Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Sandhurst

Friday 6th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I shall speak to the amendments in my name. By way of background, we have had the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, speaking about what makes this issue what I would describe ultimately as a hearts-and-minds issue. The acquisition of the Crown Estate in Wales by conquest and inheritance, the imposition of English laws, the exploitation, as it is perceived in Wales, of Wales’s resources of coal and water and the fact that Scotland has been allowed to control its own estate turn this into an important political and hearts-and-minds issue. I have tried, through the amendments I have put forward, to recognise that. In saying that it is an important hearts-and-minds issue, we must bear in mind the view of the Welsh Government, of the same complexion as the Government here in London, that they want devolution. The overwhelming majority of Welsh authorities want devolution. The very strong feeling is, for the reasons that I have tried briefly to summarise, that there ought to be devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales.

What has bedevilled this problem is a failure to understand and give effect to the difference between ownership and benefit from an asset and management of an asset. Those of us who may be fortunate to have the odd spare penny or two know the difference. Allowing someone else who is better qualified to manage assets while ensuring that the policy towards those assets and the ultimate benefit appertain to the owner is an important distinction that I have sought to make.

The first step is to try to identify what is the Crown Estate in Wales. Is it valuable? Does it have any assets? Does it have any revenue? Noble Lords may recall that in the Second Reading debate I spent a little time—I am not going to do that today because it is unnecessary—going through the accounts of the Crown Estate Commissioners in respect of Wales. The revenue and asset values for the year ending March 2021 were clear, but there was nothing in the accounts thereafter.

I challenged the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, about how an accountant could possibly not be able to identify the assets and income. I am immensely grateful to him and the chief executive of the Crown Estate Commissioners and to one of the commissioners for a meeting I had with him. Having checked with him, and I am happy to say he agrees that I can say this, I was told by him that in the financial statements for next year—that is, for the year ending March 2026—it is the commissioners’ intention to provide a separate breakdown for Wales of the assets and revenue. That shows that you can identify what is Welsh and what is English, and you can show the resultant revenue streams and capital expenditure, so an awful lot of the obfuscation that has occurred can be got rid of. I do not want to comment any further. Let us wait for those accounts to be produced. It brings to an end the argument that you cannot really say what is Welsh and what is English and what is the benefit from it. We will know. It is a great pity that this was not done before.

Therefore, I think that what is before us now is, if this hearts-and-minds issue is to be addressed and dealt with, how do we take this forward? It would be very helpful for us to hear from the Minister about the discussions that have been taking place between his colleagues—I assume that they are his colleagues—in Cardiff and his colleagues here in London about dealing with this hearts-and-minds issue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has been very careful to stress, obtaining economic benefits for Wales. The distinction that I try to draw is between ownership of and benefit from the assets and the management of the assets, and that is why I put forward Amendments 4 and 7.

First, Amendment 4 is primarily to set a timetable. It is no use having a Bill, it seems to me, that transfers the assets on its passing without some clear preparatory work and a timetable to reassure investors and others that the transfer is orderly. Therefore, Amendments 4 and 7 put forward a timetable. I have put dates forward as indicative only: obviously, the timetable is a matter for detailed discussion between the Governments in London and Cardiff, providing that, during that period, the Crown Estate commissioners remain completely in control—they ought to take account of the views of Welsh Ministers but not be bound by them—and that the income thereof in the meantime is properly identified. This really provides a bridging period, dealing with the issue of the transfer of the assets but allowing their management to continue, and therefore really tries to address the problem that, as I understand it, some Government Ministers have put forward, that all this would wreak havoc with investment and jobs in Wales. I regard that as a fallacy. When one really looks at what we are talking about, it is accepting that the Crown Estate in Wales is a national asset of the Welsh people, but accepting that there needs to be an orderly transfer.

As to the future, I have put down a separate amendment, Amendment 5, which I will address in due course, in the second group of amendments, because it addresses this fundamental misunderstanding that is used to try to justify the preparation of an injustice which does such damage to the union.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the operation of the Crown Estate in Wales under the newly devolved approach. I should say at the outset that on this side of the House, we are opposed to the Bill in principle. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, tabled amendments to the Crown Estate Act during its passage through your Lordships’ House. The Official Opposition were clear at that point that the Government should resist those amendments. As my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton said then, we have set the Crown Estate on a very different path as a result of that legislation, and now is not the time to frustrate that process with a very different proposal on the direction of the Welsh part of the Crown Estate. That argument was right then; it is right now.

Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Harlech would require the revenues of the Welsh part of the Crown Estate to be paid to the Exchequer after the devolution and transfer of functions to a new body. This would ensure that the existing revenues go to the Exchequer, which, as we all know from the rumours about the spending review next week, is already in great need of income. If control of the functions of the Welsh Crown Estate were to be devolved but the revenues continued to be paid to the Exchequer, that would at least achieve part of the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, without depriving the Exchequer of much-needed revenue. Perhaps the noble Lord is open to that.

My noble friend Lord Harper raised interesting and cautionary points about the Barnett formula more generally. Amendments 2 and 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan seek to ensure that the Welsh Crown Estate is bound by the same borrowing limits as the Crown Estate itself. As noble Lords will recall from the passage of the previous Bill, my noble friends Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lord Howard of Rising spoke at length and pressed Ministers to secure that borrowing limit. We were pleased that Ministers accepted those calls and implemented a borrowing limit, even though this was placed on a statutory footing. The amendment which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has sensibly tabled seeks to ensure that the Welsh Crown Estate is similarly bound by an appropriate limit on its borrowing. Here I should mention, of course, the important points that he made about the impact that this transfer would have on the future of energy, in this country as a whole and in Wales in particular, and the difficulties in apportioning that.

Amendment 3, in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, seeks to establish a backstop to prevent mismanagement of the Welsh Crown Estate. We know how poorly Wales is served by her current devolved Government. Whether it is education, healthcare or economic outcomes, Wales consistently underperforms, so much of this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Given that backdrop, it is understandable that noble Lords are a little more than reticent about proposals to take another step down that road, with a body as important as the Crown Estate and with such big assets. We on these Benches share the concern that motivates my noble friend in his amendment, and we would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government might consider some form of backstop such as that proposed by this amendment.

Amendments 4 and 7, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, reflect legitimate concerns about the untimely transfer of these powers in the event that the Bill is passed. Clearly, a sudden change so soon after we passed the Crown Estate Act, which sets a very different direction of travel for the Crown Estate, would be very disruptive to that new direction. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would respond to that point in his remarks at the conclusion of this group.

In summary, we have serious concerns about the transfer of the Welsh parts of the Crown Estate to a devolved framework. There are many important issues that must be addressed before this proposal could go forward. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Sandhurst

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add a few sentences to what the right reverend Prelate said. I preface that by noting that, when we built the Sentencing Council, the legislation was discussed and agreed. It was clear when this Bill was introduced that discussion and agreement were needed. I find it very disappointing that we have not been able to get together to find a satisfactory way to deal with this legislation other than by dropping it—I regard that now as gone.

I think it important that Ministers appreciate what the right reverend Prelate said. It is plain that pregnancy and maternity are characteristics, and one ought to ensure that all judges receive the same guidance as to obtaining pre-sentence reports. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are very keen that pregnant women do not go to prison, but they are not the law; the law is laid down by this unfortunate legislation. If there is one thing we can do to ensure that it does not wreak injustice, it is to allow the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate. There is a huge amount more that we should do, but, without a consensus and discussion between us, I do not believe that we can make any improvement. That is why I content myself with this very narrow point. We cannot be in a position where we cannot give guidance to courts that they should get a pre-sentence report to avoid sending pregnant women to prison.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the Bill’s progress in Committee. In particular, I acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. We have heard further thoughtful contributions today, not least from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.

None the less, from this side of the House, I wish to place on record our broad support for the principles that underpin the Bill. The use of pre-sentence reports, when applied rigorously, consistently and with due regard to the individual circumstances of the offender, is an essential part of a fair and effective justice system. They play a crucial role in informing judicial discretion, ensuring proportionality in sentencing and helping to reduce the risk of reoffending through appropriate rehabilitative measures. We welcome the intention of the Bill to strengthen and clarify the expectations around the preparation and consideration of pre-sentence reports. These seek to embed good practice across the system and to promote greater consistency in the court’s approach to sentencing.

However, while we on this side support the direction of travel, we remain mindful that sentencing is a complex and sensitive area of the law. It touches not only on legal principle but on human lives, social outcomes and the effective operation of our prison and probation systems. In that context, I will take a moment to acknowledge a specific concern raised by noble Lords in Committee: the lack of clarity around the term “personal characteristics” as it appears in the Bill. This is not a small point. If the legislation is to provide clear and workable guidance to practitioners, including report writers and the judiciary, we must be precise about what we mean. Any doubt or uncertainty in this area risks inconsistent application. It undermines the very consistency and fairness that the Bill seeks to promote. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on these concerns and consider whether further definition could be usefully provided.

More broadly, I echo the view expressed at earlier stages that, with just a little more time and careful consideration, we could strengthen and improve this legislation further. There remain questions that would benefit from additional scrutiny, and we should proceed with care. We must get this right, not only in the interest of justice but for the confidence of the public, the judiciary and those working on the front line of our criminal justice system. We on these Benches remain committed to working constructively with the Government, with noble Lords across the House and with all those who bring experience and insight to bear on this important issue.

I will turn briefly to the amendments in the first group. As for Amendments 1 and 7, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, we recognise that Amendment 1 seeks to provide clarity about the range of matters that the sentencer may take into account. We invite the Government to consider these during the Bill’s journey through the other place.