Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Wigley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wigley]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I thank Members on both sides of the Chamber who participated in our earlier debates, and I particularly thank all 22 county councils in Wales, which have each formally resolved to support the objectives of the Bill. Indeed, the Welsh Government have also called for the Crown Estate to be devolved in Wales. If the House allows the Bill to progress, I hope that there will be MPs in the other place who find time to take it forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the Bill getting this far. When the Minister replies, can he say whether this sets a useful precedent in relation to the Crown Estate’s assets in England, including the Duchy of Cornwall assets in England? Do the Government have any plans to bring a similar Bill to allow the transfer of those assets in England to the Government of the day?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government’s position on this matter has been made clear during earlier stages of both this Bill and the recent Crown Estate Act, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill. As this House has heard previously, the Government do not support the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as we believe the way it currently operates provides the best outcomes for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The addition of two new Crown Estate commissioners with special responsibility for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively is a positive step and will ensure that the Crown Estate board continues to work in the best interests of Wales. In answer to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we have no such plans that he asks about.

While I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill, the Government’s position is clear that we do not support devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Therefore, I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on this Bill.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for contributing and making the points that they have. I believe that these principles could well apply further afield in due course, though perhaps not immediately. I noted well the points made by the Minister; I only hope that the opportunity will now be given for colleagues from Wales in the House of Commons to make their voices heard from all sides of the House, and perhaps the Government could then think further about it on that basis.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The OBR will cost it precisely in the next EFO. I believe it will now raise approximately £300 million, but the OBR will confirm that in the next round of forecasts.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome, without reservation, the change made by the Government. The Minister will be aware of the considerable concern that there was among small farmers in Wales and the impact that the uncertainty was having on their sector. In that context, can he also have a look at the threat to that sector from the uncertainty arising from the possibility of imports from Australia and the southern hemisphere, which in a few years’ time could well undermine our domestic sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what we have announced. I absolutely hear what he says about those trade agreements made by the previous Government and I am more than happy to look further at what he asks about.

Taxes

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think that history is on my side here. On whether the Chancellor has the courage to do long-term reform and what is right for the British economy, she has shown that, absolutely she has.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Labour First Minister of Wales last week called for a wealth tax. Have the Government heard that, and will they take good notice of the Labour First Minister of Wales?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We listen carefully to all Budget representations, but as I say, I will not speculate on the next Budget now.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I join the cross-party consensus on the issue of skills. The Minister referred to the 16 to 19 year-old skills requirement age group. Does he also accept that, if we are going to successfully get investment into sectors such as the energy sector, which is a key part of the development the Government have in mind, the university sector must also get the resources that are needed? In view of the cutbacks that have taken place in the university sector over recent years, can the Government, in co-ordination with the devolved Governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, look particularly at this sector in order to get the resources in? We need action now. It will take three to five years before those people come out the other end, and we need them desperately to drive the scheme forward.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of that sector. He mentioned the example of the energy sector and, as I said, we have, in the industrial strategy, made an investment into engineering skills, which are particularly important in that sector. I hear what he is saying and we will keep driving towards what he wants us to achieve.

Regional Growth

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and the points that she makes. I think we would agree with a lot of what she says. She is supporting the importance of connectivity underlying much of our growth mission. That is obviously what we were starting to set out yesterday—as I say, just in the city regions for now, but next week, in the spending review, in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot comment on the specific road that she mentions ahead of that spending review, but of course I will take away what she says about that report and very much support what she says about connectivity.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Does the Minister accept that a key step in overcoming regional economic disparities is the mobilisation of the full labour force and, in particular, bringing into worthwhile employment young people who are fit to work and not in full-time education or training? What progress has been made to overcome regional disparities in that regard?

Spring Statement

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure that I liked the last part of the noble Lord’s question there. On our relationship with the EU, I am not sure that the Spring Statement is necessarily the place in which you update every single part of the Government’s policies. The Government are engaged in a reset of our relationship with the European Union. Anyone who has heard me speak in this House will know that I have very clear views on the economic impact of the previous Government’s Brexit deal; it reduced our GDP permanently by 4%. So, when we have a conversation about growth, we have to take that into account. That is exactly why the Government are engaged in resetting our relationship with the European Union. We have set out ambitious proposals for increasing our trade relationships and improving our security co-operation with the European Union. This Chancellor was the first to address European Finance Ministers since Brexit and this Prime Minister was the first to address his European colleagues since Brexit. This is a very serious set of proposals and we are taking it forward at pace. We are ambitious, even though we know that it will take time.

The welfare reforms were set out by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the House of Commons last week. She said that the figures were subject to final costings by the OBR. The Chancellor came to the House yesterday and updated those costings.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, next and then from my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a Radio Wales interview this morning on yesterday’s Spring Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to be aware that the First Minister of Wales, Eluned Morgan, had written to her two weeks ago about the serious financial issues facing Wales and still had not had a substantive reply? The Chancellor also did not seem to be aware that housing is a devolved matter in Wales or of how many new jobs her announcement about Newport will generate. In these circumstances, will the Government appoint a Welsh MP to a ministerial role in the Treasury explicitly to deal with matters relating to Wales?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am not in charge of the Chancellor’s correspondence unit, so I cannot say whether that letter has been replied to. I am also not responsible for appointing MPs to ministerial positions, so I cannot answer that point either.

What I can tell the noble Lord is that, as a result of the measures announced in the Spring Statement yesterday, £58 million of additional Barnett consequentials will be provided to the devolved Governments in 2025-26, £16 million of which will go to the Welsh Government. The UK Government have already made considerable progress on growth in Wales, including by confirming the Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone and designated tax sites in both the Celtic and Anglesey freeports, and by supporting steel communities through the Port Talbot Tata Steel transition board and providing £25 million of additional funding to the Welsh Government to keep coal tips safe.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 2A. I made a speech yesterday about how important it was that this House got back to normal, listened to debates and responded in a constructive way. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for the generous way in which he has responded to the amendment. I certainly would not wish to press it, having had the assurances he has given, which are very much appreciated.

This is not the occasion to make a long speech on the dangers of fish farming, but I draw attention to a report produced in recent weeks by a charity called WildFish, on the uncomfortable reality of farmed salmon. Rather than going through the content of it, I will email it to a number of colleagues who may be interested to read it. It really is quite shocking to see the damage that has been done to wild fish and the food we eat in prodigious quantities, in the form of smoked salmon and other salmon products.

I was grateful to the Minister for underlining the fact that, with wild salmon, we are dealing with an endangered species, one that is essential to the life of the river as a whole and that is an indicator of the quality of our rivers. Freshwater mussels, for example, are unable to breed because they are carried in the gills of wild salmon. This is an important part of the ecology of our rivers.

This was not given much consideration in the other place: there were about two paragraphs on something that is utterly vital to the health and well-being of our people, as well as of the Atlantic salmon, that wonderful fish. But I very much welcome what the Minister said. I hope that the Crown Estate commissioners in England will be able to lean on their colleagues north of the border and suggest to them that they might follow the excellent advice given today by the Minister. I have been puzzling about why the Minister has been so helpful and so accommodating but unable to accept this amendment. I have a feeling that somebody got on the phone from Edinburgh and talked to somebody in the Government—but I have no evidence to support that. I hope that somebody in the Crown Estate commissions south of the border will get on the phone to somebody in Edinburgh.

Some people have said, “Surely this is just about Scotland, because most of the fish farms are in Scotland”. I just point out that the salmon from English rivers have to make their way up north past these salmon farms, which infect those fish with disease and lice as a result of the way in which they are managed. This is killing and removing that beautiful wild Atlantic salmon, which used to be plentiful in English rivers as well as in Scotland.

Without taking more of the House’s time, I am most grateful to the Minister and I hope that the initiatives he has taken will help to prolong the wild Atlantic salmon for years to come.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment with regard to the salmon and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the stand that he has made and the excellent contributions he made at earlier stages on the Bill.

I too welcome the steps that the Minister is taking, but can he explain how the mechanics would work in relation to Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved—but also in Wales, where we still have salmon, mercifully, though in small quantities, in rivers such as the Dyfi? In Wales there is always a danger of the salmon suffering, though not as great a danger as there is in relation to fish farms in Scotland. How will the mechanics work with regard to the devolved responsibilities for wildlife and waterways but the non-devolved responsibilities when it comes to the Crown Estate? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that—but otherwise I certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a quick question on this. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He pursued this amendment with great vigour, and we have some form of concession from the Government. Is there going to be a reporting back mechanism in place? How do we review it in maybe two or three years?

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord not only for his question but for his significant contribution to the role, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing commitment to resolving the Horizon scandal and his work within the advisory board. He is right that Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry chose not to look at the issues concerning the audit of the Post Office. I know colleagues on the advisory board have aired these matters with the Financial Reporting Council, which is the right thing to do, and I look forward to ultimately hearing the outcome from the FRC.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to 4,500 cases having been settled, if I heard her correctly. Can she tell the House how many more cases are awaiting, and by what stage would she expect to reach, say, 90% payment? These people have been waiting for so long, and justice delayed is justice denied.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. The volumes coming through each of the schemes are very differing. If I take the HSS, for example, which is the scheme with the most volume, a significant volume is going through that: 3,400 offers have been accepted and 3,350 claims have been paid in full. However, there are 7,082 claims out there that are still being looked at, and making sure we address them quickly is a priority of the Government. A lot of activity has been taken in that regard—for example, giving fixed-claim sums to claimants—with the goal of speeding up the process.

The noble Lord referred to the 90% target that the department applies to the schemes that are operated by the Department for Business and Trade. I note that, in particular, the GLO scheme is operating at 89%, against the target of 90%. That 90% is about claims being reviewed within 40 days of receipt. There are some ideas that we could perhaps up that target—why would it not be 100%?—but there is a balance to be struck there, because the claimants need to make sure that they are getting appropriate time to review and understand the offer being made to them. We do not want to inadvertently apply some pressure or duress for them to review those claims in a process that suits our timelines but perhaps not theirs, so, at this point, that 90% target is appropriate.

Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Wigley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wigley]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I was first drawn into politics in Wales by the action of Liverpool Corporation in the late 1950s, when it purloined the Tryweryn valley in Meirionnydd, turfed out the farmers and villagers and, despite huge local and national opposition, built a reservoir, selling water at a profit to Merseyside industrial customers. That event triggered Plaid Cymru’s parliamentary breakthrough in 1966, which itself led to the SNP’s breakthrough in 1967. Britain’s 50 years of devolutionary politics grew out of the drowning of Tryweryn.

Wales has a history of exploitation of our natural resources, whether it is coal or other minerals, or our water resources, on which Birmingham and London now increasingly depend, as we heard even this morning. We likewise see the exploitation of our energy potential—wave, sea currents, estuarial waters and wind on shore and in the seas around our coast. My Plaid Cymru colleagues and I want to see the maximum possible benefit from such projects coming into the Welsh economy; we want to see that happen in a planned manner that recognises the financial benefit that should rightly come to those who invest in such projects, but also to the communities in which they are based. We want to see such potential developed in co-operation with the Welsh Government, local authorities and industrial development agencies. That means working in partnership and avoiding the totally unacceptable and unnecessary tensions and bitterness generated by the Tryweryn issue.

The Bill for which I request a Second Reading today deals with the democratic control of Wales’s natural resources. The Crown Estate assets in Wales include two-thirds of the Welsh foreshore and tidal river beds. It has control over certain ports, including the strategically important Milford Haven; it has rights over tidal streams, such as Ramsey Sound and Swnt Enlli; and it has control of over 50,000 acres of land in Wales. It is a major operator within the Welsh economy and will get even larger with the exploitation of clean energy potential off our coast.

The Bill enables the Treasury to make a scheme transferring all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers in Senedd Cymru. The Bill is an enabling one, giving the Treasury a mechanism for such a transfer. It gives it an agenda on which to work, and it is our hope that it will pursue it.

The Bill draws on the steps taken by the Conservative Government in transferring to the Scottish Parliament control over the Crown Estate in Scotland via the Scotland Act 2016 and the 2017 Crown Estate statutory transfer scheme. The powers so transferred were over property, rights and interests in land in Scotland and rights relating to the Scottish renewable energy zone. The devolved Crown Estate benefited the Scottish Government by £113 million in 2023-24. The Crown Estate is not devolved to Wales, and Senedd Cymru gets no such benefit.

The Crown Estate Bill is now progressing through the Commons. I remind the House of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, during the passage of that Bill:

“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”.—[Official Report, 14/10/24; col. 16.]


The noble Lord subsequently tabled an amendment providing for the appointment of a commissioner responsible for giving the Crown Commissioners advice about Wales. Supporting that move, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who I am glad to see in his place today, said that he had a “great deal of sympathy” with the points made in relation to devolving the Crown Estate to Wales.

There have been voices from all four mainstream political parties in Senedd Cymru and the county councils, expressing anger at the way in which the Crown Estate is treating Wales. Gwynedd Council is asked to pay the Crown Estate £160,000 annually, merely to secure access to our own shoreline. Senedd Members voted by 35 votes to 13 in support of a motion to devolve Crown Estate responsibility to Senedd Cymru. Just two weeks ago, Finance Minister Mark Drakeford stated, on the record:

“I think that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales, as it is to Scotland, and that would give us a better opportunity in Wales to take advantage of our natural resources”.


The advice that the proposed commissioner will give the Crown Estate will no doubt reflect the opinion of Welsh Government Ministers on the way in which Crown Estate profits arising from its activities in Wales should be used. Profits of the Crown Estate have grown substantially over recent years. Its revenue profit obtained from Wales is estimated to have increased from £9 million per annum in 2021 to £35 million per annum in 2024.

We have to estimate those figures, because the Crown Estate, incredibly, stopped publishing profit figures for Wales in 2021. Plaid MPs have been given the lame excuse that

“it is not possible to disaggregate net revenue profit attributable to Wales”.

If it was possible to disaggregate the figures up to 2021, why not now? So we are left in the position where the proposed commissioner will not be told about the profits made by the Crown Estate in Wales—or will he? Or she, indeed?

It is little wonder that Wales’s Finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, reiterated last week his call for control of the Crown Estate to be devolved to Wales. Mr Drakeford and the First Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, have long called for the Crown Estate to be devolved to Wales, but UK Ministers apparently will not listen.

In an Answer to a Question by Llinos Medi, MP for Ynys Môn, the Treasury Minister, Darren Jones MP, stated:

“The UK Government has had no discussions with the Welsh Government on devolving the Crown Estate”.


It is unacceptable that policy decisions impacting on Wales are made by UK Labour Ministers without discussing them with Welsh Government colleagues.

On Report of the Crown Estate Bill, an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, would have required the Treasury to transfer responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. That amendment was supported by Labour, Conservative and Cross-Bench colleagues from Wales as well as Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Peers. It was defeated by 147 votes to 74.

I will briefly outline the content of this Bill, which is a straightforward two-clause, four-page document. Clause 1 provides that there be inserted into the Wales Act 2017, after Section 52, new Section 52A authorising the Treasury to make a scheme transferring all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The scheme must provide for the transfer of designated rights and liabilities of the commissioners in connection with the functions transferred. The scheme must include provision to include that any person in Crown employment is not adversely affected by the transfer. The scheme must also safeguard the interests of defence and security and matters relating to telecommunications. It must not conflict with the interest of reserved matters or with the transmission or distribution of electricity. Such a scheme may be made only with the agreement of Welsh Ministers and no statutory instrument can be made unless a draft instrument is approved by Senedd Cymru. Clause 2 deals only with the extent, commencement and Short Title.

I thank the Public Bill Office for its help in drawing up this Bill, but emphasise that any shortcomings in the Bill are mine and mine alone. Such weaknesses can be addressed in Committee if colleagues are so minded. The Bill may then perhaps progress to give Welsh MPs a chance to stand up for their colleagues in Cardiff and enable the Bill to reach the statute book. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and even more grateful to colleagues from all parties who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful for the support that has come from the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Anderson—albeit that he spoke earlier than he had intended, it was very welcome—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, my colleague and noble friend Lady Smith, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Humphreys, who has done so much work on this matter. I regret very much that my friend from Monmouth was unable to support the Bill, but he left a glimmer of hope that, if not now, there might be a time. Perhaps we can come back to that. With regard to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, from the Front Bench, she recognised the case but said that the Government cannot at this stage move forward with it.

With regard to getting the maximum possible benefit from the elements that Wales has—wind, water and all the rest—around its coast, there needs to be cross-government co-operation between the Government of Wales in Cardiff and the UK Government. In order to facilitate that, the Crown Estate must surely see the benefit of the positive energy that comes from maximising the output from our own resources and arrange things in a way that encourages that to happen.

I hope we will get a Second Reading today and that we can go into a meaningful Committee stage. I noted the points the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made about that and look forward to it. These arguments will not go away. The Minister had discussions with his colleagues in Cardiff in November, I think, and I hope that he will keep in touch with them. I had a meeting a fortnight ago with our erstwhile colleague here, the First Minister of Wales. These are matters that are of concern to them, and they will arise in the election, on a new format, to the Senedd in Cardiff in less than 18 months’ time.

There is a need to get some co-ordination on this. Even if this Bill is not the vehicle, there must be some way of maximising the co-ordination and benefit that comes to Wales from the resources around our coasts. If it can be done for Scotland, surely it can be done for Wales too.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Insurance: GDP

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care in 2025-26.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, colleagues in all parts of the House will have received representations on a scheme drawn up to help disabled children get to school, which is being undermined and will probably have to close down as a result of this increase in national insurance payments. Was that sort of scheme considered by the Government, or was it not considered at all before this decision was taken?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not aware of the specific scheme that the noble Lord raises, but I will happily look into it and I shall write to him on it.