Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Harlech

Committee stage
Friday 6th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, in opening this group of amendments in my name, I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his long-standing service to Wales and his clear and consistent advocacy for greater Welsh autonomy. There is much that we agree on, and I like to think we work together in raising Welsh interests in your Lordships’ House, not least in hoping to see the Welsh rugby team resurgent in the not too distant future. The noble Lord’s passion is beyond question and his commitment to Welsh interests is evident in this Bill. However, while I respect its intent, I regret to say that it is the wrong Bill introduced at the wrong time with the wrong outcomes for the people of Wales.

Amendments 1 and 6 stand in my name and seek a straightforward but essential safeguard: that revenues from the Welsh Crown Estate should continue to be paid to the Exchequer. At a time when public finances are under enormous strain, diverting these vital funds away from the UK Exchequer is neither prudent nor responsible. These revenues are used not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom, for the benefit of all our citizens.

Let us ask plainly: will these funds be better managed by the Labour-run Welsh Government, whose track record is one of failure and misplaced priorities? Just look at the 20 mile per hour speed limit debacle, a policy that has stifled economic activity, hit small businesses and left the public exasperated—as I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is at the moment. What confidence can we possibly have that the same Ministers will not use Crown Estate revenues to fund yet more policies that the Welsh people do not support?

Without stealing his sandwiches, I note that Amendments 2 and 8, proposed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, seek to retain the Crown Estate’s borrowing cap at 25% of its net asset value. This is not ideology but basic financial stewardship. The Crown Estate is not a plaything; it manages critical assets such as our seabeds and land. A financially secure estate is vital to its long-term success, and excessive borrowing puts that future at risk. Whether devolved or not, that principle must hold.

Amendment 3 introduces a necessary backstop: the power for HM Treasury to impose conditions if the devolved Crown Estate in Wales fails in its functions. Again, this is an act not of hostility but of responsibility. Sadly, we have seen time and again that, when left unchecked, the current Welsh Government do not always act in the public interest. This safeguard would ensure that the Crown Estate’s essential duties—environmental, economic and fiduciary—were upheld to the standards the public expect.

The Clause 1 stand part notice exists because the Bill, at its core, is premature. We have only just passed the new Crown Estate Act, and it is simply not wise to begin carving out individual devolved frameworks before we have seen how the new national reforms bed in. This is a constitutional experiment based more on politics than on policy.

Although I defer to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the reporting amendment, I will say this: any serious consideration of devolving the Crown Estate must be preceded by rigorous evidence and not ideological aspiration. A report on the impact on finances, land management and environmental standards should be the starting point, not an afterthought.

To conclude, although I respect the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I must urge caution. The people of Wales deserve better than what the Bill contains. They deserve good governance, sound management and real accountability. Sadly, the Bill does not offer that. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.

War Widows: Ex Gratia Pension Payment

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Harlech

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done campaigning in this area. Some of the applications for the award have been rejected, and I am happy to share the statistics with the House: 72 individuals have not been accepted for a reward. However, the Ministry of Defence denies that the eligibility criteria have changed: 49 of those were already in receipt of financial reward for their bereavement; 10 are eligible for their war widow’s pension to be reinstated due to no longer being in a relationship that led to the original forfeiture; and 13 have had their initial claim rejected because of either insufficient evidence or because their partner sadly passed away from a non-service attributable death.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I too declare an interest as a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association. We were so hopeful that the war widows who had missed out would at last have their cases sympathetically solved, but following on from my noble friend’s Question, it appears that it was decided late in the day that the ex gratia payment would not be for all those who forfeited their war widow’s pension but for those who forfeited an attributable pension before 2000, which is nothing to do with the war pensions scheme. Under this new scheme, the Minister has told us how many widows have benefited; can he say, given how canny the MoD is with any money for widows, how much money it has actually paid out to date?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is asking, but my mental arithmetic is not good enough to multiply the ex gratia payment amount by the number of awards paid out, so I will write to her.

War Widows’ and Widowers’ Pensions

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Harlech

Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

I can confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that this scheme applies to all those who surrendered their war widow’s pension before the change was made to eligibility pre April 2015. Those eligible will be those whose spouse suffered death or injury on operational deployment or in a training exercise. If it was in service, they will be eligible.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I too declare an interest as a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association. I was an RAF wife for 30 years and 24 moves. Like most wives of my generation, I was quite unable to have a career and contribute to my own pension pot. I was totally reliant on my husband’s contributions, so how cruel it was to cancel those contributions if widows, many of them very young, had the temerity to remarry. We are very grateful to the Treasury for this move, but can the Minister say how simple it will be and what advice and guidance will be offered to this dwindling band of ageing widows to enable them to access this money for the future?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this issue. I agree that, looking at this issue through the prism of today, how it was administered seems a cruel decision. However, that was not a choice specific to this cohort of people; it was across all public service pensions. Through the Armed Forces covenant, the tireless campaigning of the association and Ministers such as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we have sought to grip this issue and have taken the action that we have this week.