Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, there must be some book which gives 1,001 reasons for disagreeing with a particular proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, must have read it and reproduced much of its powerful message: “Yes, it is important, but now is not the time”. No doubt, there are many other reasons and excuses as well.

I believe that now is the time. I follow my noble friend Lord Murphy and, dare I say it, my noble friend Lord Wigley, whom I have always considered a friend and a major contributor to debates in this House on a range of issues, not just devolution. I have long been an admirer of his. It is possible that this may be one of his valedictory speeches and I commend him for all he has done in his time here. He and I go back a long way. I think it was about 1966 or 1967 when he first came with a group of colleagues from Plaid Cymru to talk to me about Europe. We have been in touch ever since and I have long admired his contribution.

I will be very brief, because I adopt wholeheartedly what my noble friend Lord Murphy has said. Like him, I have made a progression. In the late 1970s, I was one of the so-called gang of six Labour MPs who opposed devolution. I thought that it had not been thought through adequately and used arguments such as “slippery slope” and so on. Some of them may still be partially true, but it was mainly the policies of Mrs Thatcher, ignoring Welsh interests in the 1980s, that largely convinced me. She was a recruiting sergeant for many of those who changed their views over the 1980s. In 1997, I went around Wales giving a different message from that which I had given in the 1970s. As my noble friend Lord Murphy said, the Senedd is now firmly established in Wales. There will be debates about powers and so on but there is no going back. Although there have been teething problems, it is now accepted and there is much power behind it.

I see no reason in principle why we should not follow the precedent of Scotland, though the problems around timing and adjustment were put forward powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I commend my noble friend Lord Wigley for his initiative on this and wholeheartedly support him.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in his introduction to this Bill and warmly thank him for bringing it again before the House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, the real place to start is the constitutional issue. As forcefully pointed out in our last debate on this, this does not, as it presently stands, deal with a union matter. We are dealing with a matter capable of devolution because power over the estate has been devolved to Scotland. One can see immediately from the Scottish Crown Estate’s report one of the benefits of that: it shows the revenue, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to, with a breakdown showing how each community benefits. I will ask the Treasury to think about this hearts and minds issue in a moment.

The real issue is trying to marry what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said about the short term and the long term. What is lacking, in my view, is transparency, accountability and a long-term strategy, and distinguishing all that from the technical business of managing the offshore wind industry. They are separate problems; if we disentangled them, we might be able to make some progress.

That progress can be made only by recalling the history of Wales, however the Crown Estate came to the Crown: partly by conquest—it is important to emphasise that word in the history of the United Kingdom—partly by inheritance or partly by an Act of Parliament. Maybe that does not matter, but what does matter from the history of Wales is the perception of the Welsh people. Their natural resources have been exploited, first in coal and the heritage with which we live, and then with water. The Welsh people are not prepared to allow this to happen again. How do we solve this problem?

I am delighted that, as the Minister told us on the last occasion during the passage of the Bill on the Crown Estate proper, the Government are going to discuss issues with the Welsh Government. I very much hope that the Minister can help us with those discussions.

Secondly, I hope that, as soon as the Bill is passed, there will be Welsh commissioner. One must remember, however, that his function is limited to giving advice on the functions in relation to land. What is wrong is that, first, there is no transparency of the position; secondly, there is no showing how the assets are used to the benefit of Wales; and, thirdly, there is no long-term strategy.

The Minister told us two things of great importance on 14 October. He said:

“As the Crown Estate’s operations are not divided into business units for each nation, agreeing the exact net profit figure attributable to Wales is not straightforward, because most of the associated costs cannot easily be disentangled from the Crown Estate’s overall costs and would, in places, require subjective judgment”.


Secondly, he said that,

“if Wales were to benefit only from the income generated in Wales, then it would likely be zero or negligible for several decades to come. Welsh assets are relatively new and will take time to mature, likely in the order of 10 to 15 years”.—[Official Report, 14/10/24; cols. 29-30.]

Both of those things are used as a justification for making no progress.

One looks to the Crown Estate’s annual report. Although these reports are not a joyous read, there is an awful lot of information contained in them. Unlike the position in relation to Scotland, a document called Wales Highlights contains absolutely no financial information of what income is generated. There is nothing of the kind. If one goes back to Wales Highlights for the year ending 31 March 2020, it showed a gross surplus income of £8.4 million on property valued at £96.8 million. I think that most businessmen would not think that this was a bad return for whatever came. Whether that falls into the category of a negligible income, I do not know, but no doubt it would help stop the leaks in the museums of Wales.

The following year shows a similar income, but it also shows the revaluation of the Crown Estate in Wales from £96.8 million to £603 million. Importantly, this appears to result from the offshore wind leasing round four. At the time of the full report for the whole Crown Estate, the revenue—it is broken down in some senses, most importantly for marine—was only £120.8 million. The highlighting stopped, and I simply do not understand why, after that review in Wales, there is no breakdown. I very much hope that the Minister will explain why what was practical in 2021, when round four had taken place and we were able to value the leases in Wales, has stopped. There should be full transparency and accountability.

What is important is to look at how the profits of the Crown Commissioner rose. By the year ending March 2022, the operating profit from marine had risen modestly to £127.5 million. However, by the year ending 2024, it had risen to £1.19 billion. If one looks at the notes to the account, the part of it attributed to the consolidated fund is a huge amount of money, but where did the increase come from? It is clear from page 50 of the annual report that it is attributable to option fees on round four, which produced £1 billion. What I do not understand is why we cannot know what is attributable to Wales. It is critical that there be proper accountability.

I come to my point, which is this: we need to work together to allow what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—and, I am sure, the people of Wales—rightly want, which is good management of the assets, but we need accountability and transparency. As the Crown Estate Commissioner will not tell the people of Wales what the benefits are, they must be compelled to do so by an Act of Parliament.

I very much hope that this Bill will move to Committee, as time does not permit me to develop these details of accounting any further. I should not have to do this, but what is absolutely clear is that the current step forward is not enough. This Government, in particular HM Treasury, must bear in mind that, in about 15 months’ time, the people of Wales will be able to make a judgment. I hope that, by that stage, the historic legacy of the way in which Wales has been deprived of the benefits from its natural resources will be shown. At the moment, there is money coming to Wales from its resources, and there is a good prospect for the future.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for speaking prematurely; I should have spoken in the gap. I apologise for that. My only mitigation is that, as a good Welshman, I was led by the spirit.

Wales: Public Services

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the blunt fact remains that Wales is at or near the bottom of all the indices of deprivation within the United Kingdom, so will the Government look at this again, particularly in relation to Scotland, and try to align Wales’s position not just in comparison with England but with Scotland?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think the Government have any such plans, but the Budget delivered for all the devolved assemblies a record amount in settlements since devolution.

Banking Hubs

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I recognise what the noble Baroness is saying. The criteria currently used to assess whether a community needs a banking hub are set out in consultation with the financial services sector; that is part of the current voluntary arrangement. I point the noble Baroness to the FCA consultation, because the criteria to be set out going forward are far more detailed and focus on the needs of not only local communities but SMEs. The consultation will also look at seasonal fluctuations in the need for cash access and the ability of SMEs to get coins and notes. The FCA is going further than the current voluntary arrangements.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

As with rural bus services, the loss of banking facilities bears most heavily on the elderly. Does the Minister agree with the principle that the last facility in a community should not be lost until a hub is established?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I agree with that in principle, and that is what the FCA set out in its consultation. If the assessment is that a community needs services, it will be beholden upon the designated firms—the banks—to put an alternative service in place before the last bank is closed, or alternative services will need to be put in place within three months if the existing service had somehow disappeared many months or years beforehand and an assessment was made that the community was lacking access to cash.

Gross Domestic Product: Wales and the UK

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I can provide a little reassurance to the noble Lord. Yes, the gap between GDP per head in Wales and the rest of the UK is too large, but Wales has had the highest growth in GDP per head since 2010 of all regions and nations across the UK, increasing by 15.7% compared with 6.9% across the UK. He talked about the Welsh Government and the UK Government working together. That is something that we have done successfully on city and growth deals across Wales that were developed jointly by the UK Government and the Welsh Government. This included £500 million for the Cardiff capital region and over £100 million in north Wales and Swansea. On his point about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he works hard and closely with the devolved Administrations—I know that is something he is very committed to—but I will take the noble Lord’s specific point away.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think that noble Lords need to decide between them which one of them will speak.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

May I invite the Minister to examine all the relevant indices of poverty and deprivation? She will find that Wales is mostly at the bottom, with 75% of the average, whereas the Government in levelling up concentrates simply on north-south. Should not the Government by contrast look also at the east-west divide?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that levelling up is not viewed through the prism that he says it is. When it comes to the looking at the needs in Wales and the funding to be matched to them, that is what we do through the Welsh fiscal framework. In the 2021 spending review, the largest annual block grant in real terms was assigned to Wales since the devolution Acts were passed.

Defence Spending

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on those two specific questions, but I should make a very important clarification of the additional funding going into our Armed Forces. Our support for Ukraine is over and above the additional investment I have mentioned, so it will not be drawn on in future years when we continue that support for as long as the conflict lasts.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that Poland has been a model in respect of additional expenditure, and does she share the concern about the delay in Germany fulfilling its commitment? She talked about long-term commitments. Does this mean that the new expenditure will be backloaded and there will be some for several years in the future?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

We welcome the contribution from all our allies and partners. I think I have been clear that nearly £5 billion of the £11 billion of additional funding is over the next two years. We have provided clarity beyond the existing scorecard period to help facilitate long-term investment in our future defence.

Russia: UK Companies

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, that is an individual decision for people to take. Where individuals have found themselves invested in companies that are subject to sanctions, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has issued some general licences to facilitate the divestment of those shares where individuals need to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, British companies are able to call on the very best professional advice to conceal their relationships with Russian companies, both direct and indirect, in Russia and outside Russia. Are we totally confident we have the best intelligence to bring to light those relationships?

Stock Markets

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I cannot speak for the right reverend Prelate but he mentioned two things. One was ensuring green growth, which I have addressed, and the other was workers and jobs. Maybe he knows that there are 2.3 million jobs supported by the financial services sector, with two-thirds of these outside London in finance hubs including Birmingham.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s considered view on which provides the greatest pressure on the standing of London as a financial centre: Brexit, or the chaos and instability caused by the last Conservative Government?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question, which he may be unsurprised to hear. In fact, in 2021, over 120 companies chose to list in London, the highest number since 2014 and ahead of its European competitors. These listings raised a total of £17 billion, the most raised in 15 years.

Wales: Economic Investment Projects

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the legislation that is currently being discussed in the other place makes provision for the Welsh Government to use income taxes to give themselves a lot more leeway to spend and invest in the way that they see fit.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the major investment projects in Wales is the Swansea lagoon, which is pending and has been delayed on a number of occasions. Can the Minister indicate whether there will be further delays to this valuable project?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, I have two quick answers. First, there are many investment projects that have, in principle, been committed to all over the United Kingdom, not just in Wales. Secondly, I am unaware of any specific delay on anything that has been agreed with respect to the Swansea tidal lagoon plant.

Barnett Formula

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

Yes, my Lords, but the Barnett formula is the opposite of most government policies, which do not survive very long. His has survived a lot longer than anybody ever envisaged.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the tributes to my noble friend Lord Barnett.

Does the Minister agree that the problem is not in the formula itself? The grievance, as seen in Wales, is the lack of fair funding. When the Government look at the totality of relations with Wales, perhaps avoiding the straitjacket of the formula, would they consider a multitude of matters, including for example helping Wales by abolishing the tolls on the Severn bridges, which amount now to a tax on the people of Wales?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Barnett formula is a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein problem. Virtually nobody understands how we got to where we are today. The key question is how much money makes its way to Wales. As I said earlier, for the period ahead Wales will receive a figure in line with most definitions, I believe, of what people think is fair.

Finance: Fiscal Devolution

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid that there has been a very chequered history of attempts to devolve power—within England, at least. This Government, by devolving half the income generated by business rates, have begun a process. The growth deals announced at the beginning of this week—under which, over a period, £12 billion will be devolved to local enterprise partnerships, whereas it would otherwise have been administered by central government departments—is a big move towards greater devolution. I suspect that in the next Parliament there will be much more pressure to do more.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, if London benefits with its high property values and other advantages, does that not inevitably mean that other parts of the UK will not benefit? How does one prevent that sort of fiscal competition, which surely cannot be to the benefit of less favoured areas?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the principle that operates if one is devolving tax revenue to a lower tier of government is that the amount of tax devolved is subtracted from the amount of grant which that tier of government would otherwise be getting. Therefore, at the start of the process at least, there is no net shift of revenue from one area to another.