing.
I look forward particularly to the speech on aquaculture that my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller will make in a few moments, and that of my noble friend Lord Leicester on offshore energy installations and generation. In the meantime, I do not know whether the Minister will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment—it would be great if he could—but what I suspect is more likely, and what I would like him to do, is to give a very positive encouragement to this amendment so that perhaps at a later stage the Government might come forward with their own amendment to put right what is clearly a wrong.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I am supportive of the Bill’s objective to enable the Crown Estate to continue to fulfil its core duty of maintaining and enhancing its value.
Amendment 37, as introduced so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and to which I have added my name, is a massive improvement to the Bill. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in his impressive speech. I suspect that the main purpose of the Bill in the minds of its drafters was to ensure that the Crown Estate should continue to focus on activities which align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth, as the Explanatory Notes make clear. Indeed, the Bill specifically mentions its role as an enabler of offshore wind power generation.
Offshore wind power generation has a part to play in our energy mix, but it may receive too much emphasis as most offshore wind projects produce electricity too far away from where it is needed, and the costs of transmission and storage are often opaque. I would like to see more emphasis on small and so-called advanced nuclear reactors, which can be sited adjacent to data centres and industrial clusters where the energy is actually needed.
It would appear that the Government have introduced this legislation with only one major objective: to encourage and enable the Crown Estate to build more offshore wind farms. This is also evidenced by the announcement of the partnership with Great British Energy. I look forward to learning more about how GBE will operate; there are still relatively few details available. However, it is important in legislating to increase commercial activity in the seabed around our shores that restrictions must be placed on the development of salmon farms in England and Wales, especially given the damaging effects on nature and the environment resulting from salmon farms operated in coastal waters and sea lochs in Scotland. I declare an interest in that I fish in England on the River Tamar, as well as on the Rivers Laggan and Sorn on the Scottish island of Islay. We do not want to see the depleted populations of salmon migrating to English and Welsh rivers exposed to the additional threats posed by salmon farms.
Just over a month ago, my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked in Grand Committee what steps the Government were taking to protect wild salmon populations. I confess to having been underwhelmed by the reply to the debate given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, especially on two points: the need to monitor more strictly the harmful activities of some salmon farms, and the quite ridiculous restrictions placed on river-keepers’ ability to control stocks of predators such as cormorants. She noted that some predators are themselves protected so we had to be
“careful about how and when such predators can be managed”.—[Official Report, 12/9/24; cols. GC 170-171.]
I think that the noble Baroness is unaware that the cormorant population has increased from some 2,000 in the 1980s to over 62,000 today. Each bird requires over a pound of fish a day; why are they still protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Why does the EU still protect them under the birds directive? Does the Minister know how many gamekeepers are employed by the Crown Estate and how many cormorants they are licensed to shoot each year?
In replying to the debate last month, the noble Baroness the Minister said that the Government recognised the need for higher standards to be maintained in fish farms. The problems of excessive sea lice escaping fish possessing a very different genetic make-up and a very different DNA construct compared with indigenous fish were raised by several noble Lords in that debate, and spoken to especially powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth just now. What discussions has the Minister had with the Crown Estate about fish farms and about moving to more sustainable methods of farming salmon, especially land-based farms, which are completely isolated from the endangered wild salmon population? As my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Strathclyde have already said, this amendment would very much improve the Bill.
It is fortunate that, until now, English river systems have been, I believe, free of open-net fish farms, but I worry that the encouragement, implicit in the Bill, for the Crown Estate to increase commercial activity might change that—and I believe that this amendment is therefore absolutely necessary. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—words that I never thought I would hear myself speak. I was unable to attend the Second Reading but my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle did attend. After the previous day in Committee, I was approached by four different Conservative Peers who complained that a Green had not spoken on that day. One of those Peers was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has consistently, over the 11 years I have been here, complained that Greens speak too much. I hope to hear him express his gratitude today to hear a Green speak.
I support the amendment because, although I am highly suspicious of Conservatives and their environmental credentials, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely genuine in his care for salmon—and I support that completely. This is a very sensible amendment, and I cannot see any reason for the Labour Government not to accept it, so I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why they will not.
These issues of environmental impact and animal welfare standards should be an overarching staple of any check on any Bill or policy that the Labour Government bring forward. I am afraid that these days I have my doubts about the Labour Government’s environmental credentials. We have seen some horrific decisions already in the first 100 days, or three months, so I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will accept this quite simple but, I think, very necessary amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too rise in support of the very modest amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Woe betide any Government who fail to accept an amendment tabled by four such eminent Peers as the movers of this amendment. I hope that the Government will recognise that this very modest amendment is worthy of significant support.
I say that it is modest because internationally, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, salmon farms are banned in multiple countries—not only the countries that he has mentioned but Denmark and Australia, to name two more. The practices that have led to these bans differ. Some are concerned that, with thousands of fish in each pen, salmon farms can act as a breeding ground for diseases and pests, which is undoubtedly the case, particularly with sea lice. Almost half the salmon in Scottish salmon farms are said to be infested with the common salmon louse. The consequences of that were made very clear by my noble friend in his opening speech.
There is another reason. In Argentina the main concern was that a provincial government voted to ban intensive salmon fishing after campaigners successfully argued that it would wreak environmental havoc, close down local fishing fleets and threaten the nature tourism established there.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend, who recently sponsored an important debate in the Moses Room on this very subject. I inform noble Lords, if they had not spotted it already, that this is a very modest measure. It is not instructing the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the local planning authority; it is simply instructing the commissioners of the Crown Estate and asking them to be more responsible in terms of outlook to the environment and, in particular, to the obvious evidence that is accumulating about the damage being done to salmon and sea-trout.
I want to reinforce what I hope the Minister is going to say by giving him what I think it is the really important example of the River Lochy on the west coast of Scotland near Fort William. That was once a very important salmon river with a prolific angling catch of well over 1,500. It has gone downhill quite catastrophically: the numbers have decreased; the number of staff employed as ghillies on the river has gone right down; and the impact of tourism on the economy has been very badly affected.
About seven years ago, the two fish farms in Loch Linnhe were both fallowed for a year. The following year, the number of grilse coming into the river went up very sharply and the angling catch went up by a factor of three and a half. That seems to me to be quite compelling and overwhelming evidence of the damage that is being done, which my noble friend described so eloquently. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment because it is a modest amendment and, as I say, it is not actually affecting any government or local government organisation; it is simply affecting the commissioners and giving them this extra duty. I support my noble friend.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I declare interests as a trustee of the Burnham Overy Harbour Trust and president of the Wells-next-the-Sea RNLI station—I say that only because they both go out to sea. I apologise that I was not here at Second Reading on 2 September; I was in the Netherlands on business also relating to the environment. Like my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I agree that the main purpose of the Bill is to allow the Crown Estate to borrow and leverage against its assets and manage them in a way becoming of the 21st century.
I am astounded that the Crown Estate is not required to undertake the same level of environmental impact assessment that we do on the mainland. Amendment 37F is incredibly straightforward. It seeks to install in law a requirement for the Crown Estate to undertake an EIA, just like any other business on the mainland planning to undertake large-scale engineering works.
In preparation for this amendment, I spoke to a number of people in my local community on the coast of North Norfolk: Andy Frary of the Wells & District Inshore Fishermen’s Association; Bob Smith, the Wells-next-the-Sea harbourmaster; Leo Hambro, founder of Tidal Transit; and Professor Jenny Gill of the School of Biological Sciences at UEA—she is not really in my community any more, because she has just moved to Fife.
As the harbourmaster and I discussed, obviously the Crown Estate wants the rent, but this EIA needs to be rather more rigorous. If we insist that the Crown Estate will be required to undertake detailed environmental impact assessments, who will monitor that? Will it be the MMO? Bob Smith’s view is that the MMO is vastly removed from the coalfaces; it gives out the licences but has inexperienced staff and does not really understand local communities.
The fishermen I spoke to, the harbourmaster and I are very much for wind farms out to sea. We have marine protected areas and, ironically, once a wind farm is established, it becomes a sort of natural marine protected area. Rock armour is placed around the base of the wind turbines to protect them from big tides and scarring, et cetera. It then quickly attracts crustaceans—lobsters and crabs—and fish and there is a 50-metre “no fishing” rule for fishermen, who cannot get close to them. It is almost a sanctuary for all these crustacea. As they develop and thrive, they move out and the fishermen can then catch them.
There was also concern that giving licences to different companies for different wind farms was rather disjointed; they should be liaising on where their cables can come together out to sea so that they hit the land in one place. That has happened to an extent in North Norfolk, where they come ashore at Weybourne.
Professor Jenny Gill looks at this from an environmental point of view. The location of these wind farms is the most important thing. We need to avoid putting them where birds are—they are easier to monitor than fish and sea mammals. The concern is bird strike out to sea. Organisations such as the BTO and the RSPB have done a lot of work on flight heights of migratory birds and sea birds in relation to rotor speed and on whether bird strike is a big threat. Bob Smith surveys boats going out from Wells-next-the-Sea; maybe they are lucky and the wind farm they have been surveying is in the right place, but they come back and say, “We saw four birds today”. That damage is not happening.
In seeking this EIA, I am encouraging the Government to involve nature conservation organisations at an early stage so that they can be part of the planning process. Professor Gill mentioned that this is getting quite complicated. Beth Scott, professor in marine ecology at Aberdeen University, has worked on how tides work in open sea and form around tidal nodes and on whether putting static turbines on the ground changes the way tides work and the spatial way in which they move.
The big thing is making the planning process more transparent and getting conservation organisations at the table. They do not want to be adversarial; they are all at the green end of the scale and want to see a lot more of this renewable energy.
I had a very interesting conversation with Leo Hambro, of Tidal Transit. He operates crew transfer boats. I talked to him about the construction phase of these wind farms. He said that there have been improvements of late, in the last few years, including air bubble rings that are placed around the piling system which let out bubbles to reduce the sonic boom—which of course carries a long way underwater—therefore, we hope, mitigating damage to mammals. However, that has happened only recently.
When trenching, that is done either through some sort of underground machine that pulls a plough through the sand or, more often, through a large ship pulling a plough which turns over a trench a metre deep, into which the big cable is placed and then sand is placed back over it. If necessary, a few more rocks are placed on top of it. However, there really ought to be an EIA to decide which route these cables take. I suspect they probably take the shortest and cheapest route, but do they avoid mussel lays? They must avoid sunken ships, but off the coast of north Norfolk, in Cromer, we have a very important chalk reef, and it is important that that is protected.
To go back to crew transfer boats, Leo Hambro has seven of them. In fact, there are 200 around the UK and 700 around the world. Some 80% of them are in the UK and Europe because of the large-scale wind farms we have out to sea. To explain, these boats go out every day and take engineers to maintain and man the wind farms. The average stat for the industry is to use 1,500 litres of red diesel a day. In reality, he said they could use 2,500 to 4,000 litres a day, particularly if they are servicing a wind farm which is 45 miles away. He has to service East Anglia ONE from Lowestoft. These boats are going at 20 knots, so they are burning a lot of diesel.
It is not the case that when they get out there they switch their engines off. They have to spend up to two hours pushing against the turbine to make a safe platform for workers, transferring kit on and off the boat, et cetera. When they are then waiting for another three hours or so for the engineers to do their work, they have to stand off, but they do not drop an anchor and switch off; they have to run their engines to maintain generators and such on-board.
Leo Hambro is operating boats out of Wick, Grimsby, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. An interesting point to which I hope the Minister pays attention is that one of his boats is being converted to run on pure electric. That is being done in Great Yarmouth and should be ready for May 2025, thanks to DfT UK SHORE funding. It also includes offshore and onshore charging infrastructure, which I will come to in a second. The reason I mention these boats is that, for 200 boats using 2,500 litres of red diesel a day on average, five days a week, 50 days a year, that is 125 million litres of diesel.
That takes me to exhausts. AdBlue is added to the exhaust to reduce toxins, including nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide, and diesel particulates. AdBlue is made of synthetic ammonia—
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My apologies—this is it. AdBlue is not made from green ammonia. All these marine exhausts omit their fumes below the water to keep the exhausts cool. AdBlue is depositing heavy metal poisoning into the sea. I will stop there.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the amendment standing in my own name, I support my noble friend Lord Leicester in his amendment. I would add to it the requirement of the offshore wind industry to provide adequate funding to research and understand the cumulative impact of all these offshore wind developments on migratory birds and fish. By way of comparison, what we now understand with aquaculture is that one farm on its own makes no material difference to the wider environment. The problem is that the cumulative impact of all these developments is devastating.
Most regrettably, the aquaculture industry has no obligation to pay towards monitoring this impact on the environment or on wild salmon and other species, with the burden of proof left to the NGO and charitable sector to fund the science that demonstrates the terrible impact that aquaculture is having. Let us not repeat this disastrous situation again with offshore renewables. It should be a cost of business and a licence requirement for the offshore wind industry to fund independent, ongoing research into the impacts of individual and cumulative sites on migratory birds and fish, with the results of this work directly influencing future developments.
On the amendment standing in my name, I declare my interests as set out in the register and draw attention to my roles as a trustee of the Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fisheries Board, as the past chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and as the proprietor of two salmon rivers in Scotland.
I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who spoke so passionately about the issues of aquaculture. During a recent Question for Short Debate tabled by my noble friend on the parlous state of the UK’s salmon stock, many noble Lords raised serious questions about the impact that aquaculture, and in particular open-cage salmon farming, was having on salmon stocks and the wider environment. This is becoming a worrying theme. We have all seen the harrowing pictures of malformed and diseased farmed salmon held in very questionable conditions by bad operators in this industry.
What is much harder to see is the impact that the cumulative size of this industry is having on our wild salmon and the wider environment. However, any objective review of the science leads to the conclusion that there are a number of serious negative impacts from this industry. The three most serious are: first, the catastrophic impact of elevated sea lice numbers caused by a direct result of intensive open-cage salmon farming on juvenile wild salmon survival; secondly, the impact of intensive salmon farming on animal husbandry standards for fish kept in open-net cages in such density and the subsequent cross-contamination of numerous diseases from farmed to wild fish; and, thirdly, the impact of genetic introgression from genetically modified farmed salmon escapees interbreeding with wild salmon populations, rendering them unfit to survive the rigours of the natural world. These are serious issues that are having a profound long-term negative impact on the natural environment and on wild salmon stocks specifically.
Why is this relevant to the Crown Estate Bill? In simple terms, salmon farmers are there only because they get a licence from the Crown Estate. Without a Crown Estate licence, they would have no right to be there, and the cumulative impact of the industry, and the bad operators among them, would not be causing the levels of environmental damage and animal suffering that they are. Given the nature of this monopoly, it is surely right that the Crown Estate commissioners are enabled through the Bill to hold to account those to whom they have granted a licence, and that they themselves are held accountable for the outcomes that they enable. Without these amendments, the Crown Estate commissioners are unable to fulfil their duty of care to others with whom they share the coastal space to ensure that they are not adversely impacted. They are unable to prevent the negative animal welfare issues from continuing; unable to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on other species that live in this precious ecosystem; and unable to ensure that the wider environment is not damaged by the bad operators to whom they have granted a licence to operate.
These amendments seek to give the public and the environment a practical and sensible level of protection against malpractice and environmental damage, by giving those who enable these fish farm operators—namely, the Crown Estate—the tools to manage the cumulative impact and to remove the bad operators. They will also give the Government the power to hold the Crown Estate commissioners to account to ensure that they do this. We have all seen the devastating impact that can occur if we fail to hold those in a monopolistic position to account in areas such as sewage discharge, so let us not repeat the same mistakes here.
As it stands, the Crown Estate has no ability to influence or remove bad operators in the aquaculture industry to whom it has issued a licence. Crucially, the Government have no ability to hold the Crown Estate commissioners to account for any negative outcomes arising from the issuing of these licences. It is simply not right that the organisation that is in the sole position to enable an entire industry—and, incidentally, to make tens of millions of pounds from issuing these licences—can have no influence over, or responsibility for, any negative outcomes from its actions.
The simple measure of requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to report annually on the impact of aquaculture on the environment and animal welfare standards—and enabling and compelling them to remove licences from those operators that fall short of the required standards—must surely be a desirable and fair outcome for everyone. It would significantly reduce any negative impact on the environment and help to improve animal welfare standards. These amendments have substantial cross-party support, and I hope that the Government will accept them as improving the Crown Estate Bill.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. I was not sure which one most suited the comments I wished to make, but I think it is probably Amendment 37F in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
At the heart of all three amendments is a question about the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic activity that we wish to undertake, quite properly, and, on the other, the environmental and natural consequences that may take place. It is about the right balance between what we seek to do economically and what we seek to protect environmentally. I will speak to that general point.
Taking my lead from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I should declare my interests. I too am an angler, although I do not get to spend nearly enough time on the river, and I also happen to own the river, which is rather nice. I am chairman of the Caithness District Salmon Fishery Board, which is currently very involved with Crown Estate Scotland on various issues. I may also be—I hope—the beneficiary of a number of renewable projects. I have every sort of interest that you could possibly have; I think that they are broadly covered by my register, but I thought that I had better spell them out.
As I said, the heart of the three amendments is about seeking to ensure that, when we set out to undertake an economic activity of any kind—and this is absolutely what happens on land—we make a proper and full assessment of what the impact is likely to be on the environment that we are putting that economic activity into. That includes the flora, fauna, fungi and everything else that you might find there.
I want to give one quick example; it is in Scotland but I think it is relevant. We on the north coast have four rivers which are all in very good health. On the Thurso we electrofish every year and for some years now we have known that you cannot get any more juveniles into the river, it is in that good order. So, at a time when most of Scotland has salmon stocks that are endangered, as the noble Lord pointed out in introducing his amendment, we have the one bit of Scotland that actually is in good order and producing good salmon—and long may that last.
The west of Shetland wind farm, which is going to go ahead in the not-too-distant future, and which I support as a piece of offshore energy, may have a problem for us in the fishing world, and that is that we do not know where our smolts go. When the salmon grow in the river, they come to a point where they smoltify and they take to the sea and off they go. They are then called “smolts” or “post-smolts” and we do not actually know where they go. There has been smolt tagging and tracking in the Moray Firth which discovered that the fish that come out of various rivers in the deep south around Inverness and places like that have a tendency not to do what you would expect, which is to scoot up the coast and head past Orkney. For reasons known only to them, they leg it across to Aberdeenshire, which I always thought showed a bit of a lack of taste. The point about that is they do not go through the Beatrice wind farm and that piece of knowledge is vital in being able to look at what you may need to do to mitigate.
Similar studies on the west coast show that Irish and west coast fish tend to go due north, as you would expect, and straight off to Iceland. We just do not know where our smolts are going, so we made contact with Crown Estate Scotland, which I have to say has been incredibly helpful on this, and the chairman put me in touch with various people. As a result, I believe that there will be a smolt-tracking project which will allow us to know where our smolts are going and we will therefore know whether we have a problem, so we can look at what can be done to mitigate it if we have.
That comes back to the point I was making that, without information, you cannot make a decision on the appropriate thing to do. Crown Estate Scotland on this occasion has been extremely helpful, as I said. It wishes to make sure that it does the least harm, which is wonderful, but it seems to me correct that, in forming any legislation, it is appropriate, as we do with the nuclear industry and a whole range of other things, to state what it is that people have to provide by way of information in terms of an economic impact assessment and what they will do to mitigate the inevitable downsides that occur when you have developments of these kinds.
So I am not sure whether I am supporting anybody in particular—noble Lords will have to make up their own minds on that—but I am supporting the principle that we need knowledge and information about what may happen so that we can then make an informed choice on what mitigation is required and how much damage we are prepared to accept for the value brought by the economic activity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way and I am much heartened to hear that his rivers and fish are doing very well. I just wonder what his reaction would be if someone decided they wanted to put a fish farm in the track of his migrating smolts when he knows where they are.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
I suspect I would be pretty horrified, given all the information that I know about it, but I have long tried to stick to a principle in your Lordships’ House to speak about what I really know about and avoid the things I do not know too much about, so I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go down that road.
To come back to my central point on the need to get information, it is about the right duty that we should ask the Crown Estate to have and then the process it should follow to deliver it. So my request to the Minister would be to look at the obvious strength of feeling on all of these points and perhaps the Government should look at what their view would be as to the right process and the right way to put it into the Bill and come back with an amendment that would achieve that and would suit the Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and in particular as a trustee of the Blair Charitable Trust. I will make two brief points, but generally I feel very supportive of both Amendments 37 and 37G.
The first point begins with the Defra food security statistics, as updated in October 2023, where it is noted that the production-to-supply ratio in the UK is 75%. That is essentially a measure of the number of calories that we produce on these islands that we need to eat. We need to import, therefore, a quarter of all the calories at least that we eat. In fact, it is more, because we export some of what we produce as well. No new land is being produced and we are chipping away at the existing farmland with forestry, development and a certain amount of rewilding, and the population is growing, so the number of calories is going up. Aquaculture is therefore a very obvious way of improving the situation and, while I fully accept all of the many problems that we heard about so powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, earlier on, we are going to have to face up to the fact that aquaculture is something that we will need if we are going to try to narrow the gap of the production-to-supply ratio.
As the Minister said in his Second Reading speech— I am sorry that I was not there—the Crown Estate is very rarely here in this Chamber; it last came in 1961. So it is important to prep the Crown Estate and do some future-proofing of it, and much of the Bill is about getting on top of energy and prepping it for energy as well. Again, we are going to need to grapple with the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised, but on this visit to the House I think we must prep it for aquaculture as well. That means that we are going to have to have some amendments that are along the lines of Amendments 37 and 37G. I slightly prefer the width of Amendment 37G, but there are good things in both of them.
I move to my second point. There is a lot to learn from the experiences of Scotland in aquaculture, and English commissioners will certainly and inevitably face the problem faced by the trustees of the Blair Charitable Trust that a high financial offer for the use of something may come from a riskier and lower-quality bidder. The effect of Amendments 37 and 37G would be to give those commissioners an easier ability to turn down somebody who has offered a larger amount of money but has lower environmental standards and to say clearly, “No, your bid is not there, it is not in the overall interests of managing the land”—on behalf of all of us, I may say. That is a very important point.
A few years ago, I went to stay with some friends near Oban and they took us down to visit a bankrupt fish farm. I do not know whether anyone else has visited a bankrupt fish farm recently, and I know that “desert” is the wrong word when one is talking about a sea loch, but “desert” is quite a good word for describing what we saw. It was awful, and of course it goes a long way beyond all of the netting arrangements. It was dead and horrible and it smelled and there was waste everywhere and our friends told us of the great difficulty in working out who was going to clear it all up and who was going to pay for the clear-up, because Crown Estate Scotland had not put in place bonding arrangements —something those in construction would do because, if the construction company goes wrong, you can finish off the problem. It usually happens with shipbuilding, although not with Scottish ferries, but bonding arrangements are extremely important and they had not been put in place. I am glad to say that I went back a couple of years later and the area has improved, but it is not perfect. I therefore have direct experience of the horrors of things if you do not get it right, and I suspect there are many war stories—so if aquaculture comes, as I know it will, to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, people can learn from their Scottish cousins.
On my experience of charitable trustees worrying about potential land users, I went back and looked at some trustee board papers, and the process we actually follow in real life when we are considering letting land users on to the Blair Charitable Trust, which is quite big, is very similar to the two processes set out in Amendments 37 and 37G. That process has been going on for a long time on what is a very old-established plot of land. I therefore feel that these are tried and tested routes to something as well, and that they are very good. They have a long-term view built into them, as well as the fact that you must look to the whole environment, as we do at the Blair Charitable Trust. These amendments are therefore vital, and they will make the job of the Crown Estate commissioners much easier.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate to listen to. I had not intended to partake in it, but I was prompted to do so by the last two speeches, by my noble kinsman Lord Thurso and by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. This is clearly a much bigger problem than just salmon. From listening to the debate, it seems that we all want the offshore energy—we need it—and, undoubtedly, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, we will need aquaculture in the future in a much more abundant way than we have it at the moment.
It strikes me that it is very odd that those who operate our farms and our energy on land face very different hurdles to those who operate at sea. Can the Minister, who has quite a lot to take away and think about from this well-informed debate, look at this whole question? This is a rare opportunity for us to try to get this right for future generations. We do not want to solve a problem now by creating a further problem for the future. Let us get this right so that we take a holistic view of development at sea, whether it be fish farming, agriculture or energy, so that the right environmental standards and precautions are put into place before and after an event. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, at the moment it is all too easy for fish farmers to put themselves into liquidation and leave a mess for others to clear up. That cannot be allowed to happen in the future.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a very brief intervention on the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and I would like some assurance from the Minister on some important points that the noble Earl made.
One of the points the noble Earl made was that we need to look at offshore developments not one by one in sequence but holistically. We are moving now into new waters with floating offshore wind; I am particularly aware of the Celtic Sea development, but obviously there is also floating offshore wind further out in Scottish waters. I would very much like an assurance from the Minister that, before those developments take place, in terms of actual building and specific location, there will be an overall environmental assessment for the whole of the future developments as opposed to each one individually. We want to understand the total effect rather than those individual effects.
We also need to consider the issues around the landing of those electric cables and all the infrastructure. In the North Sea, we have had the issue of a spaghetti of energy cables coming into various places all around it, and now, far too late, we are looking at trying to change that into a rational grid where we can have greater interdependence and greater trading but also fewer landing areas in terms of environmental damage.
In an earlier group, I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interests between the Crown Estate wanting to have offshore wind and therefore doing its own environmental assessments for these developments to be oven-ready—to use that phrase so badly used in the past. I very much wish to be assured by the Minister that there will be that global view of future areas of development, particularly of floating offshore wind, rather than doing it piecemeal in the ineffective and rather damaging way that we have done in the past.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Douglas-Miller and Lord Leicester for these important amendments. I first declare my interests as set out in the register as the owner of fishing rights in both Devon and Sutherland, as a developer and owner of renewable energy assets and as president of the South West Rivers Association.
Amendments 37 and 37G require the Crown Estate to take responsibility for the environmental impact of salmon and broader fish farming, as well as the welfare standards in those industries. This applies both to existing licensed salmon and fish farms as well as new applicants for licences.
We support sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or any fish species when it is done with sufficient respect for animal welfare and with protection of the environment in mind. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and recognise that it is critical that fish can be farmed so a growing global population can continue to include fish within its diet without putting unsustainable pressure on wild fish populations. We also celebrate that the United Kingdom is one of the few places in the world that has ideal coastlines and sea conditions, and that the industry can bring much-needed jobs to parts of the country with limited employment opportunities. Its contribution to those communities is important. However, the salmon farming industry should not be at the expense of the wild population that spawned it and was already occupying this coastline and these river systems for millennia before farming began, or at the expense of equally valuable jobs in managing the rod and line fisheries or indeed historic salmon-netting rights.
This Bill and these amendments target only England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As we all fully understand, the Scottish Crown Estate has been devolved. However, it is hard to debate these amendments without acknowledging the damage that Scottish salmon farms have done not only to the west-coast-of-Scotland rivers but to English, Welsh and Irish rivers. Migratory patterns of salmon and sea trout are still not fully understood, but it is clear that fish travelling to these rivers also have to navigate open-cage salmon farms in Scottish waters.
To my knowledge, there is only one fish farm in UK waters outside of Scottish waters, and that is in Northern Ireland. While these amendments will capture that farm, we also hope and intend that they will provide that any future development of salmon farms in our waters, or indeed any other aquaculture, is done with much greater scrutiny of the environmental implications and with full accountability for any harm caused and with the highest standards of animal welfare.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and other noble Lords mentioned, the evidence against salmon farms for their impact on wild Atlantic salmon and other salmonids has been well laid out: they are a reservoir of sea lice that prey on passing salmon; they are a reservoir and breeding ground of disease and bacterial and fungal infections; and there is the long-term existential threat, as farmed species’ genetics increasingly diverge from wild, that interbreeding with the wild species by escaped fish has on their continued viability in the wild. I note that it is thought that 5,000 salmon escaped from the Northern Irish salmon farm earlier this year.
There are other environmental impacts that have also been discussed: the amount of wild fish that are caught solely to be processed for fishmeal and fish oil to feed farmed salmon; the dead zones created on the seabed; and the chemicals that are used to treat diseases impacting on local wildlife. In addition, lumpfish and five species of wrasse have been used since the 1990s as cleaner fish in the industry to eat sea lice. The lumpfish are also farmed, and the industry is moving to farming of wrasse as well. What environmental standards do these have, as well as animal welfare standards?
There are also significant welfare concerns for the farmed fish themselves, as expressed during this debate—exposure to predation from sea lice; images of hundreds of tonnes of dead fish routinely being taken out of these cages and disposed of by incineration, burial and other means; and the apparent overcrowding of these fish within the open-cage salmon farms.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, Washington state chose to ban open-cage Atlantic salmon farming in 2018, and British Columbia plans to shut all its open-cage salmon farming by next year. That is not what is suggested by these amendments, which would ensure that the Crown Estate environmental and welfare obligations are explicit and that the entity is held accountable for any environmental damage or welfare issues caused on its estate. Better practice is available in the world; there are better techniques for farming Atlantic salmon that could be brought into operation to mitigate and even eliminate many of the causes of damage. We understand that these are all likely to add to the cost of production, but why should our environment and our wild Atlantic salmon subsidise this industry? Surely we have learned our lesson from the impact of the green revolution on native bird species and river system health?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for the points raised during this debate and for powerfully highlighting such important issues. I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller—who was the Minister for Animal Health and Welfare in the previous Government—and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, which all touch on environmental and animal welfare protections.
These amendments would require the Crown commissioners to assess, on an ongoing basis, the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of, respectively, salmon farms, offshore energy installation and generation and aquacultural practices on the Crown Estate. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm, a relevant offshore energy installation and generation, or relevant aquaculture is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms or the installation and generation of offshore energy on the estate. Where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.
The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives behind these amendments. It might help noble Lords if I set out the protections that currently exist in regulations and legislation, which apply regardless of the landlord. All aquaculture activity in England, including salmon farming, is regulated with the intention of ensuring that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare, although I appreciate from the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this intent is not currently being achieved. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland. As has been observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter.
The Government’s starting point is that these amendments may duplicate existing protections that already exist in legislation or protections that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture and offshore energy installations. Specifically, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any protected animal. The assimilated Council Regulation No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires that farmed fish are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations. The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 contain provisions to protect farmed fish from serious disease by introducing a system of authorisation for businesses involved in aquaculture.
To address a point on environmental impacts made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require the competent authority—in this context, the Crown Estate —to determine whether a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European marine site. If so, it is then subject to an appropriate assessment. If that assessment shows that the plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site that cannot be mitigated, authorisation of the activity must be refused unless specific derogations apply. For marine areas that are designated as a marine conservation zone under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, a marine conservation zone assessment is carried out by the public authority to test activities that may hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the specific zone and decide from the assessments whether the application for an activity can be authorised.
The Crown Estate seeks to supports the regulators through the inclusion of necessary requirements on any leases and requires all practitioners to comply fully with all legal obligations, including animal welfare practices. When developing or managing its assets, especially in areas such as offshore wind farms, coastal management and urban redevelopment, the Crown Estate must comply with regulations that require environmental impact assessments. An example of this happening in practice was in February 2017, when the Crown Estate launched an opportunity for existing wind farms to apply for project extensions. Following a habitats regulations assessment, the Crown Estate confirmed that seven of these extension application projects would progress to the award of development rights.
The Crown Estate also received an application for an extension project where the majority of the site of the proposed extension sat within the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge special area of conservation. The plan-level habitats regulations assessment determined that it would not be possible to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of the special area of conservation. Therefore, the Crown Estate decided that this extension project would not progress to the award of leasing rights as part of the 2017 extensions round.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about looking at impacts holistically, that is exactly what this Bill seeks, by enabling the Crown Estate to map the whole seabed and therefore improve the understanding of how to ensure benefits for nature for the long term.
I would be interested to know in due course whether noble Lords consider that these existing regulations and the legislation are inadequate or are currently being inadequately applied. I hope that, for now, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, feel able not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
Is the Minister able to address the issue of pollution from all these crew transfer boats? I mentioned 125 million litres of diesel every year. If we are to have many more wind farms out to sea, that amount of diesel may get very large. Can he comment on converting these boats to electric?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid that is not something I know about, but I am happy to write to the noble Earl.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which was clearly written by Treasury officials who do not get out very much. The Minister has been kind enough to say that we should indicate whether we think the existing legislative requirements and regulations are working. We have just had an excellent debate, which has made it absolutely clear that wild salmon are being destroyed, not just in this country, but elsewhere, so the answer is: it is hurting, and it is not working. A very modest requirement on the landlords, the owners of the seabed to—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Just to be clear, I wanted clarification as to whether the existing legislation could work, or, in itself, could not work.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I would be very happy for the Minister to come back with an amendment that would indicate how it could be made to work, because it is not working. It seems to me a very modest measure that would say to the Crown Estate that it has given a licence to these people, so it is therefore under a duty to make sure that they act in accordance with all regulations and in a way which protects the environment for which they have responsibility. I cannot imagine why the Minister would reject that.
In view of the very inadequate response, I am very tempted to test the opinion of the Committee, but I will not because I hope that, perhaps in further discussions with the Minister, we can get an amendment which will actually offer some degree of protection to the hundreds of thousands of fishermen who are concerned about this, to the communities who are concerned about this and to the many, many people on a cross-party basis. I cite the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I who are united; we are linked at the hip in our determination to make this happen.
However, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of not just my amendment but that of my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller, who made a very fine speech explaining precisely why things are not working. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Moynihan and Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—it is quite a gathering. The Minister ought to go back and think about this again, and we will table a further amendment on Report.
I am most grateful to my colleague my noble friend Lord Roborough for the support that he gave to this amendment and his careful consideration. I have to say that I am not sure the Minister’s officials have shown the same diligence in looking at what is a major problem which, if not tackled with immediacy, will see the extinction of the wild salmon in this country. That is not something that any Government would want on their record. Given the response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
“Report on differences between provisions of this Act about the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions in ScotlandThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report assessing any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.”
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Amendment 37D is a simple amendment that allows us the opportunity to discuss the lack of symmetry after the passing of this Bill. I should just say that, following the last grouping, I think I have the answer to the Minister’s question about why things are inadequate at the moment.
I discussed in the previous group how I view this Bill as being an opportunity to prep the Crown Estate for energy and agriculture. Clearly, it will improve things here, but not in my native land at the same time. I have had the benefit, in preparing this amendment, of quite a few discussions with the chair of Crown Estate Scotland and had help from his team, and I thank them for that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I will not try the patience of the Committee for very long on this issue. It is fairly rare that I do not support amendments that are moved by that powerful combination of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux; but, on this occasion, I am rather troubled by this amendment. I believe that we have to defend the principle of devolution. There are many who want the devolution in name but not in actual fact. I am afraid that when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, use the word “symmetry”, every antenna was raised. I have already argued in earlier phases of this Bill that we should have devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales—that is fundamentally important—and it is important that we reinforce and understand the importance of a genuine devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland as established in current law. That is in our collaboration, partnership, sharing practice—
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am so sorry. I probably did not make it clear that the reason that I was talking to the Crown Estate Scotland was because it contacted me. It is very keen to have the symmetry, and I understand through the Crown Estate Scotland that the Scottish Government is also pretty keen to have it. I am not proposing anything that is not consented to by all parties. I am just worried that the parties will get busy doing other things and will not get on with it. The idea of the pencil in the back is to get consenting adults to get on with it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I appreciate that intervention from the noble Earl because I now understand his position better, but I do not think that is how this clause would be used. It would create a level of dissent, with each side saying, “We do it better than you do”, and “You need to copy us”. We can see the kind of constant pressures that come to—I am losing language; it is just so late—dilute the power of devolution.
On that basis, I do not support this language. Co-operation, partnership, looking at best practice—all those things are extremely positive, but let us be absolutely clear: the Crown Estate Scotland falls under the Scottish Government. Interestingly, it is often much more regulated than the Crown Estate back in England. I hope we learn from the Scottish experience not that each needs to mirror the other by rote, but that devolution works and should be extended to Wales.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I may not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this. I agree with the intention of this amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. While we also acknowledge that the Crown Estate in Scotland is devolved, the entity remains closely aligned in its nature and the objectives sought from it, with considerable overlap in the kind of assets that are owned and managed. The Bill before us creates considerable new powers for the Crown Estate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. First among those is the power to borrow, with the benefits to investment and flexibility that that allows. It also creates new obligations—hopefully, to include taking full responsibility for the environmental impact of offshore energy and fish farming. Those are not present in the devolved Crown Estate of Scotland. As noble Lords have described, it may well be helpful if the Minister committed to providing clear information on those differences once the Act has been implemented in order to allow both entities to learn what is best practice. Oversight and transparency are desirable in all areas of government, and I am most interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment and debate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 37D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the day this Act is passed that assesses any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.
It is possible now to provide such an assessment, and I am happy to set that out. Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland and rights in relation to the Scottish zone.
Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.
The relationship between Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish Government is governed by a public framework document which sets out a broad framework within which Crown Estate Scotland operates, and certain financial aspects. Any changes to that framework document or the wider legislation that underpins it are a matter for the Scottish Government.
I turn to the principal differences and similarities. The Bill grants the commissioners of the Crown Estate a power to borrow with Treasury consent and provides the Treasury with the power to issue loans and financial assistance to the commissioners, including out of the National Loans Fund. The Bill also specifies that the Treasury may determine the rate of interest on any loan and requires the Treasury to pay any sums received in respect of the loan into the National Loans Fund.
In comparison, Part 2, Section 1.1 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that
“Scottish Ministers may make grants and loans to Crown Estate Scotland”
and such grants and loans are
“subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.
Part 2, Section 2.1 requires that:
“All borrowing by Crown Estate Scotland … shall be from the Scottish Ministers in accordance with guidance in the Borrowing, Lending & Investment section of the”
Scottish Public Finance Manual.
On investment, this Bill clarifies the commissioners’ existing ability to invest by inserting into the 1961 Act that:
“The powers exercisable by the Commissioners in the discharge of their functions under this Act include powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions”.
It also omits subsection (4) from Section 3 of the 1961 Act, which will broaden the commissioner’s investment powers.
In comparison, Part 1, Section 3.2 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that Scottish Ministers are responsible for
“approving Crown Estate Scotland’s Corporate Plan”,
which includes their investment strategy. Part 2, Section 7.3 requires Crown Estate Scotland to
“undertake investment in line with its legislative duties”,
which are set out in the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, principally in Part 3, across Sections 7 to 21.
On the constitution of the commissioners, the Bill increases the maximum number of commissioners from eight to 12 and omits the requirement that the second Crown Estate commissioner, if any, be deputy chairman. It also simplifies the legislative process by which commissioners are paid, such that the commissioners’ salaries and expenses are paid directly out of the income of the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which comes from the return made by the commissioners to the Government each year.
In comparison, under Part 1, Section 3.5 of the frame- work document for Crown Estate Scotland, the board membership is limited to nine members, including the chair. On remuneration, Section 7 of the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 makes it clear that
“Crown Estate Scotland … must pay each member such remuneration and allowances (including expenses) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.
The differences between these two organisations reflect the fact that the organisations have formed in different ways. The 1961 Act, which, as I have set out, is the legislative basis of the Crown Estate in its current form, was fulfilling a recommendation of the government Committee on Crown Lands—as set out in its report presented to Parliament in June 1955—to appoint an independent board of commissioners to manage the Crown Estate, with provisions designed to enable Parliament and the Treasury to know how it is discharging its responsibilities. To briefly quote from the 1955 report:
“The board should be a public authority, but not a government department in the sense of an organ of executive government. … We do however respectfully advise that the board should be more, not less, independent than the present Commissioners and that they should be given defined powers and duties as trustees and allowed to work them out with the minimum of direction and control.”
In comparison, Crown Estate Scotland was created by the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, which makes specific provisions about the management of the Scottish Crown Estate and followed on from a process of devolution established by the Scotland Act 2016. Crown Estate Scotland is specifically required to align its aims and objectives with the Scottish Government’s published programme for government, and Scotland’s economic strategy and national performance framework.
I hope this assessment was helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
It is very interesting that the Minister has not mentioned—unusually, because he is always incredibly well briefed—the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017, which was the scheme under Section 90B of the Scotland Act, under which this was transferred. Schedule 4 of that is headed, “Protection of UK-wide interests”, which is quite a thing, and the subject we have been talking about this afternoon. I wonder whether he would comment on that and how it affects the assessment that he has just made.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that point. In the meantime, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The Minister has not really addressed the fundamental point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: fish and birds do not know where the border is between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and there are common interests. All he has done is read out a list of regulations and statutes that apply to the two commissions. I think the noble Earl was asking what provisions can be made, so that the two sets of commissioners are able to operate in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. As a unionist, he will surely appreciate the importance of that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
What I read out was a response to the amendment tabled, which asked for exactly that; that is why I read it out. The noble Lord raises profound constitutional questions which I may not be the right person to address them to.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I asked a question as well: is the Minister going to afford every assistance to what is going on? This is something worth discussing. There is a danger here, and it is in the interests of all of us, as sub-owners of the Crown Estate, that the position is regularised. I am sorry if symmetry is too strong a word because they are differently enacted, but it is important to be in a position where they have very similar powers. It is in the interests of everyone in these islands that the two things can work together when required and that they have similar powers, so they can engage in the same energy deals and the same things in aquaculture.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to have that meeting. I do not know whether the noble Lord does want to join, but of course he is always welcome.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
That will be a matter for the noble Lord. On that basis—and I very much appreciate the spirit and the smile on the Minister’s face as he said that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Crown Estate Bill from coming into force until two months after the Framework Document has been laid before Parliament with a motion for resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 39 and 40 in my name.
These amendments concern the publication of a framework document and the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. We must have the opportunity to see, and vote on, the framework document before the Bill can be passed. Amendment 38 prevents the Crown Estate Bill coming into force until two months after the framework document has been laid before Parliament and has been subject to a vote. Amendments 39 and 40 in my name similarly seek to ensure the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate is laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.
It would be negligent to pass a Bill without consideration of such integral documents. We must see the framework document and partnership agreement with Great British Energy before we can accept this legislation and I express my deepest concern over the absence of these documents to date. We must scrutinise the framework document to understand and be confident that it is appropriate for the Bill. Currently, the details on the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy are similarly limited. As I propose with the framework agreement, we must also have sight of the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate and Amendments 39 and 40 demand that this will be laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.
This is a major and unprecedented partnership. The Crown Estate estimated that it will result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. Considering this, we must be given the opportunity to read, review and scrutinise the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy before we accept this legislation.
I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her Amendment 41, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his Amendment 42. I echo their concerns over the absence of the publication of the fiscal framework with Wales and its lease extension policy.
I hope the Minister will carefully consider the concerns I have raised and will confirm to the House that the framework document and partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will be published and laid before Parliament before this Bill is passed.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name is included in this group of amendments and is supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley. This amendment would require the publication of an agreed fiscal framework between the Treasury and the Crown Estate before commencement of the Act.
During day one of Committee there were strong arguments made in support of the second group of amendments—a number of them seeking to write a fiscal framework. I believe that there is a shared view from around the Chamber that such a framework should have been drafted and published before Second Reading of this Bill. I am therefore grateful that the Minister, in his response to the second group of amendments, committed to publishing the framework before Report. If that is the case, I will not need to push for an amendment of this kind on Report.
However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some concerns regarding the possible content of the fiscal framework. I am concerned by the possibility of no hard cap on borrowing. I am led to believe that the framework will instead impose a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, which, as the Minister has already noted, would currently be around £3 billion and could go beyond that. To put this into perspective, the Welsh Government fiscal framework has a cap of £l billion on capital expenditure, with an annual borrowing limit of £150 million, which it can borrow from the National Loans Fund or a commercial bank. I ask the Minister: would the passing of this Bill as it stands, alongside a fiscal framework of a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, give the Crown Estate more or less borrowing power than the devolved Government of Wales?
I share the view expressed by the noble baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Crown Estate is no “cuddly” organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my question on how the proposed borrowing powers will compare to the current fiscal powers of the devolved Governments, particularly the Welsh Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42 in this group. It is another attempt at putting a condition on the Government in bringing this Bill into effect, until the Crown Estate in my case has fulfilled the undertakings given on Report of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act: specifically, the commitment that it would publish its lease extension policy. I got an answer from the Minister’s colleague in July when I asked when this was going to happen. The answer was very interesting. It was that the Crown would act in accordance with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and the statutes it amended, subject to specific specified conditions—I do not know what specific unspecified conditions are, but we will leave that out—set out in the undertaking, and the expectation was that the Crown bodies would work with the tenants as they developed these policies.
The problem is of course that the specific specifying conditions referred to refer to the Isles of Scilly and the tenants there—about whom I have spoken to your Lordships many times—are suffering significantly due to their inability to negotiate leases of a reasonable length of time which would be allowed under the new Act.
I was told subsequently that this Crown statement cannot be made in advance of the relevant regulations under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act being tabled, because that is the way it always is. But the worry I have is also that the Duchy of Cornwall and Crown Estate may publish them and there will be no opportunity for debating them and offering and suggesting changes to them. This gets back to my question last time we raised this: who is in charge? I was very pleased to get a response from Dr John Kirkhope, an expert on Duchy things, explaining that this is all because of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838. It is because the two Duchies got their revenue from George I and George IV and, before that, from being Electors of Hanover rather than Kings or Queens of England
I am told that, under Salic law, a female could not be elector of Hanover, so Queen Victoria suddenly thought that she was going to lose all this money. She persuaded the Parliament of the time to bring in this Bill, which became the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838. I can read out the whole Act—it is not that long—but I think noble Lords would probably prefer that I did not. It required the two duchies to submit accounts to the Government every year for Parliament to approve.
When I tried to put down a Question to ask for how many years this had taken place, who could tell me which years those were and where the accounts were, I was told by the clerks that it was a bit unclear who was in charge. Was it Parliament, the Government or the Crown? I do not think it would be the Crown, because that would mean the Crown being in charge of itself, which is probably not very desirable and probably not true. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell me over how many years these two duchies have submitted accounts and over how many years, if any, they have been debated in either House of Parliament.
My question to my noble friend is: when will the Government publish these Crown Estate policies? Do they have to wait until they have published secondary legislation on leasehold reform? When these special conditions are published, will the Government provide an opportunity for debate? I can see the Crown saying that it is in charge and that nobody can tell it what to do, and so we cannot debate them. The conditions applicable to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act will be modified to the extent that the people of the Isles of Scilly, who suffer quite a lot, not just from rents but from transport and a few other things, will not have an opportunity to debate this and see whether the duchies are playing fair. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I confess that I was fascinated by the amendments put down by the shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, whom I remember on many occasions defending Henry VIII clause after Henry VIII clause. She is now calling for extraordinary levels of accountability, but I suppose going into opposition somehow changes a perspective.
The documents that have been requested, which is the main content of this group of amendments, are, in essence, documents that I requested at the beginning of the process. The Minister has been generous, in a way that I think would not have happened in the past, to assure us that those documents will be made available before we reach Report so that, at that final stage of the process, we have enough information to know whether we need to challenge the content of the Bill or can accept it. I am satisfied to take his word for it, as his comments were made on the Floor of the House.
If the Minister can add anything about timing or content, that would be interesting. We had some confusion at one point about what is a memorandum of understanding and what is a framework agreement, but that has been clarified. I am satisfied that we are getting more information from this Government than, frankly, I ever could have hoped for, on similar issues, from the Government before.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which all seek to alter the timing of the Bill’s commencement.
I start by addressing Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This amendment would alter the commencement of the Bill, so that it comes into force either two months after the Bill has passed or after the Crown Estate commissioners have published the Crown Estate’s lease extension policy and a Minister of the Crown has tabled a Motion in both Houses to debate the policy—whichever is later.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I offer another view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: perhaps going into government also changes the perspective of Members of this House. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to these amendments and for his contribution to this debate. We have not really had the answers that we are looking for but, in the meantime, I am happy to withdraw.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Tuesday 5th November 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2024)
15:52 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 226 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
17:36 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 4 agreed.
18:32 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(3) The Secretary of State must limit any borrowing by the Crown Estate under this Section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for his support on the amendment and for his very wise counsel in our discussions to ensure that the change that is proposed is both reasonable and rational. The Official Opposition have made a clear and consistent argument for the insertion of essentially two things: parliamentary approval to borrow up to 25% of net debt to asset value, and a second and simple check from the Government of the day when the borrowing is forecast to increase over that higher ratio.
This two-step process is quite important. The initial use of the power would ensure that Parliament and your Lordships’ House can take into account a revised business case. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for publishing a business case that sets out the rationale as to why the Crown Estate needs this borrowing. Unfortunately, it does not include the partnership with GB Energy. Noble Lords will know that this partnership was announced with great fanfare, and one must assume that it is significant. Therefore, I believe it would be appropriate for the business case to be revised in due course and that that would be expected. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that will happen. However, on the basis of that business case, I think it is important that Parliament and your Lordships’ House can then say that it is wise for the Crown Estate to seek the borrowing required.
The second use of the power—which according to current forecasts, which I am sure the Minister would probably agree with, will not be needed for many years—to go beyond 25% of net debt to asset value based on the current total assets of the Crown Estate would mean going above a borrowing requirement of about £3 billion. That is a significant amount of money, and the Crown Estate is not forecasting that it will need that amount of borrowing, so the further use is for much further down the road. In terms of the initial use, our view is that it is appropriate to put that check in place now to ensure that all information is considered as the Crown Estate is given this new power to take on borrowing.
I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement to date on this important matter. I know he has had some useful conversations with myself and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. Underpinning all of this and many of the amendments before your Lordships’ House today is that the assets held by the Crown Estate are absolutely critical to the national, cultural and environmental importance of our nation. Not only are the assets incredibly important, but the Exchequer receives a very handy income from the Crown Estate, which then supports the nation’s public services. We must not put either of those things at risk unduly.
I believe that some form of parliamentary oversight is critical here. It is right that, under this Bill, there is a lessening of that oversight, as Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, will no longer need to approve the salaries and expenses of the commissioners of the Crown Estate. Given that reduction in parliamentary oversight, ensuring the correct financial structure of the Crown Estate is, to my mind, critical. Doing that on the basis of the new business case is also incredibly important.
This is a simple amendment. It is in two stages: one would have to happen quite soon, and one would happen many years hence, but I think it is right that we not only address the financial situation of the Crown Estate as it is now, following the partnership with GB Energy, but ensure that the Crown Estate does not risk the temptations of excessive borrowing in the future, which would therefore put our nation’s assets at risk. I hope noble Lords will be able to support the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend. In Committee, the Minister was good enough to agree that controls on borrowing by the Crown Estate must be in place and that they would be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury at a loan-to-value ratio not to exceed 25%. This figure is more than I would have wished for, and using asset value rather than capital reserves in the definition allows a still greater level of borrowing. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges that there should be a limit on borrowing. However, there must be a tighter control than a memorandum of understanding. Amendment 1 proposes an affirmative statutory instrument to achieve this. It requires the Government to limit borrowing to net debt-to-asset value of no more than 25%, purposely copying the wording of the Minister’s comment in Committee.
Should His Majesty’s Government need more flexibility in the future, this statutory instrument would provide for that. It would be better if the limit on borrowing were in primary legislation, but in seeking a solution which His Majesty’s Government might find acceptable, the amendment would be a fair compromise, retaining any flexibility that the Government might need while providing a stronger safeguard than a memorandum of understanding. As the Minister said, this limit is unlikely to be of concern to the present Government. Therefore, I hope he will accept this very modest suggestion to safeguard the Crown Estate for the future.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I think I started this hare running at Second Reading, when I basically said to the Minister that the Government were asking us to give borrowing power to the Crown Estate but we did not have the business case that argued why it needs a borrowing power—it is not evident from the annual report. Also, the framework agreement, which at that time governed the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, was silent on the issue of borrowing, other than to say it was not allowed, so clearly we needed changes to the framework report and we did not have them at Second Reading.
I am so impressed by the Minister’s response—and appreciative, because I have sat on these Benches looking at a Conservative Government for quite a number of years when every attempt to get transparency was rejected, I was handed documents based on Henry VIII powers and there was complete resistance to oversight by Parliament. Instead, the Minister has provided us with the business case—which is, frankly, virtually unheard of. It is an excellent document that completely clarifies why the change that this legislation contains has come to us. We can now understand that. It provides the draft changes to the framework document that we expect to see fully negotiated and enacted by the end of the year, we hope, but well ahead of any borrowing. Even more importantly, it provides a document that we usually cannot extract from the Treasury’s fingers, which is the memorandum of understanding that takes us into the much greater detail behind the whole rationale and sets out the rules in a very open and public manner.
This is the way that Governments should handle situations such as this. I want to respond from these Benches to those actions by the Government in a completely positive way. I understand that the Conservative Benches feel that opposition is a very different role from government and therefore they behave completely differently in opposition from the way that they would choose to do in government—that is their choice—but I am very content with the information that has been offered to us. As it has been given to us by the Government, it will last and will survive passage through this House and the other place. I think we can say with confidence that borrowing and financial liability in the Crown Estate are within a sensible and appropriate framework. Therefore, I ask that these Benches do not support the amendment proposed by the Conservative Benches and instead grasp the opportunity of a very responsible and appropriate offer from the Government.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords on this group of amendments. As I set out in Committee, the Government recognise that the matter of controls on borrowing is an important consideration for noble Lords.
I listened carefully to the concerns raised at previous stages of the Bill. I found the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to be particularly compelling. As such, I committed to sharing the underpinning memorandum of understanding, which sets out the parameters and controls relating to the power to borrow, as well as the original business case and the framework document. Following on from my commitment, these documents were shared with noble Lords and have been deposited in the Library. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her words just now.
The memorandum of understanding set out that borrowing by the Crown Estate will be limited to a maximum of 25% loan to value, defined as net debt-to-asset value, and that any borrowing within that limit can be undertaken only with the consent of the Treasury.
The framework document will be amended, as I have shared, to include references to borrowing powers, and the original business case produced by the Crown Estate makes the argument for the Crown Estate being able to borrow with the consent of the Treasury, in line with its peers, to ensure that it can continue to operate sustainably and drive maximum returns to the Exchequer.
I trust that having sight of these documents has been useful for noble Lords and has provided an additional opportunity for scrutiny of the proposed borrowing. Let me be clear that the Government agree that controls on borrowing must be in place. As I have set out previously, borrowing can be undertaken only with the consent of the Treasury and, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, borrowing is not to exceed 25% of loan to value, defined as net debt-to-asset value. This is a clear and carefully chosen guard rail to ensure that sufficient limits are in place. The proposed powers will enable the Crown Estate to draw on its cash holdings first and, as such, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used in the short term.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, would require the Secretary of State to limit borrowing by the Crown Estate by affirmative regulations, and for the first set of regulations to set the limit at 25% net debt-to-asset value.
As debated in Committee, the principle here is whether a specific cap should be in statute. The Government’s view remains that the limit is better placed outside of legislation. The primary control, set out in the Bill, is the requirement for Treasury consent to be obtained prior to undertaking any borrowing. In addition to this important safeguard, we are retaining the requirement for the Crown Estate commissioners to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, while having due regard to the requirements of good management as set out in the 1961 Act.
Taken together, these two elements maintain and strengthen the existing and important fiduciary duty of the commissioners not to take decisions that could endanger the estate. The Government believe that these safeguards and the limits set out in the memorandum of understanding provide clear guard rails to the powers set out in the Bill.
The 1961 Act also contains a power of direction. This power is not altered by the Bill. It remains open to the Government to use in extremis; if, for example, there were concerns that the commissioners were endangering the core statutory purpose of the Crown Estate.
As I have set out previously, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government. It operates for profit and competes in the commercial markets for investment opportunities. To ensure that it can compete effectively, it needs the ability to borrow as its competitors can. Imposing a legislative cap on borrowing would likely place additional restrictions on the Crown Estate that its competitors in the private sector do not face. This would not be consistent with the Government’s vision for the Crown Estate: to ensure that it has flexibility to invest in activities that will drive increases in its revenues and, consequently, its returns to the public purse.
As set out in the Crown Estate’s original business case, which I have shared with noble Lords, the limit of 25% loan to value is consistent with its peers. I hope this demonstrates to noble Lords that these plans have been considered carefully.
Let me also be clear that any request by the Crown Estate to draw down on debt will be carefully considered by the Treasury in the context of the fiscal position and in line with our fiscal rules. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, the Government have set out our robust fiscal rules alongside a set of responsible reforms to the fiscal framework to improve certainty, transparency and accountability. The stability and investment rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path while allowing the step change needed in investment to drive long-term growth.
I hope that these explanations are useful and reassure the House that the Crown Estate’s power to borrow will be carefully monitored and controlled within these parameters. I hope I have provided some clarity on the Government’s position and that as a result the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, although I am sorry to hear that she will not be able to support the amendment. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with her.
While I agree with the noble Baroness’s assessment of the documents that were published by the Minister—it was helpful to see the memorandum of understanding, the draft framework and the business case—that is not really the point, because they do not go far enough. Those documents can be amended by this or any future Government. As the Minister referred to, and as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, this is the original business case, but there is no business case that currently sets out what the relationship with GB Energy looks like and what it will do to borrowing.
GB Energy is going to invest billions of pounds. How much of that is going to come from GB Energy and how much from the Crown Estate? No one knows. It is important that we make sure that it is impossible for the Crown Estate to ramp up borrowing without at least some oversight from Parliament. The Minister said, “It’s okay—the maximum is 25%”, but of course this Government or any future Government can change that unilaterally.
The Minister mentioned that competitors somehow do not have any caps on borrowing. Of course they do; they are commercial businesses, so the caps on their borrowing will be set by their banks. If the Minister looks at the original business case that he shared with us, he will see that all the competitors sit around the same sort of level of loan to value.
To go back to the original point, this is a sensible, simple and reasonable amendment. It would put in place just two checks: first, whether the Crown Estate should be borrowing now, and up to 25%, with the assessment done on a new business case, including GB Energy; and, secondly, another check, at some point long in the future, if ever, should the Crown Estate ever want to go above 25%. I think our nation’s assets need that sort of protection, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“5A The Chair of Commissioners may not be appointed until the appointment has been scrutinised by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, or any successor committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the appointment of the Chair of Commissioners of The Crown Estate to be subject to scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 14 in my name.
On Amendment 2, I am incredibly grateful to the Government for their engagement on the importance of pre-appointment scrutiny for the Crown Estate commissioners. However, I recognise that my initial amendment in Committee was a bit ambitious and have restricted the amendment before your Lordships’ House today on Report to the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners. It is important, as I mentioned in the first group, as there is a decrease in parliamentary oversight. It is not uncommon for the chairs of the boards, or equivalent, of such significant public sector bodies to at least have some form of questioning prior to taking up their role.
I note that, in his letter yesterday, the Minister said:
“The Government has not tabled an amendment on this matter because there is already an established process by which roles such as this are added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. The Treasury will work with the Cabinet Office to progress this matter”.
I am grateful to the Government for their assurance that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list; we will be holding the Government to account as this is progressed.
Amendment 14 is, again, related to the importance of the assets for which the Crown Estate is responsible. It has the stewardship of billions of pounds-worth of very important assets for the benefit of the nation. Some of these assets are on land, some make up the seabed, some are incredibly important thoroughfares in our main urban centres, and others might be important agricultural land across the nation. I can see very few guardrails to prevent the Crown Estate commissioners deciding to sell those assets. Indeed, there have been quite significant asset sales over recent years, and I was not really able to find any information as to what has been sold.
We made this argument in Committee, and I am grateful to the Government for their assurance that they will bring forward an amendment or some sort of process by which the seabed might be protected. However, my understanding is that the law in this area is very complicated, so I am somewhat concerned that a process could not be found that is seabed-specific. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s engagement and their recognition that selling off elements of our seabed in perpetuity would not be wise and should not be done without some form of transparency.
However, as I said previously, it is not just about the seabed; I also remain concerned about other important assets owned by the Crown Estate. My Amendment 14 simply proposes that, should the Crown Estate sell more than £10 million-worth of assets—I am happy to look at a different figure—there would be some form of transparency to Parliament, such that noble Lords and colleagues in the other place could see the assets being disposed of and make at least some assessment of whether that is the right course of action for the Crown Estate.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 15 in my name, which is in this group. I tabled the same amendment that we debated in Committee because my noble friend had not yet been able to respond in his promised letter; but, of course, he has now responded, and I presume all noble Lords have seen the letter. I found it very helpful, and I thank him for it. However, my amendment provides an opportunity to debate what is in that letter and issues that affect quite a lot of people—not only in the Isles of Scilly but in some of the other places related to the ownership of the Duchies or the Crown Estate. There are a few principles I would like to discuss and see where we get to.
What I found most interesting was that my noble friend’s letter was quite clear that both Duchies are private estates—I do not think there is any debate about that now. The Duchy has been saying this for a long time, and it is in his letter from the Treasury. I am also grateful for the explanations about the finance and the involvement, or not, of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, the National Audit Office, et cetera. But then we get into rather more interesting and difficult territory. In his letter, my noble friend says:
“Crown bodies … are not bound by the enfranchisement legislation”
that your Lordships’ House debated over many months earlier this year. I question how a private estate cannot be bound by legislation such as that—why should the Duchy be exempt?
We then get into an even deeper mystery about what are called “excepted” areas. There is a distinct lack of transparency here. I will not go into great detail about the problems faced by the tenants on the Isles of Scilly because noble Lords can read material from the previous year or two. During the legislation at the end of the last Parliament, the then Chief Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, read out a parliamentary undertaking that attempted to differentiate between what they call “non-excepted” and “excepted” areas. So my first question to my noble friend the Minister is: what is an excepted area, and who decides? Is it Parliament, the Government or the landowner—in this case the Duke of Cornwall—who decides what should or should not be included in legislation? That is interesting for a private sector company, and it needs debating.
Given that, last weekend, there was a lot of publicity in the media, including the Sunday Times, you start wondering what “private” means in this context. Presumably, all private bodies should pay tax—that is pretty fundamental to our life here—including income tax. The Duchy and His Majesty say that they pay tax, but it is voluntary. I would love to pay voluntary tax and to decide how much it was, as I am sure many other noble Lords would, but that is not what it is all about. They do not pay corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. They get all that rental income, which noble Lords may have read about in the Sunday Times, from ambulances parking on their land, with the National Health Service being charged and paying the Duchy of Cornwall, I think it was. This seems to be a bit of a recycling of the cash that the Duchy claims it needs to charge people. This comes back to the Duchy claiming credit—I see this on the Isles of Scilly—for allowing bodies to use its land and charging them for it.
One example is that the farmers on the Isles of Scilly want an abattoir built so that they do not have to transport animals to the mainland, which I think is a good idea. The Duchy said, “You can have the land”. Many of us think that it does not own the land anyway, but, leaving that to one side, if it allocates land to an abattoir, it will then charge the farmers for using it. Is that right, when the land does not really belong to it and it is not contributing to the cost? That is another debate that we need to have on this.
Perhaps what is wrong is that the Duchy needs the money, but given what is in the rest of the Bill, it will result in His Majesty and other members of the family getting quite a lot more. One could surmise that they do not need the money and that it might be better if they paid their taxes and invested properly in an estate, like many large estate owners in this country already do. Noble Lords will have heard me speak about the appalling transport services between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland, where a single fare by ship or plane usually costs the best part of £100. The Duchy could contribute to that—it would just be small change.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which deals with lease extensions from the Crown Estate. I may do so with less republican overtones than we have just heard.
Those who have been following the proceedings of the Bill will know that I have raised the question of what happens to freeholds when they end up in the hands of the Crown Estate under an obscure process known as escheat. When a freeholder of a block of flats disappears or goes bankrupt, by default the freehold goes to the Crown Estate, whose policy is then to dispose of it, getting the best value, as is required by the 1963 Act. I raised the issue as to whether that obligation was trumped by a subsequent undertaking given by the Crown Estate to dispose of freeholds or extend leases in accordance with Acts relating to leasehold reform, when they would get less than market value.
In September I got a letter from the Minister saying that, against this backdrop, the Crown Estate
“does not believe the 1992 parliamentary undertaking applies to escheat”.
That crystallised the problem. On the one hand, clear undertakings had been given to Parliament by the Crown Estate that it would respect the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which I happened to put on the statute book, but on the other hand, it would not respect it when disposing of freeholds back to leaseholders.
We then had a meeting with the Minister and the Crown Estate. I am most grateful to the Minister for his role in initiating it. At that meeting it became clear that, contrary to what the letter said, the Crown Estate would abide by the leasehold reform Act. This undertaking is now reproduced in the draft framework agreement, which says that the Crown Estate should comply with
“all public undertakings given on its behalf by ministers in Parliament to follow the law ‘by analogy’ where Crown bodies are not bound by the specific legislation in question”.
While issues remain in the specific case that I raised with the Minister, which I will pursue with him offline, I regard the principle as satisfactorily resolved and am grateful to him for the role he played in securing that agreement.
I end with one final suggestion. The process of escheat brings windfall gains to the Crown Estate. When a freeholder disappears or goes bankrupt, the Crown Estate acquires the freehold but, crucially, under the process of escheat, it does so free of any obligations that may have accrued to the previous freeholder. It then disposes of it, with a fee paid by the purchaser. This income is different from the rest of the income of the Crown Estate and should be shown separately in its accounts. I had a look to see whether this was the case, but could not find it. One could argue that these windfall proceeds are rather like unclaimed bank accounts and should go to charity via the Reclaim Fund, but that is a matter for another day. Does the Minister agree with the accounting change I have proposed?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about the desirability of there being some form of prior parliamentary scrutiny over the appointment of a chair of the Crown Estate. My entry in the register of interests shows that I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, of which the Crown Estate is a member. Sir Robin Budenberg has done a very good job but is retiring, so a question will rapidly arise. As we consider the Bill and think that it has been 63 years since the Crown Estate Act 1961, there is a good case for the public interest to be examined through that scrutiny when somebody is appointed whose principal purpose will probably be to represent the public interest in relation to the continuing functions of the Crown Estate.
However, I do not agree with my noble friend about Amendment 14. It probes the question—I hope the Minister will see it in that light—of how the disposal of assets by the Crown Estate is properly scrutinised. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I referred to the duties of the Crown Estate commissioners under the 1961 Act, which the Minister just referred to. I also referred to their duty under Section 3 of that Act not to dispose of assets other than on
“best consideration in money or money’s worth”.
Given that we are trying to maintain the Crown Estate’s commercial operations, with prudential limits in relation to those assets, the duties in the 1961 Act should suffice.
I hope my noble friend will not press Amendment 14. Given the role of the Crown Estate as a major developer of potentially significant interest in the science parks to the north of Cambridge, for example, its disposals as a major developer may easily and rapidly reach £10 million in the course of a year. The bureaucracy and intervention that would be required thereafter by this amendment would be unreasonable, and I do not want us to impose those kinds of onerous obligations on the Crown Estate commissioners. If they fail to meet their duties, we can see that there are means by which the Treasury can intervene in order to establish that those duties are being met.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton. This simple amendment seeks that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners be appointed by the Treasury Select Committee. On these Benches, this seems like a reasonably sensible idea. This is an important appointment and should have an adequate level of pre-appointment scrutiny.
I welcome the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, sent yesterday, pointing out the established process for the Cabinet Office and that this could be added to the pre-appointment scrutiny list. To our minds, that is a very sensible answer and a way forward. It is a way of resolving this issue. My only real question in relation to this is that the Minister says this will be done in “due course”. Can he give us a clearer idea of what he means by that? What is the timeframe?
Further to that, in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, calling for commissioners from individual countries to be appointed to the Crown Estate, I ask the Minister: will those appointments also be subject to this type of pre-appointment scrutiny?
I turn now to Amendment 14, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It seeks to require the approval of His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets over £10 million, and the commissioners to inform the Treasury if assets over a value of £10 million are disposed of in a single year, then requiring the Treasury to approve of the disposal of those assets and to report that to Parliament within 28 days.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, responded to this in his letter to all Peers yesterday, and we welcome that response. The Minister pointed out that this was a complicated matter, and that he would bring forward an amendment to address this concern. His engagement with that is welcome. This is an important issue—assets should not be disposed of by the Crown Estate without ministerial approval—but I seek further clarification from the Minister. When he says that this will be brought forward, will it be before Third Reading in this House? If it is not possible to bring that clarification forward before Third Reading, can the Minister give an undertaking that it will happen before Report in the other place?
On this amendment, our preference is that a compromise way forward is agreed. In fact, both amendments are matters that should be resolved without resorting to testing the opinion of the House.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. First, I would like to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I thank him very much for his engagement on this issue since Committee. I am also extremely grateful to him for raising the issues around the law relating to ownerless land and the process of escheat. It is a legally complex area and long overdue for reform. As a result of his intervention, Treasury officials are now engaging with the Law Commission on options for longer-term reform.
On the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, I am grateful to him for meeting with me, Treasury officials and the Crown Estate after Committee to discuss his specific concerns in detail. At the meeting we gained useful clarity that in cases of escheat the Crown Estate follows the valuation formula set out in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as he said.
As the noble Lord requested in Committee, I have agreed to update the framework document that governs the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate to make this clear. The addition in paragraph 7.2 will set out that the commissioners have a responsibility to ensure that all public undertakings given on the Crown Estate’s behalf by Ministers in Parliament are met. I have raised the noble Lord’s suggestion about the specific accounting change with the Crown Estate and will follow up in due course.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee, or any successor committee, of future chair appointments before the appointment can be made. She spoke persuasively on this in Committee, and I agree with many of the points she raised. For this reason, I am happy to confirm that the Treasury will work with the Cabinet Office to add the role of chair to the official pre-appointment scrutiny list. This will be in accordance with the already-established process by which significant roles, such as this, are added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. As I have set out, I will be very happy to update noble Lords in due course. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked when that will be. I will come back as soon as I have relevant information. We are already working with the Cabinet Office, and I do not envisage there being a significant delay.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, very briefly on Amendment 2, I am grateful to the Minister for his words and his engagement on that, and I am content on it.
On Amendment 14, obviously, should I decide to test the opinion of the House, it will come slightly later in proceedings. However, I want to respond briefly to my noble friend Lord Lansley. I do not propose at all that the Crown Estate would not get best consideration; this is merely an obligation to report to Parliament and to get the consent of the Treasury. On the original business case—I do not know about the new business case because we have not seen it—the Crown Estate is planning £1.4 billion-worth of disposals of assets. That is quite a lot; I would be interested to know whether that is very important heritage assets or seabed, and at the moment I have no way to find out. That is an important element for noble Lords to be aware of. Therefore, I will take this away and consider my position on Amendment 14 in due course. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Lord Livermore
“Annual reportsIn section 2 of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (reports and accounts), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The annual report for a year in which a partnership between the Commissioners and Great British Energy is in operation must include a report on—(a) the activities of the Commissioners during the year under that partnership, and(b) any effects or benefits experienced during the year which were the result of activities of the Commissioners under that partnership.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioners to include in their annual reports a summary of the things done, and of any effects or benefits or effects resulting from things done, under any partnership between themselves and Great British Energy. The duty will only apply in relation to a year in which such a partnership was in operation.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will address other noble Lords’ amendments in this group during my closing speech, after listening to the debate.
I have listened to the arguments and concerns put forward at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, on how the new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will work and the difference it will make. The Crown Estate is of course keen to ensure that details of this partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government therefore propose an amendment to require the Crown Estate to include, in its existing annual report, a report on the activities of the commissioners during that year under the partnership with Great British Energy, and any effects or benefits during that year resulting from activities of the commissioners under the partnership.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her engagement on this matter, and to other noble Lords who have raised similar concerns, and I trust that this amendment meets those concerns. I hope that noble Lords feel able to support this amendment as a result. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which stands in my name. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for their time in what is always the busiest period of the Treasury’s life. He was happy to give time, and I am very grateful for that and for the sensible discussion that we had.
The amendment is designed to be the gentle pencil in the back, as I put it in Committee, in order that the Crown Estate Scotland be afforded the same freedoms and flexibilities that the Crown Estate will have following the passage of the Bill. I described in Committee how the Crown Estate Scotland had advised me that the Scottish Government were keen that it has those. I know that the UK Government are keen that it does so, as is the Crown Estate itself.
There are many opportunities for collaboration, particularly for energy projects in the North Sea at the moment, but there will be other opportunities as well for aquaculture. There is the ability to copy the good and avoid the bad, given that a number of copycat transactions might be done using Crown Estate property going forward. This is of course in all our interests, because ultimately this is very much part of the net-zero agenda, and the more the two Crown Estates can be aligned the better it will be for everybody in the long term.
The amendment is, as I said, a gentle pencil, designed to ensure that the UK entities do not down tools following the passage of this Act but carry on enthusiastically to ensure that Crown Estate Scotland benefits from the same freedoms and flexibilities. I therefore ask my only question of the Minister: does he share this aim of ensuring that those freedoms and flexibilities are afforded, and does he feel that this amendment is a proportionate way of going about it?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, all of which relate to reporting.
Beginning with government Amendment 3, I am grateful to the Minister for this important concession and welcome his listening to the concerns expressed across the House and his open engagement and willingness to look again at this issue. If he will forgive my saying so, we have come quite a long way since Second Reading, when the Government’s response was that the partnership with Great British Energy was not really a key part of the Crown Estate Bill. We support the clean energy mission—this is so important not only for our net-zero goals but in providing for our own energy security. Great British Energy promises to unlock £60 billion of private investment, and the Government themselves have committed £8.3 billion over the course of this Parliament. We have the third-best wind resources in the world, and we should be making best use of them to bring down the cost to bill payers and ensure that we have security of our own supply.
By 2030 this will, I hope, have led to the generation of enough electricity for the equivalent of 20 million homes. Everyone across the House has broadly welcomed this, but collectively we have wanted broader and greater scrutiny of the Crown Estate and the work it does. It is a long time since the 1961 Act came in, and simply updating the borrowing powers without updating any other measurements did not feel like the complete picture for providing that security going forward. We have campaigned for greater transparency and the Government have listened. I am grateful to them and welcome this.
We are happy to support Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but with one small caveat. It is very important that Crown Estate Scotland goes along with the energy transition and is fully invested. The noble Earl’s amendment is carefully worded, simply calling for a report to be laid before Parliament. Devolution is an important issue for us on these Benches: it is not for this Parliament to be telling devolved Parliaments what they should do or how they should act, although we recognise that the noble Earl’s amendment does not do that.
Equally, as I said, we support the amendment and would like to see progress made on this issue, just as we would like to see Scotland fully engaged with the Great British Energy partnership and contributing to our green energy. As the noble Earl said, the amendment is a pencil in the back. I have written down “a gentle nudge”, and they are probably similar things. We welcome the amendment, which puts down a marker to the Minister and the Government to continue their negotiations and conversations with their equivalents in the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland so that progress can be made.
Finally, my Amendment 8 was tabled as a compromise, from my point of view. There has been a feeling around the House that we need greater scrutiny, and noble Lords have raised numerous issues that they feel should be subject to such scrutiny. The Minister responded by saying that under the original 1961 Act, too many legal powers were constraining the Crown Estate’s ability to act freely in the interests of the state. He consistently argued throughout the various stages of this Bill that he did not want to reimpose those conditions on the Crown Estate’s ability to operate. The idea behind my amendment is that, simply by putting chapter headings in the Crown Estate’s annual report, which goes before Parliament, there would be greater opportunity for the issues that have been raised collectively in this House to be scrutinised in Parliament, so that, in exchange for giving the Crown Estate greater borrowing powers and a greater role, there would also be greater scrutiny.
I have aimed to cover a lot of the issues that have been raised across your Lordships’ House. It is quite a simple amendment that simply asks for these topics to be covered. However, I doubt whether the Minister will respond positively to it.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. In passing, I still am rather confused by this Bill, which covers Scotland but not Crown Estate Scotland. That seems a bit of a contradiction, but it is clear there is a degree of overlap between the two. There certainly is an overlap of opportunity—we have heard about Great British Energy et cetera.
It is also clear that, while devolution must be respected and that is extremely important, Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish Government want to have the same levels of flexibility. This simple amendment keeps the matter on the table and that is the key here, so I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. This is an entirely sensible proposal that I cannot imagine for a moment the Government would wish to resist, and which respects the autonomy of the devolution settlement. If I were a commissioner on the Crown Estate in England or the Crown Estate in Scotland, I would very much welcome this provision, and I congratulate the noble Earl on his ingenuity in tabling an amendment that would enable us to deal with this lacuna. I entirely understand why the Liberal Benches would not want to be accused of doing anything that undermined devolution. The noble Earl has found an elegant way of dealing with this, and I very much hope that the Government will support it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth. In tabling Amendment 5, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has hit upon something here; it is a report that would be worth doing. When I was having discussions about the Bill between Second Reading and Committee, I spoke to people in the port sector and they were very concerned that, if there is to be investment in ports in one part of the country, that investment should be equally likely to happen in another part of the country—namely, Scotland. It is an important opportunity, and I am sure that the Minister will respond in a positive fashion, as far as he can.
Turning to government Amendment 3, I am grateful to the Minister, who listened to concerns from all sides of the House about ensuring that sufficient information is forthcoming about the relationship between Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I am somewhat disappointed that we never saw the partnership document. I still suspect that that is because it does not exist, so I am not entirely sure what the partnership is; but let us put that to one side. I am looking forward to seeing information come through on the results of this partnership as we go forward.
I note what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the intention behind his Amendment 8. Any noble Lord who has looked at the Crown Estate annual report will know that it is already quite detailed, and I appreciate that a lot of work has been put into sharing information about the organisation with stakeholders. I suspect that his amendment is too detailed to be wholly useful, but I am sure that he has picked out various elements that the Crown Estate will no doubt take note of and include in future reporting.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me once again say that I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her constructive engagement prior to today in relation to Amendment 3, tabled by the Government. It is important that certain details on the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and I trust that this amendment meets the concerns raised on this matter by the noble Baroness and others across this House.
Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would create a new reporting requirement on the Crown Estate commissioners, requiring them to publish an annual report, to be sent to the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons, which must consider the commissioners’ activity in the contribution to supporting local communities and economies, the achievement of the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental targets, the relationship with Great British Energy, a just transition to green energy, a jobs and skills transition into the green economy, the promotion of animal welfare in aquaculture on the Crown Estate, the protection of the foreshore on the Crown Estate and the protection of the seabed in the Crown Estate. It would also require the commissioners to appear before the Environmental Audit Committee if requested.
I thank the noble Earl for his constructive engagement on this matter prior to today. I agree with him that these are important areas and, as a result, we have agreed with the Crown Estate that we will make a further update to its public framework document to clarify that its annual report must continue to include a report on the Crown Estate’s activities in terms of sustainable development, covering the impact of its activities on the environment, society and the economy.
It is important that this Bill stands the test of time and that, as new, relevant areas of concern on the environment, society and the economy emerge over the coming decades, these are covered in the Crown Estate’s annual report too. The proposed changes to the framework document, which also directly address other concerns, have been made deliberately broad in an attempt to cover the wide range of specific concerns the House has raised, including those raised by the noble Earl. On Great British Energy specifically, as I have set out, the Government have also now tabled an amendment that creates a reporting requirement for the Crown Estate to cover in their existing annual report a summary of its activities in relation to Great British Energy.
I turn next to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. This amendment would require a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, assessing any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his engagement on this matter. He has also raised specific concerns about ensuring that the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland are in analogous positions should this Bill pass.
As I set out in Committee, Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland, and rights in relation to the Scottish zone. Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.
I share the noble Earl’s commitment in this area, and I would like to make that clear. The Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland hold similar operational priorities, and, naturally, the chief executives of both organisations must be, and are, in regular contact. There is also significant collaboration between the two organisations, for example on the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which is an initiative led and funded by the Crown Estate and in which Crown Estate Scotland is a key partner. The programme aims to de-risk and accelerate the delivery of offshore wind projects by funding research and data collection. Both organisations contribute to and benefit from research projects that address knowledge gaps and support the offshore wind consenting process. At a project level, Crown Estate Scotland was a partner in the predators and prey around renewable energy developments project. That focused on Scotland, particularly the Moray Firth and the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay regions, but the project had broad relevance for the whole of the UK. The improved understanding gained from the project informs marine spatial planning and guides future offshore wind development.
The two organisations also share data on offshore activities through their partnership with the Marine Data Exchange, a digital platform established by the Crown Estate to provide a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of the UK’s seabed. Founded by the Crown Estate in 2013 as the first resource of its type, the Marine Data Exchange provides a world-leading digital platform for gathering and disseminating vital information on a wide range of offshore activities. It currently holds one of the world’s largest collections of freely available data relating to the seas around England, Wales and Northern Ireland and, thanks to the partnership with Crown Estate Scotland, is now extended to cover Scottish waters.
The two organisations also hold frequent discussions through the carbon capture utilisation and storage collocation forum, which is a collaborative effort run by the Crown Estate with input from Crown Estate Scotland and other stakeholders to explore the potential for collocating carbon capture and storage with offshore wind projects. If there are further areas of potential co-operation, I know that the Crown Estate will be more than willing to discuss them with its counterparts in Crown Estate Scotland. The Treasury is, of course, open to any request for a meeting from the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland to discuss this Bill, and we are more than happy to share any policy thinking to help inform any changes they may wish to propose in the Scottish Parliament. I hope these explanations have been helpful and have provided some clarity on these points. I hope that the noble Earls, Lord Russell and Lord Kinnoull, will not press their amendments as a result.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Salmon farms on the Crown EstateAfter section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—“3A Salmon farms on the Crown Estate(1) In carrying out their functions under this Act, the Commissioners must assess the—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that a salmon farm—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then they must revoke the licence for the farm in question.(3) The Commissioners must assess the potential—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof applications for licences for salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(4) If the assessment under subsection (3) determines that an application for a licence for a salmon farm—(a) may cause environmental damage, or(b) raises significant animal welfare concerns,then they must refuse the application.””
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to take this amendment, frame it and put it in my downstairs loo, given that it is supported not just by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. This is a new experience for me and shows the extent to which this amendment makes sense. It is, of course, the same amendment as I tabled in Committee. I should perhaps re-declare my interest as a salmon fisherman; I never kill a salmon, but I fish for them and my family has a timeshare week on the River Tay.
I am sure the House will be relieved that I do not plan to repeat everything I said in Committee about the extensive damage that salmon farming can cause if not properly regulated. I gave a number of examples, and examples of countries that are going so far as to ban salmon farming altogether. That is not my purpose, but I made a reasonably robust speech about the dangers of salmon farming, and I am surprised that I have heard not a cheep from the industry or, indeed, from the Crown agents to push back on anything I said, so I assume that this perfectly sensible amendment causes no concern. Nor should it, because all it does is provide that the Crown Estate commissioners in carrying out their functions under the Act must assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If the assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, they must revoke the licence for the farm in question. Who could possibly be against that? Also, the commissioners must assess the potential environmental impact and animal welfare standards of applications for licences for salmon farms on the Crown Estate, and if the assessment determines that an application for a licence for a salmon farm may cause environmental damage or raise significant animal welfare concerns, they must refuse the application. This is a perfectly sensible provision, which places a clear duty on the commissioners.
The Minister was kind enough to arrange a very short meeting with me at which he indicated that he might not be able to support the amendment. I am really looking forward to hearing why, because he was unable to tell me at that time what his reasoning might be. I was struck in the proceedings earlier today by the emphasis that he put on the essential duty for the protection of the seabed and, of course, protection of the seabed is central to some of the issues, apart from the protection of salmon and everything else.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, on this day, 11 years, 2 hours and 20 minutes ago, I was introduced to your Lordships’ House, and I think that having signed this amazing amendment is a good way to celebrate those 11 years, 2 hours and 20 minutes.
I have spoken many times in your Lordships’ House about food and animal welfare and other connected issues, but I did not imagine that all this time later we would be talking about such a truly disgusting issue. I admit that I did not know all that much about it, but I know more now. I have seen the photographs of fish that have been eaten through by lice and the amount of debris that ends up on our seabed. It is unbelievable that we are allowing this.
Probably most of us eat salmon. I can only say to noble Lords: do not eat salmon unless it comes from Iceland or Canada. One noble Lord told me earlier that listening to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made him feel sick—and I am sure that was for the right reasons.
I spoke at a PETA meeting just before this—that is, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—and used salmon farming as an example of how far we still have to go to live up to our reputation as a country that cares for animals. I argue that this is a very damaging situation. I hope that the debates on the amendment, today and in Committee, are read, understood and acted upon by the Crown Estate commissioners and the salmon farming industry.
It is clear that the current rules for the Crown Estate are not good; they are not good enough for the environment or for animal welfare. Although I imagine that the leases are quite profitable for the Crown Estate, they are shameful. A spotlight has been shone on these harmful factory farms, where fish are riddled with sea lice, pumped full of antibiotics and fed with pellets crammed with other, smaller fish, causing damage to their populations. The salmon can have double-digit mortality rates. Plus, these fish farms are detrimental to our native salmon populations, which are already at risk of collapse.
There is also damage to the seabed around these farms and damage to the ocean’s ecosystems. We still know very little about the ocean—it is apocryphal that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the ocean—so we really should not be doing this to our seabed; we can imagine the amount of damage that tonnes of faeces, drugs, antibiotics and corpses can do to it. That is horrific.
It is unconscionable that the Crown Estate should be profiting from such a harmful industry. As the Minister accepted in response to this amendment in Committee, the existing laws and regulations clearly are not working to protect to salmon populations from this toxic industry. I hope he has thought more about that and can give an update today.
In his opening remarks on day 2 in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, called this a modest and uncontroversial amendment. Having looked more closely into this issue, I say that the amendment is absolutely necessary, and it would be unforgivable of the Government not to accept it.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who has just spoken. She said that this was a very important amendment. I also support my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who spoke with great logic about the amendment he has proposed today and, indeed, the one he proposed in Committee, which had the benefit of being exactly the same.
When I listened to the Minister wind up the debate in Committee, he said:
“The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives behind these amendments.”—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 565.]
He did not say that he supported the amendments, but he did say that he supported the objectives. I was immensely encouraged to hear from my noble friend Lord Forsyth that a meeting had taken place. At that meeting, the Minister could say why he was not accepting them or indicate to my noble friend the kinds of tweaks and changes he could make that would make them more acceptable. But what has not changed in logic is that this is a very controversial issue and damage is taking place around the shores of this country.
I too should have declared an interest as being a salmon fisherman, although not a very good one.
I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, can be even more encouraging to my noble friend. The Government have had plenty of time to reflect and reconsider. My noble friend Lord Forsyth talked about a balancing duty. Surely that is an immensely important factor that we ought to take into consideration. My noble friend has laid out what that duty should be. In itself, it will enhance the reputation of the Crown Estate and I very much hope that the Minister will take all this into account when he winds up and, I hope, accepts the amendment.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, briefly—I did speak at Second Reading but failed to be here for Committee—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his excellent introduction. The challenge I give to those proposing this amendment—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—is: why is it so narrow? Why are we focused solely on salmon farms and salmon fishing?
The reason I rise—and I note my interest—is that the foreshore of the River Exe estuary is absolutely inundated with non-native Pacific oysters, which are carpeting the foreshore and depleting the stocks of crabs, and bait digging is now impossible across this foreshore. This pest was introduced by the Crown Estate’s junior cousin, the Duchy of Cornwall, which introduced Pacific oysters into the Helford down in Cornwall and this pest has now spread across all the estuaries of the south-west peninsula. If the Crown Estate had been responsible and had known what it was doing in granting leases to Pacific oyster farmers, this would not have happened and we would have proper, sustainable mussel farming and crab tiling, as we have had for centuries on the Exe estuary.
While salmon farming is obviously important and is a pest, this should expand to all sorts—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
If the noble Earl is concerned about the wider thing, he will find that two later amendments in my name cover the point he is making.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I appreciate that from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Perhaps he could cover that in his winding up.
I think it is important. The focus on salmon farming is perhaps too focused and this should be much broader.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, just briefly, I add to the wide range of support that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has had on this amendment some from our Benches here.
I think it is incumbent on the Crown Estate to be an exemplar, and the salmon farming scandal around lice has been going on for so long and is so horrendous. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has very clearly said, we need to take this amendment as a chance to do something about it.
I think it was the late Queen Mother, who, having been rushed into hospital with a fishbone in her throat, said that the salmon had begun their revenge. Please let us not give the salmon any more grounds to seek revenge against the Crown in any of its guises.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, which I fully concur with—although I did feel rather left out not to be included in his elite triumvirate of supporters.
At previous stages of the Bill, we have heard many noble Lords express considerable disquiet about the state of aquaculture on Crown Estate land and the lack of proper governance by the Crown Estate commissioners. In Committee, the Minister seemed moved to look at this area and address some of the failings clearly apparent in the current framework. I sense today that the Minister seems reluctant to address these issues, which makes me wonder whether he has had any discussions with the fish farming industry. When responding to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, can the Minister confirm whether he has had any contact from the fish farming industry? If so, can he tell us the nature of these discussions?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in bringing back his excellent and very necessary amendment. I supported his identical amendment in Committee and had intended to add my name to this one too, but I was beaten to it by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place. Nevertheless, I entirely and whole- heartedly support this amendment.
I remember that the Minister told your Lordships’ Committee:
“The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives”
behind my noble friend’s amendment. But he clearly did not think it is necessary and has not tabled his own amendment. However, he did acknowledge that the intent of the existing regulations
“is not currently being achieved”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 565.]
My noble friend Lord Forsyth has rightly tabled this amendment again and has so well explained the serious damage caused to the Atlantic salmon population by open-net salmon farms in Scotland, many of which are not adequately regulated. In particular, my noble friend has drawn your Lordships’ attention to the harm cased by the toxic chemicals used to treat the infestations of sea lice and the damage caused to the wild salmon’s DNA, which is specific to each river system, by interbreeding with escaped salmon from the open-net farms.
It is true that apart from one salmon farm in Northern Ireland, open-net salmon farms are at present confined to Scottish waters. However, we absolutely do not want them in England. I strongly support my noble friend in bringing back this amendment. I should also declare an interest as a salmon fisherman on the River Tamar in Devon. I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in bringing up the problem of the oyster farming in the south-west river estuary systems.
Before I finish, I will ask the Minister again the question I asked in Committee concerning the unnecessarily restrictive licences issued for the shooting of cormorants which prey on wild salmon. Does he know how many gamekeepers are employed by the Crown Estate and how many cormorants they are licensed to shoot each year? I look forward to other noble Lords’ interventions and the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I want to make two very short points relating to the reasoning the Minister gave in response to these amendments earlier. I should also say that my sympathies lie with my noble friend Lord Devon, in that I wish this were a wider aquaculture thing, and that the commissioners were able to consider the environment for all of aquaculture, for the reasons I gave in Committee; I will not repeat them.
The first logical problem I had with the Minister’s response was in relation to how many salmon farms there are and the intention of the current commissioners of the Crown Estate not to do any salmon farming. The difficulty I have is that salmon was an incredibly common thing to be fed to people in Victorian times. We are able to legislate on the Crown Estate for only the first time in 63 years, so if we are legislating for 63 years’ time, I feel that logically we need to think a bit more about protection further than however far out the current commissioners look, which, I imagine, is something like five years.
I feel that we are going to have to improve aquaculture around our waters because of the lack of calories that we are producing for our population. Therefore, it is poor logic to say that we do not need to legislate for salmon because we are not interested in salmon farming at the moment. I hope the Minister might address that in his remarks.
My second logical problem is that the Minister was able helpfully to list a number of statutory instruments in Scotland setting out the rules for salmon farms, but those all apply to salmon farms that have already been established. The problem I was told about by Crown Estate Scotland is that, because it is not really able to look at economic benefit, sometimes it might let through licence holders of lower quality that then create the problems. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said so eloquently, they are not being held to account by these complicated rules because there is not really a police force. In any event, there is no one to fine, because often the reason that things have gone wrong is that the small entity that owned the farm has gone bust, even though it was, in fact, a subsidiary of a very big entity. That entire list is irrelevant. What matters is not what happens after you have established a salmon farm but the decision to establish it in the first place. I would be very interested in any help the Minister can give on those two logical issues.
Earl Peel (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. For those of us who have followed these issues over the years, there is no doubt that the impact of no environmental assessments being undertaken on these salmon farms has been a devastating effect on wild salmon stocks. It is about time that we had a system in place where proper assessments were undertaken, so I thoroughly welcome this amendment.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. How does he think the assessment would be undertaken? Would it be done by the Crown Estate itself or undertaken by an independent assessor? I would be much happier if it was independent rather than being done in-house, but perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on how he feels that might develop.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment, and I might have a slightly different take on it. To start with, the amendment requires the Crown Estate to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this issue and for the interest he has sparked in it across the House. His partnership with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is an unexpected one.
The noble Lord, in his personal conversations with me, as he has had with others, has spoken about his personal journey on these issues. He has gone from a time when he was in government and supported these farms to a time now when he recognises the damage that they do. I do not disagree with him at all on that. There is a real need to protect animals; there is a real need for animal welfare; there is a real need to look at the associated pollution and at the escape of farmed salmon and the impact on natural salmon that happens as a result of these farms. As far as all that goes, I have no problem with this amendment.
However, the issue here is that the Crown Estate is devolved in Scotland, so I have had to turn to the philosopher George Berkeley to try to analyse this amendment. He came up with the question: if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound? My response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: if his amendment protects no salmon, is it helping the salmon? There are literally no salmon farms in England. I have an assurance from the Minister personally that there is no intention from the Crown Estate to start producing salmon farms in English waters. In fact, I do not think those waters are able to support salmon. I do not think that is happening. I listened to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are legislating for the longer term—that is an issue —but, again, I see absolutely no plans for this to happen.
This matter is devolved. My strong suggestion to everybody in favour of stronger protection for salmon and the environment is to raise these matters with the Scottish Parliament, which is responsible for these matters. Noble Lords can put this in the Bill, but it will be overturned in the Commons. If not, it will have no impact on any salmon. I fail to see the point of this amendment.
On these Benches we are not able to support this amendment, not because we do not support animal welfare but because this simply does not impact any fish. There is no point in making bad, pointless legislation; that just makes us all look foolish. It does not do anything to increase animal welfare standards if the standards do not apply to any animals. It is pointless.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as an owner of fishing rights and president of South West Rivers Association. I will also speak briefly, as the arguments have been well made by many noble Lords.
We have heard from noble Lords around the House that this is an important amendment that strikes at the heart of our care for the environment and animal welfare. It imposes reasonable obligations on the Crown Estate to take responsibility for environmental damage caused by salmon farming on its property, and for the welfare of the fish being farmed. As I understand it, there is only one salmon farm in our waters, off the coast of Northern Ireland, although there are 210 in Scottish waters. But this amendment will ensure that any future salmon farms are developed with those obligations in place.
In Committee, the Minister highlighted existing legislation and regulations that cover the salmon farming industry. However, given that the wild Atlantic salmon in our country is now on the IUCN red list, and given the sometimes dire conditions that farmed salmon are kept in, it is hardly surprising that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean continues to press this amendment. We are disappointed that the Government have so far failed to see its merits, and we hope for a more constructive reaction from the Minister today. We on these Benches will support my noble friend if he decides to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their points. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms and, where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, again made a powerful speech on his amendment. As I noted in Committee and can repeat today, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind it but I regret that the Government are unable to support it. I recognise that this is not what the House wants to hear, but it remains the Government’s position that this amendment would duplicate protections that already exist in legislation or that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, that, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I have had no contact with the industry. I may have written to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, following Committee, but, if not, I will absolutely ensure that I do.
All salmon farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare. As noble Lords know and some have observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter. My officials have been in contact on this matter with the Scottish Government, who have said that it is their view that salmon farming is strictly regulated to ensure that the environment on which the aquaculture sector and others rely is protected for future generations. They have also stated that Crown Estate Scotland works to ensure responsible use of Scotland’s seas through leasing the seabed. However, as is proper, it is the role of local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to conduct a thorough assessment of development proposals, including environmental impact assessments and habitats regulations appraisals, with advice from statutory and other consultees.
I am aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and I recognise that many noble Lords will not agree with the case I have set out. However, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is not much fun being a Minister when you have to read out a speech like that. I suspect that, like all of us in the Chamber, the Minister is concerned about the animal welfare and environmental issues. What he had to say about the Scottish Government, as opposed to the Scottish Crown Commissioners, was rather revealing, but I shall not go there. However, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—our being so aligned must be a first. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked who would do the assessment. The Minister said that, in Scotland, SEPA and other agencies are charged with looking at the damage caused.
I gently point out to the Scottish Government, in their complacency, the number of fish that have escaped from farms, doing real damage and destroying the wild population. As far as I am aware, no sanctions have been imposed against a billion-pound industry operating around the world where Governments have been forced to intervene and close them down in some circumstances. We are well aware of the danger.
I am very disappointed by the Liberal Democrats; this is almost a permanent condition for me, but on this occasion I really am very disappointed. I think it was Amendment 8, which we discussed earlier, on which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, argued that there should be a report which could then be considered by the environment committee and others. He was actually arguing for a method allowing some parliamentary scrutiny. I have always thought of the Liberal Democrats as very determined to put a duty on, for example, landlords and others, as property owners, to behave responsibly, and that is what this amendment would do. I find this new alliance, whereby the Liberal Democrats do all kinds of somersaults in order to support the Government, very intriguing, and wonder what can possibly be behind it.
Earl Russell (LD)
There are no somersaults here. My previous amendment did not relate to devolution. I return the question: does the noble Lord admit that his amendment applies only to one salmon farm? Does he recognise that that is not a good way to make legislation? I fully support what he is trying to do, and am not doing somersaults to protect the Government, but the issue needs to be resolved with Scotland. This is not an English issue but a Scottish one. On these Benches, we believe strongly in devolution. The amendment sounds good but it does little, and that does damage to us as lawmakers, to the standing of this House and to devolution. It does nothing to protect any fish.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Earl. He may be disadvantaged, compared with others in this debate, because he is not—I do not think—a salmon fisherman. If he were, he would know that English salmon go through the Crown Estate waters up into Scottish waters, where there are salmon farms. Therefore, this amendment does impact on English salmon. There may be only one salmon farm, but if he was concerned about preserving salmon which occupy the rivers in England, he would be much more enthusiastic about this amendment than he appears to be. My noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller, who was chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, has done wonderful work on this, so I am afraid that the noble Earl will not get away with the idea that, because there is only one salmon farm in English waters, a duty on the Crown Estate commissioners to consider the environmental impact has no impact on salmon south of the border.
I will repeat a point made earlier in the debate. In response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, with enthusiastic support from the Front Bench, we agreed that there should be an exchange of views between the commissioners and that they should learn from each other. We have also heard from the Minister how the Scottish Government are utterly complacent about this. We have seen the results of that and the near extinction of this noble fish, the salmon.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Pollution of the seabed does not exist only in Scotland, obviously. It will move around.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness—I feel I should call her my noble friend. I find I am being asked to have meetings with the activists who film the salmon farms illicitly. I will have to go on a protest march if the Government do not accept this amendment. I know that the Minister has done everything he can on this, but I do not think the response is satisfactory. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Humphreys
“Devolution of Crown Estate management to WalesAfter section 1 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—“1A Devolution of Crown Estate management to WalesThe Treasury must complete a transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to devolve Welsh Crown Estate responsibility to Wales.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6 in my name and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for signing my amendment. We debated a similar amendment in Committee, where those of us who argued for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales made strong arguments in favour of it. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, also presented strong cases for their amendments on the transference of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government, on separate reporting within the annual accounts of the activities of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and on other issues. I thank both noble Lords for their commitment to this issue.
Public opinion in Wales is behind the devolution of the Crown Estate, with a YouGov poll last year showing that 58% of the people of Wales support such a move. Senedd Cymru has supported its devolution, as have the majority of political parties in Wales, including my party—the Welsh Liberal Democrats and our federal party. I was encouraged this week to find that, in their response to the final report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, the Welsh Labour Government said:
“Our longstanding position is that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales in line with the position in Scotland”.
That being so, I am disappointed that the Welsh Government were not consulted when this Bill was being prepared.
There are frustrations in Wales, as Scotland is seen to be benefiting from the devolution of Crown Estate powers to the Scottish Parliament, not only through the receipts paid to it but in the control, power and influence that Scotland has over the use of its resources. Scotland appears to move on while Wales lags behind. For us, the process of devolution appears to have come to a stop. There are real concerns that, by the time Wales has control over the Crown Estate, much of the wealth will already have been extracted.
As we appear to have reached something of an impasse, the way forward might be to follow the process followed by the Scottish Affairs Committee in the other place in the lead-up to the devolution of the Crown Estate there. It published a number of reports, one of which in 2014 identified issues in the management of the Crown Estate’s responsibility, particularly in relation to the seabed and foreshore. It looked at issues including
“accountability and transparency … communication and consultation with local communities … cash leakage from local economies … arising from the way the CEC operates … The evidence did not identify such problems with the CEC’s management of its urban and rural estate”,
only those relating to the seabed and foreshore.
We would therefore welcome any decision of the Welsh Affairs Committee to initiate an inquiry to determine if similar problems apply to Wales. It is not of course our place in this Chamber to call for that, but an evidence-taking committee of inquiry would provide the evidence to move this issue forward and address any lessons learned since the devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland.
As I said in Committee, my amendment does not call for a timescale for the devolution of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government, because I accept that this will not be completed overnight. However, I am also disappointed that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which the Minister has signed, does not lay any foundation or route map for the transference of powers to Wales. Because of this, I am minded to seek the opinion of the House on my Amendment 6.
I want to make a couple of comments on Amendment 11, but as the noble Lord has not had the opportunity to speak to his amendment yet, my comments will be brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment and recognise the time and the cross-party work he put into its preparation—I know it was no easy feat. I am also grateful to the Minister, who has signed Amendment 11. This represents a major change in his stance since Second Reading and Committee of the Bill, and I also acknowledge how difficult this process must have been for him as Treasury Minister.
However, this major change in the Minister’s stance will be seen as the smallest, most insignificant step for those advocating the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Amendment 11 calls for three commissioners to be appointed, one each to represent England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to be
“responsible for giving advice about”
their respective nations.
I have two questions, which I hope the noble Lord or the Minister will be able to address. First, proposed sub-paragraph (3C) refers to
“the giving of advice to the Commissioners about conditions in that part so far as relating to their functions in relation to land there”.
I assume that the use of the word “land” excludes the giving of advice about the more lucrative foreshore and seabed. If it does exclude the foreshore and the seabed, why are they not included?
Secondly, in a nod to devolution, in sub-paragraph (4B) Welsh Ministers are to be “consulted” about the commissioner for Wales before the recommendation is made to His Majesty. Can the Minister confirm that “consulted” means that Welsh Ministers are to take no part in the actual appointment of the commissioner for Wales?
I am seeking more for Wales than Amendment 11 provides. With the devolution of the Crown Estate, we could see an economic boost built on the success of renewable projects around our coastline, reviving coastal communities and ensuring the benefits from these projects are actually felt by those living near them in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to move Amendment 11 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hain, who cannot be with us this afternoon. I was present in Committee on the Bill and listened with great interest to noble Lords discussing the issue of devolving the Crown Estate to Wales. I had a great deal of sympathy with the points that were made. I believe it is incongruous that it has already been devolved to Scotland but is not devolved to Wales or Northern Ireland. I speak as someone who was Secretary of State for both Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, I welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend, in so far that it means that there will be commissioners specifically responsible for giving advice to the Crown Estate itself on behalf of Wales and Northern Ireland—which is very good.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about consultation, but it is pretty clear to me that it would be a very foolish Government to appoint commissioners who were not approved by the First Minister in Cardiff and the First and Deputy First Ministers in Belfast. It is a start, though it is not exactly everything that was wanted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, that my noble friend the Financial Secretary has indeed moved his stance to one which would be agreed to by lots of people in Wales, and I guess in Northern Ireland.
We are living in different times; we now have a Labour Government in Cardiff and in Whitehall. I believe it is important that Governments can get together and talk about these issues in a very special way. That is why this amendment is before us this afternoon: exactly because there have been proper discussions, which I guess the Secretary of State for Wales has also been involved in. Personally, I do not think it goes far enough, but as I said, it is a start.
In the new regime—in this new Britain since the general election—there is a very serious case to be made for a much better relationship between the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government. We have a new Council of the Nations and Regions, which will do a great deal of good for that relationship. We have a situation in Northern Ireland where we now have the Executive up and running, at last, and I congratulate the previous Government on the work they did on that. In this new era, where devolution means something very different from what it has meant over the last number of years, we have to believe that this new relationship will result in decisions such as this one.
I hope that this is not the end of the discussions between the Treasury, the Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive; I hope it is the beginning of discussions on these issues, not just on this one, but on other ones as well. In my personal view, I hope that, ultimately, the Crown Estate should be devolved. However, we are where we are: the Government have made a concession, the Financial Secretary has very kindly signed my noble friend’s amendment, and I very much look forward to what he has to say in the course of this important debate.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive letters he wrote to Members who took part in Committee, addressing some of our unanswered questions.
I will set out the context of how I am approaching this group. At Second Reading, I outlined clearly how the draft legislation did not deliver fairness for Wales for four key reasons: first, the Crown Estate profits will not be retained in Wales; secondly, the proposed changes to the Crown Estate board do not include Welsh representation; thirdly, expanding investment and borrowing powers for the Crown Estate may undermine the Welsh Government; and, finally, the Bill does not make provisions to promote the economic or social well-being of Wales. In Committee, I tabled three amendments, and my noble friend Lord Wigley tabled an additional three, which sought to remedy these four key issues from a Welsh perspective—issues on which Plaid Cymru has long campaigned.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly because so much has been said already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, about the structure of the two amendments before us.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his absence, and the Minister for making a step forward; it may be small, but it is a step. It is an important recognition for the people of Wales that Wales is different. It is interesting that, in the last debate, we talked almost exclusively about English salmon and its difference from salmon in Scotland—no one seemed to mention Wales at all. It reminded me of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for “Wales”: “See England”. Part of the debate we had earlier exemplified that. Wales needs to be recognised as being different; it is a proud and long-established nation with its own resources, people and interests. I welcome what the Minister has done, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I am grateful to him.
I will make two further comments before turning to Amendment 6. It is very important that the commissioner is not seen to be a patsy. He or she must be able to stand up for Wales. My experience has been that, when people have been appointed to represent and give advice about Wales, they can make a very powerful difference—we see this in many committees and bodies across the UK—but they have to be visible. The people of Wales will expect two things. First, the advice must be transparent: what are they saying about the advice they are giving about Welsh resources? Secondly, when looking retrospectively at the advice given, they must say what the benefit to Wales has been. I do not see how you can give advice without explaining the benefit. Therefore, I hope that there will be full transparency in the Crown Estate commissioner’s report.
That is why this amendment may be much more important than is appreciated. It inserts the opener into the can by beginning to explain how Wales will be treated in the new way in which the Crown Estate commissioners will work, recognising Wales and Northern Ireland as having different and separate interests. I am deeply grateful to the Minister. He told us last week that Wales will look forward to benefits from the Budget, but I did not expect this benefit.
I support Amendment 6, because that is where we are going. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, it is what the people of Wales want. I can see the possible argument that maybe now is not the right time—but when is ever the right time?
Wales is a poor country, much poorer than England; you only have to spend time in Wales and in London to appreciate the huge disparity of wealth. In the 19th century, Wales had a natural resource that never benefited it properly by long-term investment. The same must not happen again. So I support Amendment 6 but I am extremely grateful to the Minister for Amendment 11.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, which was ably promoted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. This amendment was also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Humphreys, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the Minister.
I view this amendment from my noble friend Lord Hain as a step in the right direction because it enables Wales and Northern Ireland to be represented by commissioners. I said in the debate on the devolution amendments in Committee that devolution is particularly important. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, it should not become a patsy; it has to have something of meaning. To have a commissioner from the devolved regions means that you should have somebody there who understands the issues of the Crown Estate in those areas. In Northern Ireland there is the issue of escheat, where in some instances freehold land can become ownerless. On those occasions it is the local commissioner who will have that understanding of where those areas of land are, their impact and the need for their development for the benefit of the whole community.
I raised other issues in Committee, such as Great British Energy and the fact that in Northern Ireland there is an all-island electricity market. Can the Minister consider how that issue will be dealt with? There are also issues to do with fishing rights in the Irish Sea. Those issues all need to be investigated and supported by the commissioner who will represent Northern Ireland, as well as the renewable technologies, so that they are all in the right space in the seabed and do not interfere with fishing effort. The local person is best placed to do that.
I am very pleased that my noble friend the Minister has signed Amendment 11. Like my noble friend Lord Murphy, I think it shows that there is a determination and a willingness on the part of the Government to recognise the principle of devolution. I hope that in the fullness of time, the Government will move that little stage further and see the validity of devolution in all its holistic aspects. In the meantime, I am very happy to support Amendment 11.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I am so glad she had the opportunity to bring in the Northern Ireland dimension, building on the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made in introducing this debate. There is a synergy of interest in getting a balanced pattern to develop.
I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I would have added my own name to this amendment had I not been away on family duty last week, for which I apologise. Of course, I have awaiting Second Reading a Private Member’s Bill with a similar objective to Amendment 6.
I will not detain the House by repeating the case I made at Second Reading and in Committee for the Crown Estate to be fully devolved to Wales as it is to Scotland. Let us remember that it was a Conservative Government who delivered the Act to devolve the Crown Estate to Scotland, and there is cross-party consensus among Senedd Members in Cardiff Bay, who ask, “If this is acceptable for Scotland, why on earth is it not acceptable for Wales?”.
In practical terms, the activities of the Crown Estate in Wales have mushroomed over recent years. Its financial take from Wales has grown from about £400 million a year two or three years ago to now approaching £1 billion a year. There is growing resentment that such money should flow to a body that contributes little to the Welsh public purse, and this at a time of chronic underfunding of Welsh public services.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I will not take up much time, but very much agree, in general and in detail, with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and many other noble Lords who have spoken. There is a detailed matter and a more general principle which justifies this form of devolution to Wales. The environment in Wales is exceptionally important and the estates referred to are central to the economic and social life of Wales. More generally—I echo what we have just heard—the whole history of devolution in Wales has been a very slow process and the battle goes on. In the mid-19th century, it took the form of political demands from the Liberal Party in Wales. The Labour Party provided devolution and other parties have taken up the baton in that way.
The history of devolution in Wales has for a long time been a sluggish process. It has not arisen with the buoyancy that we have had, perhaps not always happily so, in Scotland and Ireland. The Barnett formula indicates how Wales has been treated—in an indirect and offhand way—and this is a valuable addition to it. Given the happy congruence of government in Wales, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, we would like a full embrace of this, bracketing the Welsh Government and the devolutionary process emerging from Westminster. Wales has suffered for a long period from a kind of half-colonial attitude towards the nation. This is an excellent example of a way in which that could be reversed.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, as someone who lives and farms in mid-Wales as well as writing music, I support this amendment. Living among people there, to me it seems that the comments we have just heard are very apposite. There is a feeling that we are slightly out on a limb and that, if devolution is to mean anything, this is a perfect example of where some empowerment could take place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, we could see a certain amount of money returned to Wales to help with the preservation of all those things that people value there, not least the coast and countryside. We are threatened with all kinds of things—possible massive pylon building and massive problems with the Wye, which has been coming up today in various amendments. To be able to decide for ourselves, or for the Welsh Government to be able to decide on our behalf, seems an extremely important point in this debate. Therefore, I very much support the amendment.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in response to the amendments from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Turning first to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain with my noble friend Lord Murphy speaking on his behalf, I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for his constructive engagement on this topic and thank other noble Lords across the House who have spoken in favour of this amendment, which the Government support. The amendment requires that the board of Crown Estate commissioners must include a commissioner who is knowledgeable about Wales and that such a commissioner, alongside their existing responsibilities, must be responsible for giving advice about Wales to the board. It also requires equivalent positions for Northern Ireland and England and grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted about the Welsh and Northern Irish appointments. These legislative requirements will ensure that the board of commissioners continue working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland alongside their existing duties as commissioners. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I say that I do not believe that the amendment in any way deliberately excludes the seabed.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Crown Estate absolutely welcomes the opportunity presented by the increase in the number of commissioners from eight to 12, to bring knowledge of the devolved nations even more directly to the board table. It is an enthusiastic supporter of this amendment. This will supplement the expertise of its director for the devolved nations, who is based in the Crown Estate’s recently opened Cardiff office and whose knowledge and extensive local engagement over the last two years is evidence of the importance to which it attaches understanding local conditions in Wales.
The commissioner responsible for giving advice to the board on Northern Ireland will provide valuable insight as the Crown Estate’s engagement and activities in Northern Ireland continue to evolve. For example, the Crown Estate’s chief executive was in Belfast last month meeting officials and Ministers from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy. That form of engagement will move from strength to strength with the knowledge that such commissioners will offer to the board. These commissioners will certainly strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability and mission to deliver benefit for the whole UK at a time when devolution of the estate would significantly risk fragmenting the energy market, which would undermine international investor confidence and delay the progress towards net zero by an estimated 10 to 20 years, to the detriment of the whole UK.
Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, would require the Treasury to complete a transfer of the responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. As I have set out previously, the Government’s position is that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. As I set out in detail in Committee, the Crown Estate Act 1961 requires the Crown Estate commissioners to manage the Crown Estate as a commercial enterprise and with due regard to the requirements of good management. While the Crown Estate has goals which, under its own strategy, align with wider national policy objectives, the 1961 Act provides the Crown Estate with independence and autonomy to set and achieve its goals. It has shown itself over the last 60 years to be a trusted and successful organisation with a proven track record in effective management.
The Crown Estate is required to place profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year, worth more than £4 billion over the past decade. This enables those revenues to fund UK government spending in reserved areas in Wales and Northern Ireland and supports the funding provided through the block grant. Those revenues are then allocated to public service priorities by the Government, subject to the usual parliamentary controls. As I have noted previously, that is a valuable outcome which we must be careful not to undermine. Devolving the Crown Estate to Wales would, as I have explained, most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the role of the Crown Estate in Wales. As I have previously set out, this entity would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability or capital and system abilities, nor benefit from the Crown Estate’s marine investments currently being made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. To devolve to Wales would disrupt these existing investments, since they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh- specific entity.
I will not repeat the examples that I gave in Committee, but it remains the point that to devolve at this time would risk jeopardising the existing pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic Sea, planned into the 2030s, and the vital investment and jobs that this would bring across south Wales. As I noted in Committee, in addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic Sea would also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider UK. As I mentioned in Committee, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could create around 5,300 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy.
Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. For Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its current pipeline of Welsh projects, the biggest of which is round 5—which is expected to contribute enough energy capacity to power 4 million homes across the United Kingdom—can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front. Introducing a new entity, which would have control of assets only within Wales, into this complex operating environment where partnerships have already been formed, would not make commercial sense. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch midway through a multi-million-pound commercial tendering process when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for those comments and everyone who has spoken in this debate, especially those who have supported the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. I was looking for a little more from the Minister about the responsibility of the commissioners. It seems that they are there to give advice, but there is no responsibility to report to Welsh Ministers or to discuss with them, which I hope that they will do in any case.
Earl Russell
“Climate change and nature duty of Crown Estate CommissionersIn the Crown Estate Act 1961, after section 1 insert—“1A Duty of the Commissioners to contribute to climate change and nature targets(1) In complying with the general duty under section 1(3) and in exercising their functions the Commissioners must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—(a) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, and(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In carrying out the duty set under subsection (1), the Crown Estate Commissioners must include conditions in all seabed leases that require the leaseholder to contribute to the conservation and overall enhancement of the natural environment.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the Crown Estate a new climate change and nature duty requiring it to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of the Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 targets in exercising its functions. The duty requires the inclusion of nature conservation measures in all seabed licences granted by the Crown Estate.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 7 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is not able to attend the House today. This amendment mirrors that laid in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. It would lay a duty on the Crown Estate to contribute to the Government’s climate change and nature targets as laid out in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act.
The Crown Estate’s role in enabling these targets to be met is significant. The Crown Estate is the third-largest landowner in the United Kingdom; in particular, it owns significant land in coastal areas and on the seabed, which is important for the big growth in renewable energy that is required and for the recovery of our biodiversity. The deal with Great British Energy means a major uplift in the Crown Estate’s contribution to net zero. The Crown Estate is also a major developer and can contribute to zero-carbon homes and construction, sustainable procurement, and the circular economy.
Since Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has been involved in discussions with the Minister and the Treasury, and Amendment 10 in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is the result. This requires commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. I understand that the Minister will also commit to an addition to the framework agreement between the Treasury and the Crown Estate which would mean that the Crown Estate would have to have regard for the impact of its activities on the environment, society and economy and will include them in considering relevant legislation in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister for their negotiations on this occasion.
However, I am concerned that it does not go far enough. While I recognise that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate is to maximise financial contributions to the Treasury from the estate and to do this in a socially and environmentally responsible way, I am concerned on two accounts.
First, as the Crown Estate ramps up its development activities in renewable energy and a range of other activities, the possibility of conflicts between its economic objectives and its environmental responsibilities will become more acute, and the risk is that the primary economic objective will take priority. That might be good for renewable energy, but it could be a very bad for biodiversity. To “have regard” is a particularly weak requirement. Putting in the Bill a clear objective to help meet the legally binding climate change and biodiversity targets alongside the Crown Estate’s economic objective would mean that solutions would be brought that combine the benefits on all these objectives.
Secondly, the status of the framework agreement is not wholly clear. It is negotiated periodically between the Crown Estate and the Treasury. Revisions to it could be subject to negotiation without Parliament being any the wiser. What if the Crown Estate decided that it was going to downplay the guidance on the legally binding targets? Over the 60 years since the power of direction over the Crown Estate was brought into existence in 1961, the Treasury has yet to insist on any provisions of the framework agreement. As a last resort, Ministers have the power of direction over the Crown Estate, but the legal advice is that it can be exercised only in a way that is consistent with the statutory duty under the Act, hence the need for the objectives on targets to be on the face of the Bill. Can the Minister tell the House how much welly the framework agreement has in law and what action the Treasury could take if the Crown Estate did not come up to the mark on the climate and environment targets?
I do not want to repeat the arguments made by noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman, in Committee. I will, however, remind the House that the Minister laid considerable stress throughout Committee, in his response to several amendments, on the need for the primary purpose of the Crown Estate to be the effective economic management of the estate. I point out to the House that a nearly identical duty to the one proposed in this amendment, requiring contributions to the legally binding biodiversity targets, was applied to NHS trusts throughout the Health and Care Act 2022 by the previous Administration, with the support of the Labour Party. It is questionable why the environmental considerations in the Bill, which were previously supported for the NHS, are not now considered appropriate for a public body with probably more natural habitats under its control, and more potential for reducing carbon, than any other.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reassure the House that the environmental objectives will not end up being second fiddle when the pressure is on; how the framework agreement renegotiations, in future, will be transparent and safeguarded from sliding back on environmental requirements; how the Treasury will measure and hold the Crown Estate accountable for the contribution to the climate change and biodiversity targets; and, finally, what sanctions the Treasury has on the Crown Estate if it does not deliver the framework agreement.
In a personal capacity, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for Amendment 10. Speaking now as me, I think that it is extremely important that the commissioners
“must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”.
This is a welcome development, and I welcome the compromise. I think this helps to strengthen the Bill, and it is great to have it in the Bill. I am very pleased that this has taken place. I beg to move Amendment 7.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He clearly set out the reasons why in Committee, we, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who I am sure we all wish a quick recovery, were very concerned to ensure that the Crown Estate, given its potential influence in these areas, plays its part in achieving the Government’s statutory commitments under the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. Across the Committee, there were contributions that supported that view.
Of course, in some ways I would like the amendment that has just been moved to be put in the Bill. Here, I should declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. Like others, I thank the Minister and his officials for the time, care and effort they have put into trying to resolve the issues that would arise if the full amendment were included in the Bill. From my point of view, it has been an exemplary process. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made this point as well, as have many other noble Lords. The care and transparency that the Minister and his officials have provided throughout the passage of this Bill have been extremely welcome.
In Committee, when we were debating the amendment then in my name, the Minister made two things absolutely clear. One was the Government’s commitment to achieving the same ends by ensuring that the Crown Estate is a good citizen in respect of these events, and that is also manifested in what the Crown Estate is doing and the way it is reporting on its activities. So I think there is a shared objective between the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which we just heard spoken to, and the Minister and the Crown Estate. It is certainly shared by me.
Concerns have been articulated about the importance of safeguarding the prime objectives of the Crown Estate and not putting the detail into the Bill. I think we have come up with a solution that will achieve, certainly from my point of view, the vast majority of what I was looking to achieve in my original amendment. Amendment 10 would implement the climate and nature objectives by inserting in the Bill an obligation on the Crown Estate to conduct its affairs in a way that ensures sustainable development. That, of course, is a much wider and not very precise term that covers economic, environmental and social issues. Mind you, there has been a lot of debate this afternoon about the importance of the Crown Estate covering exactly those issues and taking them into account.
In a sense, having placed that in the Bill, we then have a paving amendment on to the framework agreement. I was very reassured by the letter we all received on 4 November, stating that the specific concerns about two aspects of the Climate Change Act—mitigation and our net-zero obligations, and the importance of adaptation to existing climate change and the nature protection objectives under the Environment Act—would be spelled out in the framework agreement and reported on publicly in the annual report, so that we can judge the contribution made to achieving those objectives through the publication of the framework agreement. Such reporting is another theme that has run through today’s debate.
In my view, it is better to achieve 80% of what we achieve in legislative terms than to have 100% judged by this House, which I am not at all sure we would win on. What matters is the endgame and the results, not whether my phraseology or the noble Earl’s goes in the Bill. What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government's climate and nature objectives. So, I am very pleased to be able to propose Amendment 10 and I am grateful to the Minister for adding his name to it.
I will say only one other thing, which is that I have spent the last four and a half years putting provisions like this into individual Bills as they go through this House. I hope the Government will recognise that, when they say that climate and environment issues are for everybody and that all departments, private industries and public bodies are affected and ought to be looking at the implications, they act on that realisation and do not rely on Back Benchers making Ministers’ lives miserable because they have been missed out. The Government should cut out all that argument and do it for themselves by including those issues in Bills. They were not included in the first place in this Bill, which was silent on the climate and nature. Now they are included, albeit in slightly convoluted but, I hope, effective way.
I end by saying once again how grateful I am to the Minister and his team for the constructive way in which they have handled this issue.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I rise only briefly to say that we on these Benches want to see the Crown Estate taking action to improve our environment, and we share the concerns of other noble Lords in this area. We note that the Government have expressed their support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with her that it is all about outcomes in these circumstances. We agree that this is a sensible amendment and that it deserves the Government’s support.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Before I respond to the amendments relating to the environment, I reaffirm my strong support for the intention behind them. As I set out in Committee, it is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to achieving our climate change targets. The Crown Estate should continue to be a national trailblazer in this regard.
The Crown Estate’s commitment to becoming a net zero carbon business by 2030, aligning with a 1.5 degree trajectory, and its commitment to prioritising activities that help enable a reduction in a national carbon emissions, such as building net-zero homes, transitioning its holdings to sustainable agricultural practices, and working in partnership with government to meet the national renewable energy targets, speaks to how seriously it is already committed to these goals.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young: yes, she is prepared to withdraw her amendment. I welcome the Government’s response to her amendment; I think even she realises that it was perhaps the gold-plated version. As the old saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth much more than a bird in the bush.
I return to my own persona to close this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It is extremely important that these duties are there, that they are written in the Bill and included in the framework agreement, and that the Crown Estate needs to report on them. These, taken together, are not constraints but real responsibilities that the Crown Estate will need to meet. They are safeguards that exist for evermore; that is a powerful thing in protecting the environment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on all the work that she does; here we have another Bill, with another of her amendments being accepted.
Before I sit down—I know the hour is late—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has a Bill before this place to do some of this stuff for evermore, so that we can free up parliamentary time to discuss other things. As a final word, I encourage the Government to consider lending support to his Private Member’s Bill so that we can free up parliamentary time, put this in all the places where it needs to be, make sure that these protections are in place, and use our parliamentary time for other matters. But I am delighted that this has happened in this case. I thank the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Earl Russell
“Regional Wealth Fund and Skills Training FundAfter section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—“Regional Wealth Fund and Skills Training Fund (1) The Commissioners must use the funds from the Crown Estate to establish a Regional Wealth Fund and a Skills Training Fund, as set out in subsections (2) to (9).(2) The Commissioners must ensure that a percentage of the Crown Estate’s license fee for leases of Crown Estate land for offshore wind power development is given to a regional wealth fund.(3) The Commissioners must agree regional boundaries of the regional wealth fund in consultation with local government.(4) Funds from the Crown Estate’s license fee for such leases must be distributed to the nearest regional wealth fund to the offshore wind power development.(5) The Commissioners must ensure that a percentage of the Crown Estate’s profit is given to a skills training fund (“the fund”).(6) The Commissioners must ensure that the fund works to provide persons residing or employed on the boundaries of or on the land of the Crown Estate with skills training to equip them to perform jobs in the green economy.(7) The Commissioners must ensure that those administering the fund consult with appropriate national and regional organisations and industry to agree the type of training that the fund will provide to meet the requirement under subsection (6).(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations set the percentages under subsections (2) and (5).(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioners to establish a Regional Wealth Fund and a Skills Training Fund.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is quite late and we have run over our time, so I will be brief with this amendment. To be honest, my plan was never to call it to a vote. This is an amendment that I tabled at previous stages of the Bill. It calls on the commissioners to do two things: to establish a regional wealth fund and a skills training fund. I believe that both are important. That is why I have brought this amendment back today. As I said, I will speak to it very briefly.
On the regional wealth fund, we are going through one of the biggest energy transitions that this country has experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. A lot of stuff needs to be built; a lot of change is coming. The Government need to take people with them on that journey. It is not for Whitehall and central government to do this to people. It is for this Government to do things with people, for people, and to take people with them on that journey. I say these things because they are important. We on these Benches want to see Labour succeed in these missions. If public support wanes, that will not happen.
I believe also in devolution; we believe in devolution on these Benches. We believe that local communities should benefit from the energy that they host, and from the infrastructure that sits in their communities. We believe very much in community energy as well. In legislation to come, we will have GB Energy. From these Benches, we will be pushing the Government strongly to go further on community energy. We think it is an important part of the puzzle that can be achieved within the GB Energy Bill.
I move on finally to skills and training. The green revolution is a revolution; it will change all our lives. It offers real opportunities, not just to decarbonise and meet our climate commitments but for Britain to grow new industries to be new world leaders and to train people to take on new jobs, the jobs of the future, which we need to grow our economy.
The Budget this week, for all the investment, had very little growth coming out of it. I personally worry that there was very little money in the Budget for skills and training. The year 2030 will be here in a blink of an eye. To meet our targets, we need people to be able to build all this stuff, to make this thing happen; otherwise, our targets will not happen and will not be met.
The Crown Estate sits at an important juncture between the big industries and the local communities. It is already doing a very good and imaginative job in this area. I simply call on the Government to do more: to work with the Crown Estate to help create these skills; to help support our local communities; and to help bring people with them and alongside them on this journey, so that we can all transition together. I beg to move.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the topic of local and community benefits. As I set out in Committee, the Government are committed to working closely with the Crown Estate to support our target of clean power by 2030 by collaborating to accelerate and derisk the sustainable delivery of technology such as offshore wind. As I noted in Committee, local communities already benefit from onshore and offshore developments in the form of the economic benefits that such developments bring, including job creation and increased business for local suppliers. Individual developers also contribute to local initiatives.
Over the longer term, local communities will also benefit as we accelerate our transition away from volatile fossil fuel markets to clean, homegrown power to boost Britain’s energy independence and security. The Crown Estate has also specifically designed the leasing process for the offshore wind leasing round 5 opportunity in the Celtic Sea in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of their new windfarms.
I turn to the second part of the amendment, on a skills training fund. As I have previously made clear, the Government of course support the spirit behind the amendment. We are committed to clean energy by 2030, accelerating to net zero and promoting biodiversity. To meet those ambitions, we need to make sure that our workforce has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the green economy, both now and in future.
As part of that effort, the Department for Education has set up Skills England, a new body that will tackle skills shortages and support sustained economic growth. The Government also introduced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill in this House last week, which among other things will help to support the establishment of Skills England. As I highlighted in Committee, the Crown Estate is dedicated to supporting skills and training.
As I have said previously, the Crown Estate consults extensively with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies to keep them relevant and effective. The Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains that flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered to ensure that it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way.
I hope these explanations have been helpful and I have provided some clarity on the points raised. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, feels able to withdraw his amendment as a result.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am of course able to withdraw my amendment. I recognise the work that the Government are doing in these areas, but there is a need for more to be done. I do not think that working with the Crown Estate would impact other work; it would actually strengthen it. As I said, it sits in a unique juncture that would be particularly helpful in bringing industry together with communities to create local jobs and provide training. However, I note the work that the Government are doing and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman
“Sustainable developmentIn section 1 of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (general provision about the Crown Estate Commissioners), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would require the Commissioners to keep the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development under review. Sustainable development goals as recognised by the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other bodies refer to human development that aims to meet the economic, environmental and social needs of the present while also ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
“Commissioners with special responsibility(1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Crown Estate Act 1961 (constitution etc), is amended as follows.(2) Before sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(3B) The commissioners appointed under this paragraph must include—(a) a commissioner responsible for giving advice about England,(b) a commissioner responsible for giving advice about Wales, and (c) a commissioner responsible for giving advice about Northern Ireland.(3C) References in sub-paragraph (3B) to “giving advice about” a part of the United Kingdom are to the giving of advice to the Commissioners about conditions in that part so far as relating to their functions in relation to land there.(3D) A commissioner’s responsibility for giving advice under sub-paragraph (3B) is additional to the other responsibilities of a commissioner.”(3) Before sub-paragraph (5) insert—“(4B) No recommendation may be made to His Majesty for the appointment of a person as a commissioner under sub-paragraph (3B)(b) or (c) unless—(a) the Welsh Ministers have been consulted about the appointment, in the case of an appointment under sub-paragraph (3B)(b), or(b) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland has been consulted about the appointment, in the case of an appointment under sub-paragraph (3B)(c).””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the persons appointed to be Crown Estate Commissioners to include three commissioners who are able to provide the Commissioners with advice about conditions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, so far as they relate to the functions of the Commissioners.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Monday 18th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2024)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill focused on modernising the Crown Estate by removing existing limitations that hamper its ability to compete and invest as a commercial business and to ensure it has a sustainable financial future for years to come. In doing so, it supports the Crown Estate to build on its strong track record of creating long-term shared prosperity for the nation.
I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House, genuinely strengthening the Bill in the process. Specifically, I formally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her constructive engagement and scrutiny—in particular, on the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy and the disposal of national assets. On the latter, the Government are continuing to advance this in relation to the seabed with legal experts and will progress it in the other place if necessary. On pre-appointment scrutiny, which the noble Baroness also raised, my officials are continuing to engage with the Cabinet Office, as discussed at Report.
I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her engagement on the Bill. She was instrumental in ensuring that this House had access to the draft memorandum of understanding, which improved the scrutiny we were able to give to the Bill. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the thoughtful scrutiny he provided throughout the debates.
On specific amendments, my thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her engagement on climate change, which resulted in a genuinely meaningful difference to the Bill; to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the important issue of salmon farming, where I recognise the strength of feeling in this House; and to my noble friend Lord Hain, for his amendment on the Crown Estate commissioners, which will ensure the commissioners continue to act in the best interests of Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his engagement around the law relating to ownerless land and the process of escheat.
Finally, I thank my Bill team, who behind the scenes put in a significant amount of time and effort—specifically, Sophie Gladman, James Watkinson, Ella Waters, David Fairbrother and Will Smith.
I am grateful for the engagement with the Bill and its broad support across all Benches, which will ensure that the Crown Estate can operate successfully for many more decades to come. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to congratulate my noble friend on getting this Bill as far as he has. I was very pleased to see that His Majesty the King has given consent to a Bill which will make him many times richer over the course of the next decade or so—that is good. I ask why the Duke of Cornwall has not been included in this. We have been debating his involvement for some time and it would be good to know whether the Duchy approved this Bill or not.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I briefly thank the Minister and all his Bill team, and Members of the House who have taken part in the debates on this Bill and contributed to many worthwhile and positive changes to the draft legislation. From these Benches, I reiterate that we support this partnership with the Crown Estate and believe it is important as part of our energy transition.
My sincere belief is that the Bill leaves us in a stronger and better place than when it arrived. We have all worked constructively to make important amendments. I thank the Minister for his courteous engagement and positive response to the issues that noble Lords have raised with him.
The publication of the business case, largely thanks to my noble friend Lady Kramer, has meant that the memorandum of understanding has given confidence and a better understanding of the partnership with GB Energy and how it will operate in practice. That was a key element in the House’s understanding.
The Minister has spoken from the Dispatch Box on the cap on the level of borrowing. That was most welcome as there is no cap in the Bill.
I thank all those who raised the important issue of devolution of the Welsh Crown Estate. A compromise agreement from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, ensured that there were concessions and that all the commissions from the devolved regions have a place.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister on working together to agree an environmental duty. I also thank the Minister for adding a duty to report on the relationship with Great British Energy. Taken together, it is extremely important that these duties are written into the Bill and included in the framework agreement, and that the Crown Estate needs to report on them. These are not constraints but real responsibilities for the Crown Estate, which will need to meet them. They are safeguards that will exist for evermore.
It was a pleasure to move the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which might perhaps be taken up in the Commons. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her amendments. I am disappointed that her amendment on pre-appointment scrutiny for the chair of the Crown Estate board has not come back today, but that too may be taken up in the Commons.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having made a bit of progress with regard to Wales in the Bill. Having the nominated person is a step in the right direction. It does not deliver everything that we and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, were pressing for, but I hope we will return to this. I have coming up for Second Reading a Private Member’s Bill on the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as Scotland benefits from, but I thank the Minister for a small step in the right direction.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the core objectives of this Bill were of course supported by all sides of your Lordships’ House, and there has been a bit of progress on so many fronts. There are a number of issues where I still have some concerns, and I know that there is some unease on these Benches. I hope that the Government will deliberate further.
I note the improvements relating to environmental concerns that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. They were somewhat addressed by the Government. I am sure that she would have liked them to go further, but it was progress none the less. I hope that the Government do not seek to reverse the changes relating to salmon that were spearheaded by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
I remain disappointed that sensible checks on unconstrained borrowing did not make it into the Bill. They garnered significant support from these Benches, but sadly we did not get that vote over the line. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the sale of certain assets, particularly the seabed, which all noble Lords should be concerned about.
I am grateful to the Minister, his Bill team and all noble Lords who participated on the Bill. On a personal note, after more than 3,000 spoken contributions in eight years, this is my last outing at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to serving your Lordships’ House from the Back Benches.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. My noble friend Lord Berkeley will know that only the King’s consent is required for this Bill. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for all her exchanges from both sides of this Dispatch Box over the past year. She has always been ferocious in this House but friendly outside it, which has been the perfect combination. I wish her well in what she does next.