Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided.

We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government, the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn.

As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing

“is better placed outside of legislation”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.]

and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury.

The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised?

[Mark Pritchard]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Crown Estate and Treasury’s framework agreement was ineffective, or that at least it could have been strengthened. The memorandum of understanding is in a similar vein. I therefore support him.

Will he comment on this? I have concerns about the Bill. I agree with the general principle but there are potential fiscal and reputational hazards ahead for the Crown—not just the Crown Estate—if some of the investments go south. Also, at the moment there is a link between the Crown Estate and the sovereign grant. I think it is around 12%, as not all the income to the sovereign grant is derived from the Crown Estate. However, if the investments were to go wrong, who would be liable? If we have a weak MOU with no statutory oversight, it is more likely to go wrong.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech.

It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee.

The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny?

Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future?

Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

Indeed, the press release went on to say it

“will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.

However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return?

The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate

“will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.”

That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit

“under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.”

Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more.

Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer.

As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts

“to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed”

for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that

“further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.]

they would bring forward an amendment.

I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value.

Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage.

[Mr Carmichael]

Salmon farming is enormously important in my community and in many other communities around the highlands and islands. Those communities will not be affected by this apparently, although we might hear conformation on that at a later stage, but is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that this is the only way of regulating salmon farmers? Is he not aware that there is a massive amount of regulation affecting salmon farming already? Does he really think that the Crown Estate commissioners are the people to be doing this job?

[James Wild]

Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Hansard reports of the debates in the other place where this issue was covered at some great length, so I defer to the points made by Lord Forsyth there. Regulation is obviously in place, but this addition would simply raise awareness of the issues in the Bill. The Government said that they supported the objective of the amendment when it was discussed in the other House, but did not think it was necessary. They did not think that it would do any damage, so I suggest that it remains part of the Bill.

To conclude, the Crown Estate Bill will help deliver the modernisation that is needed, but the purpose must be supporting the estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers, rather than becoming an extension of GB Energy’s cheque book. We will be pursuing the concerns that I have raised about checks on borrowing governance, the relationship with GB Energy and the safeguards in response to the disposal of assets to ensure that that remains the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate.

This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies.

The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate.

A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents.

I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage?

I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners.

That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming?

To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister to wind up.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail] or, alternatively, pass their written notes to them in the room.

The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called to speak first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak by bobbing which, as you all know, means standing up in your place.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Finally, I remind Members about the code of conduct relating to registered interests. If any Members wish to declare an interest, they should do so now. As there are no interests, I will call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 6 February) meet at 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 February and 9.25 on Tuesday 11 February;

2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 11 February.—(James Murray.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(James Murray.)

Clause 1

Power of Crown Estate Commissioners to borrow etc

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit 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.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury must by regulations limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations.

Clause stand part.

[James Wild]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to get the Committee started this morning. The clause amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to remove certain statutory restrictions on the commissioners’ powers, and it clarifies and expands those powers in certain respects. Specifically, it broadens the Crown Estate’s investment powers and confers a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent.

As well as moving the amendment, I will speak to the clause. The Crown Estate Bill was conceived under the previous Government, and I am pleased that it has now progressed to this stage. We support the objective of the clause, which is to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it.

As the Committee knows, assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, and nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown—in other words, they are owned by the Crown as an institution, not personally by the monarch. The concept of the Crown encompasses the interests of both the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is important. The Estate has assets worth £15.5 billion and a portfolio of 185,000 acres, and it manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline. It is also the largest contiguous owner in the west end.

The Crown Estate returns all its net profits to the Treasury. In 2023-24, it recorded a net profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, which is a laudable record, but there is the potential to do more. The Crown Estate estimates that the changes in the clause will enable it to generate £100 million per annum in additional revenues to the Treasury by 2030. That is forecast in the original business case that led to this legislation. It is therefore right that we should help to modernise the Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

At present, the Crown Estate is limited to making investments in certain types of property and certain restricted types of security held on the Crown Estate’s behalf by the national debt commissioners. The Estate’s powers to borrow for the purposes of discharging or redeeming incumbrances affecting the Estate are very limited. The Bill will modernise the Estate by removing those limitations.

Although we support the borrowing power, we are concerned that there is a lack of parliamentary oversight over the borrowing levels. This is a new power. The Crown Estate should be prudent on the level of borrowing. The purpose must be supporting the Estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers. That is why we have tabled amendment 4, which would limit the amount the commissioners may borrow instruments. Specifically, the amendment would limit borrowing to a net debt-to asset value ratio of no more than 25% initially.

When pushed by Baroness Vere and other noble Friends in the other place, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing is better placed outside legislation and that controls would be set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury. On Second Reading, the Minister repeated that, saying:

“There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.]

The target borrowing level in that MOU sets out that the loan-to-value ratio should not exceed 25%. Given that the Government agree that there should be a limit, we should introduce robust safeguards in statute to protect against unconstrained borrowing. An MOU between the Treasury and the Crown Estate is easily altered at the stroke of a pen. If Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction to allow the Crown Estate to borrow, I struggle to see the logic in why the Government think that the cap they have committed to should not initially be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it by secondary legislation, if necessary. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those concerns and confirm whether the Government have considered this proposal since Second Reading.

A limit must be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is a proportionate step that will ensure that the Crown Estate can access that borrowing to maintain and enhance the value of its land, property, and interests for the benefit of the nation. However, borrowing can be risky, and this is a new power, so it should be subject to some controls and we should be cautious. I contend that amendment 4 is a perfectly reasonable check on the borrowing power, and I hope we can get the Committee off to a positive start, with the Minister accepting it.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Amendment 7 is similar to amendment 4, and is supportive of its essence. It is about introducing a sensible borrowing limit for the Crown Estate commissioners by capping their net debt-to-asset value ratio at 25%, with any change to that limit requiring parliamentary approval.

As we have just heard, clause 1 as it stands grants the Crown Estate significant new powers to borrow and access financial assistance from the Treasury. Although investment in the Crown Estate’s portfolio—particularly in areas such as offshore wind—is welcome, it is vital that we ensure fiscal responsibility and protect the long-term value of these assets for the nation.

Amendment 7 is about introducing proper safeguards. The Crown Estate manages over £16 billion in assets, and its revenues contribute directly to the Treasury and public finances. Without a clear borrowing limit, we could risk unchecked debt accumulation, which could ultimately undermine the Estate’s financial sustainability and reduce the returns it provides to the Exchequer. A 25% debt-to-asset ratio is a reasonable cap and allows for investment and growth, but prevents excessive leveraging that could put the Estate’s finances at risk. Crucially, the amendment also ensures parliamentary oversight. Any changes to the limit must be debated and approved by both Houses, rather than left solely to the discretion of the Treasury.

This is not about preventing the Crown Estate from borrowing; it is about ensuring that borrowing is responsible, transparent and aligned with the long-term interests of the nation. Given the Crown Estate’s unique status and the importance of its revenues to the public purse, it is only right that Parliament retains a say over any significant increase in borrowing capacity. The amendment would only confirm assurances that were provided in the other House by Lord Livermore. In his work with Baroness Kramer, we were assured that there would be a cap on borrowing to 20% of the loan-to-value ratio in the updated framework agreement. Amendments 4 and 7 reflect those promises, and I urge the Government to support amendment 7 to safeguard the financial integrity of the Crown Estate and ensure that borrowing powers are used wisely and with proper oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said, clause 1 will provide the Crown Estate with the powers to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarifies its investment powers. Together, these changes will modernise the Crown Estate, give it the tools it needs to compete more effectively in the commercial world and, as a result, increase the revenue it generates for the public purse. I therefore commend clause 1 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I am disappointed to hear the Minister’s response. He did not quite address the point that an MoU —I appreciate that he has provided a draft to the Committee—can simply be changed if Ministers and the Crown Estate decide they want to change the level. Only in the last week or so, we have passed into law the charter for Budget responsibility, setting out the Government’s fiscal rules in statute, so I am not sure why there is an in-principle objection to setting out such borrowing in legislation. I think that that would be a prudent step, as we and the Crown Estate embark on a new period with this borrowing power. I will therefore push my amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Number of Crown Estate Commissioners and their salaries and expenses

[James Wild]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 11 at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioners must notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework governing remuneration of the Chief Executive set out in the Framework Document.

(5B) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any notification received under subsection (5A).”

This amendment requires Commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any changes to the remuneration of the Chief Executive, who must lay that notification before Parliament.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[James Wild]

The clause amends schedule 1 to the Crown Estate Act 1961. Specifically, it will increase the number of commissioners from eight to 12 and require them to be paid out of the returns generated by the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, as is the case currently.

Clause 2 is intended to bring the Crown Estate’s operating practice in line with best practice for corporate governance. Subsection (2) seeks to provide the flexibility to allow the board to include a combination of executive and non-executive directors, to reflect its increasingly diverse activities. Subsection (2) also removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner—a post currently held by the chief executive—to be the deputy chairman. This measure seeks to satisfy best practice standards, whereby the roles of chairman and chief exec should not be exercised by the same person.

We are supportive of the changes, and I put on record again my thanks to Baroness Vere of Norbiton for pushing the Government to give assurances that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. I understand that we are waiting for the Treasury Committee to set a date for the pre-appointment hearing for Ric Lewis. Subsection (3) requires the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the returns of the estate to reflect the Crown Estate’s commercial freedom and function, and to place the commissioners in a position that is more consistent with general commercial practice.

I turn now to amendment 5, which is tabled in my name. As I have set out, as well as modifying the governance, clause 2 alters the way in which the commissioners are paid. Parliament will no longer need to approve the salaries and expenses of the commissioners and their staff. However, I believe that some form of parliamentary oversight is needed. At present, the estimate details supply finance and is voted on by Parliament at the beginning of the financial year. Amendment 5 would simply require the commissioners to

“notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework governing remuneration of the Chief Executive set out in the Framework Document.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would then be required to lay before Parliament any such notification.

Currently, the remuneration policy and framework for the Crown Estate’s staff is the responsibility of the board’s remuneration committee, and the framework document states:

“The Committee will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.”

Given that Parliament will no longer be needed to approve the salaries, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to ensure that Parliament is at least notified of any changes to the remuneration policy that affect the chief executive?

At present, the framework document sets out that the

“maximum remuneration of the Chief Executive should be in line with or below that of the lower quartile of an appropriate benchmark group agreed with HM Treasury.”

It also states that

“the clear majority of the Chief Executive’s total reward package should be conditional upon performance, with a significant element of that conditional upon long term performance”,

given the Crown Estate’s primary duty. The Opposition support rewarding success and the delivery of targets, but any such changes to the policy should be considered by Parliament.

On Second Reading, the Minister said:

“As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.]

We absolutely agree on that, but I struggle to see how ensuring that Parliament is simply notified of changes to the chief executive’s pay policy will restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to compete for top talent. It is about transparency, and it would simply provide much-needed scrutiny to a process for which there is currently parliamentary oversight, given the statutory purpose of the Crown Estate. I would welcome support for our amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[James Murray]

I will turn to amendment 5 in a moment, but I will begin by briefly setting out what clause 2 seeks to achieve. The clause makes changes to the Crown Estate’s governance to bring the Crown Estate’s constitution in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. The clause makes three changes, which I will deal with in turn.

First, the clause increases the maximum number of commissioners on the Crown Estate’s board from eight to 12. That will provide the Crown Estate with the flexibility it needs to satisfy best practice standards for modern corporate governance. For example, the change will allow the Crown Estate’s board to include a wider combination of executive and non-executive members, both to reflect its increasingly diverse and wide-ranging activities and to enable it to adopt appropriate committee structures.

However, I assure the Committee that although we are increasing the number of commissioners, we are not changing the way in which they are appointed to the role, except for the new commissioner roles introduced by clause 6. The exact number and the respective roles of the commissioners within that new maximum will remain subject to the public appointments process. As such, additional commissioners will be appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, as is usual practice. That also includes the new commissioners with special responsibility that we will consider in our debate on clause 6, for which there will also be a process of consultation with the relevant devolved Government. The chair will face additional pre-appointment scrutiny, as the Financial Secretary confirmed in the other place.

Secondly, the clause removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner, a post currently held by the chief executive, to be deputy chair. This change will align the Crown Estate with best practice standards that set out that the roles of chair and chief executive should not be exercised by a single individual.

Thirdly, the clause will require the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the return obtained from the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which is the current position. Changing the source of funding for commissioner salaries is intended to demonstrate more clearly the relationship between the relevant expenditure and Crown Estate income, while also reflecting the Crown Estate’s commercial functions. However, the pay of the chair and other non-executive commissioners will continue to be set by Treasury Ministers. In line with the UK corporate governance code, that will not include any performance-related element.

[James Murray]

The hon. Member asks about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, to which I was just about to turn. If he will allow, I will address the amendment and that will answer at least some of the questions he raises in his intervention.

Amendment 5 would require the commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework for the chief executive set out in the framework document and for such notification to be laid before Parliament by the Chancellor. I will set out the current arrangements on remuneration for the chief executive of the Crown Estate.

How the chief executive is paid is a matter for the Crown Estate’s board in the first instance. However, the pay is set with reference to the agreement between the Treasury and at a level that is at the lower end of the Crown Estate’s comparable peers, reflecting the national significance of the organisation. The framework document between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is clear that the Crown Estate

“will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.”

I think that very much delivers on the spirit of the amendment.

The Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts already include as a matter of course a comprehensive report on remuneration and details of the chief executive’s pay. Taken together, those arrangements already deliver on the essence of the amendment and I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The primary intention of the Bill is to modernise the Crown Estate and ensure that it is best able to operate in a modern, commercial environment. These changes are central to that aim.

[James Wild]

I am grateful for the contributions on this point and for the Minister’s response. I have read the framework agreement closely. At the moment, the Crown Estate will notify the Treasury of changes and ultimately the Treasury will come to Parliament through the estimates process to approve the pay, based on that policy.

What is going to change is that the Crown Estate will be paying from within the income it generates. While the Treasury may still know that there has been a change, no one else will necessarily know. Although I take the point that the annual report will detail any changes, there will be a lag—the policy could have been in place for some time before that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you on this Committee, Ms Furniss. I would like to echo the final points—not some of the other points, obviously—of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth regarding reassurances from the Minister about the economic benefit that these offshore projects will create for local communities. I represent a coastal community with the beautiful Fylde coastline, and north of us is Blackpool and Fleetwood. The Crown Estate owns significant amounts of seabed off the coast of Fylde. There are a number of projects under way, including the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm, which will cable through Fylde constituency to get to the national grid.

These amendments reference the Environment Act 2021 and regional economic growth. Can the Minister give reassurances that when projects such as offshore wind go ahead—they could be further encouraged by these amendments—local communities will be taken into account regarding the economic benefit? At the minute, a lot of the projects end up being opposed by and very unpopular with local communities, because all they see is the environmental damage being done to their area, countryside and coastline, and there is no economic benefit left from residual cabling that runs through areas. Although I welcome some of what the amendments try to do, I seek assurances that, at the heart of this, we have the communities who are negatively impacted by these projects seeing benefit as well.

[James Wild]

Clause 3, the first of several clauses added on Report in the House of Lords, will amend section 1 of the 1961 Act to require the commissioners to review the impact of their activities on achieving sustainable development.

[The Chair]

Order. Can I stop the shadow Minister? We are talking about only amendments 1, 6 and 8. The debate on clause 3 stand part will come later.

[James Wild]

Okay. Amendment 1 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to have regard to net zero targets, regional economic growth and ensuring resilience in various areas. Instinctively, I am a bit sceptical about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate, given that its primary purpose is to generate a return for the nation. As I mentioned in passing, clause 3 already applies a sustainable development duty. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes spoke pretty persuasively, so I look forward to the assurances that the Minister might give before we see whether the Committee divides on the amendment.

[James Murray]

With your permission, Ms Furniss, I will briefly add to the comments that I made in the previous debate, because the shadow Minister asked about the appointment of the chair. On 23 December, the Government announced Ric Lewis as our preferred candidate for chair of the Crown Estate. The Government also confirmed that the appointment would be subject to a parliamentary pre-appointment hearing. Under paragraph 9.2 of the governance code on public appointments, political donations should be publicly disclosed if the successful candidate has made a significant donation or loan to a party in the last five years. That will happen if the appointment is confirmed, following the Treasury Committee’s report, and a subsequent announcement is made. Thank you for your patience, Ms Furniss.

Amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), and to which other hon. Members have spoken, would require the Crown Estate commissioners, in reviewing the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development, to have specific regard to the UK’s net zero targets, to regional economic growth and to ensuring resilience in respect of managing uncertainty, risk and national security interests. I was glad to meet my hon. Friend on Tuesday to discuss the amendment. The Government understand the motive behind it, but it is important first to set out the context for clause 3. I will be brief, as I realise that we will debate clause 3 stand part later.

The Government and the Crown Estate welcomed the addition of clause 3 on Report in the other place, as a clarified and enhanced accountability on the Crown Estate to deliver environmental, social and economic outcomes. The Crown Estate is already a trailblazer in its efforts on tackling climate change and supporting the environment, which I will address in more detail later. Clause 3 will require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. It is important to note that the public framework document that governs the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury will be updated in the light of clause 3 to include a definition of sustainable development and to confirm that the Crown Estate will continue to include specific information on its activities in its annual report.

The Crown Estate Act 1961 established the Crown Estate as a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace. It is analogous to a private sector commercial operator. The commissioners operate under a clear commercial objective, as set out in the Act, to “maintain and enhance” the value of the estate. At the same time, the Crown Estate can and does focus on activities that closely align with wider national interests, including on the environment, net zero, our nation’s energy needs and sustainable economic growth. As a public body, the Crown Estate seeks to work with the grain of prevailing Government policy.

In addition to its core commercial objective, the Crown Estate operates under a duty in the 1961 Act to have

“due regard to the requirements of good management.”

This obliges the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate responsibly. Good management practices include maintaining a strong governance structure, adhering to best practices in risk management, and fostering a culture of accountability and transparency.

It is important for the Bill to stand the test of time as new, relevant areas of concern on the environment, society and the economy emerge over the coming decades. These currently include net zero and regional economic growth, which are given regard by the Crown Estate and should be covered in its annual report. The general term “sustainable development” was chosen because it is broad and captures the widest range of relevant concerns across the environment, society and the economy, now and as priorities in those areas evolve over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which we discussed in the Chamber. The crux of this amendment is that there is a mandate for the Marine Maritime Organisation, which is the body that mediates. The Crown Estate is being given new powers for borrowing and investing, and therefore has a vested interest in the prioritisation of activities that are allocated along the seabed and our coasts. That is good, given its amazing, award-winning geospatial mapping prowess.

We have just heard examples of how it is showing the Government scenarios for the economic income and gain that can be gathered from different uses. However, despite that prowess, the Crown Estate should not be the one to prioritise or make the final decision about which activities take place. Communities and other users must be fully consulted. The MMO is mandated to do that, and DEFRA has the marine spatial prioritisation framework, within which the Crown Estate should contribute and co-ordinate. That is the assurance we seek through this amendment.

[James Wild]

I rise briefly to speak to amendment 9, not least because I represent North West Norfolk, which is next door to North Norfolk where I grew up. It is sometimes quite difficult to get the local names correct, but Happisburgh is actually pronounced “Haysborough”, rather than “Happisberg”. I wanted to get that on the record, because people there feel quite strongly about it—it is a mistake that is inadvertently made quite a lot.

It is important to protect national assets such as those at Bacton from coastal erosion. I would expect the Crown Estate already to be taking account of such requirements, and the Government to be doing likewise through their wider planning and strategic approach to coastal erosion, so I look forward to the Minister’s response on how coastal erosion will be prevented.

[James Murray]

I rise to speak to amendment 9 and new clause 10.

Amendment 9, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would mean that in satisfying proposed new subsection (3A) of the 1961 Act, which states,

“The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”,

the commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. I very much understand the concerns reflected in the amendment, but protections against coastal erosion are not the responsibility of the Crown Estate, and therefore the amendment is not relevant to the Bill.

The UK has dedicated statutory bodies under each devolved Administration with responsibility for ensuring adequate protection against coastal erosion. The Crown Estate always collaborates and complies with the relevant statutory authority for any assessment of the impact of offshore activity on coastal erosion, and the potential for coastal erosion should be considered as part of marine licensing, which is considered by the relevant regulator, depending on the jurisdiction. However, the statutory responsibility falls on the relevant body in each devolved area.

The Crown Estate becomes involved in coastal defence only when the statutory bodies responsible for coastal erosion wish to construct defences. In such cases, the Crown Estate typically grants leases to those bodies for defence works.

Although the Crown Estate is not responsiblefor coastal erosion, the Government are committed to supporting coastal communities and are investing ausb record £2.65 billion over two years in building, maintaining and repairing our flood and coastal defences. Shoreline management plans are developed and owned by local councils and coastal protection authorities to provide long-term strategic plans that identify approaches to managing coastal erosion and flood risk at every stretch of the coastline. Shoreline management plans have recently been refreshed with updated action plans, following several years of collaborative work between the Environment Agency and coastal groups.

The Environment Agency has published the updated national coastal risk map for England, which is based on monitoring coastal data, the latest climate change evidence and technical input from coastal local authorities. There are also strong safeguards to manage the flood and coastal risk through the planning system. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I turn to new clause 10, which would require that in relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must ensure the decisions are co-ordinated with the priorities of the Marine Management Organisation and must consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.

I can confirm to the Committee that the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation already have well-established ways of working together to ensure effective collaboration for marine spatial planning and prioritisation. The Crown Estate’s collaboration with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant statutory bodies is governed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which establishes the framework for marine planning and licensing in the UK, and requires the Crown Estate to have regard to marine policy documents such as marine plans in its decision making. It is also governed by the habitat regulations, which require the Crown Estate to conduct plan-level habitat regulation assessments for leasing or licensing activities.

Furthermore, the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation jointly agreed a statement of intent in 2020, which is reviewed periodically to provide a focus on priorities and opportunities for alignment, as well as longer-term ambitions. The statement of intent complements a memorandum of understanding agreed in February 2011, which sets out a framework to encourage co-operation and co-ordination between parties in relation to the sustainable development of the seabed and rights managed by the Crown Estate, based on active management, shared information and effective marine planning and management by both parties.

In addition to the Crown Estate’s relationship with the Marine Management Organisation, there are also various regulatory requirements on developers leasing areas of the seabed from the Crown Estate to engage with the Marine Management Organisation through a number of routes. Those include through marine licensing; developers must obtain marine licences from the Marine Management Organisation for activities that could impact on the marine environment. The process involves consultation with statutory bodies and adherence to marine plan policies. As part of a marine licence application, developers must also conduct environmental impact assessments for projects that could significantly affect the environment, which includes consultation with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant authorities to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. Developers are also encouraged to engage with local communities, statutory bodies and other stakeholders throughout the planning and development process to address concerns and ensure compliance with marine plans.

This new clause therefore duplicates existing regulatory requirements and practice. I hope the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

The Minister might have pre-empted my speaking to the new clause. The new clause would ensure that local and coastal communities see real benefits from Crown Estate activities by requiring a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made and by mandating that at least 5% of net profits be transferred to impacted communities.

For too long, communities, particularly coastal communities, have borne the impact of large-scale offshore developments without seeing a fair share of the financial benefits; we heard that earlier today. The Crown Estate generates billions in revenue from offshore wind farms, marine industries and land developments, yet too often local people see little direct return. The new clause seeks to redress that imbalance and would ensure that those communities benefit from our journey towards net zero, taking people with us.

First, the new clause would ensure transparency and accountability by requiring that the Crown Estate formally assess community benefits before making investment decisions. That would mean that local communities would no longer be an afterthought. They must be considered from the outset in decisions affecting their livelihoods, identity, infrastructure and environment.

Secondly, the new clause would establish a concrete financial commitment by mandating that at least 5% of the profits generated by the Crown Estate’s activities must be reinvested in local communities impacted. That is a fair and proportionate measure, recognising that those communities are often on the frontline of change, whether it be from offshore energy projects, tourism pressures or rural land use shifts. The kickbacks could be revolutionary for towns and villages across the UK and would be a real testament to how clean energy can level up communities.

The new clause is about not just fairness, but economic regeneration. It would provide a direct funding stream to support local jobs, infrastructure, training and environmental projects, and ensure that prosperity generated from our shared natural resources is not centralised in Whitehall or in corporate boardrooms, but flows directly back to the people and places most affected.

If the Government are serious about levelling up and supporting coastal and rural communities and economies, they should have no issue backing the new clause. It is practical, and it would enable us to manage the different developments. It does not seek to block development; it would ensure that development happens fairly and sustainably, with proper co-ordination.

[James Wild]

I will briefly speak to new clause 11. On Second Reading, we heard a lot of debate and discussion about the role of community benefits. As I mentioned, I represent a coastal area where there are existing community benefit schemes through the operators of the offshore wind projects that operate on the East Anglian coast.

The Energy Secretary, who seems to be on a one- man mission to put solar farms on farmland and to put pylons across the countryside with no regard to the impact on communities or nature, has said that the Government will bring forward their own approach to community benefits. I am a strong supporter of community benefits, and I look forward to the Energy Secretary coming forward with that plan. It seems to be the best approach and context in which to address the important points raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Members for their comments. To reiterate, the Crown Estate already works with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demand and to emerging technologies. It is important that the Crown Estate retains this flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered, so that it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way and, importantly, as I have referred to several times, without conflicting with its statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. As we know, the Crown Estate already pays its net revenue surplus into the Consolidated Fund. That is a total of more than £4 billion in the last decade, and local communities already benefit from investment by the Crown Estate. I point hon. Members to the partnership between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate; they will work together to co-ordinate agencies and stakeholders to create jobs and ensure that communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy.

I repeat my encouragement of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire not to move her new clause, as I believe the Bill and the existing measures and statutory requirements achieve the outcomes that are best for this country.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Clause 4

Annual reports

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Clause 4 requires the commissioners to include in their annual report a summary of their activities and of any effects or benefits resulting from their activities under any partnership between them and Great British Energy, which I referred to in our debate on the previous clause. This requirement will only apply in relation to a year in which such a partnership was in operation. Following productive debate in the other place on the new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy announced last year, this clause was added by the Government. The Crown Estate is keen to ensure that details of this partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government agree it is sensible to require the Crown Estate to include the relevant detail in its existing annual report. That is the intention behind clause 4.

New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, partnership agreements are highly commercially sensitive. It is therefore right that any agreement is not made public or laid before Parliament, as to do so would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the Crown Estate or GB Energy and risk the aims of the partnership, which are to speed up the process of delivering clean energy and to invest in clean energy infrastructure. The Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero will set out further detail on GB Energy in due course. I hope the hon. Member feels able not to move his new clause as a result.

Clause 4 is a sensible change to the Bill that reflects the desire to ensure that relevant information related to the nationally significant partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate is made publicly available. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Wild]

As the Minister said, clause 4 was added on Report in the House of Lords to require the Crown Estate’s annual report to include activities under the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. I will also speak to new clause 4, which is in my name.

Clause 4 does introduce an important layer of transparency, as the Minister said, ensuring there is a specific report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership during the year, and on any effects or benefits experienced during the year that are a result of those activities. This is a welcome step, and we support the clause. However, the reporting requirement would only apply in years when a partnership between the commissioners and GB Energy was in operation. This means we will not know what has been agreed until the partnership is operational. Parliament—I think not unreasonably—needs to see an agreement when it is finalised. That is why I have tabled new clause 4.

New clause 4 would simply require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. This new clause is of fundamental importance. Without being able to see the details of the partnership agreement, we do not know what has been agreed and the impact on the duties of the Crown Estate. On the day that the Bill was introduced, the Government, with a lot of fanfare, announced the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. Indeed, Ministers claimed that the new GB Energy partnership would “turbocharge energy independence” and

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

However, currently there is a distinct lack of transparency over how this partnership will work and what difference it will make. I am concerned that this partnership may have been created for political, rather than economic, purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Member not welcome the potential proceeds of great British energy projects that could be unlocked by this new entity?

[James Wild]

My point about the new clause is trying to get some transparency about what those proceeds might be. I do not whether the hon. Member can enlighten me as to from where they might be coming and which projects will be invested in, or how many jobs will be created. He might apply for the job of the chairman of GB Energy, because the current one does not seem to know the answer to any of those very important questions. We are being asked to legislate to support a partnership between the new entity of GB Energy and the Crown Estate, so I make no apology for seeking greater transparency.

When pushed on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed:

“Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive”—

I think he said “very commercially sensitive” this afternoon, or “highly”—

“the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report.” —[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 806.]

But at all stages of the Bill’s passage and in the amendments that have been tabled, the Government have had to be pressured to be more transparent. Given that the Bill makes significant changes to the operation of the Crown Estate and reduces parliamentary oversight, I do not see why Parliament should not have sight of an agreement. It is simply not good enough to hide behind excuses of commercial confidentiality.

If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the conservative nature of this—[Laughter.] He probably is! I should have said: if the Minister is genuinely concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the agreement, perhaps a redacted version could be laid before Parliament, for example, or the full version could be provided to the Public Accounts Committee. I had the pleasure to serve on that Committee for over two years, and it was not uncommon for similar agreements to be provided in confidence to the Chair and the Committee to give assurance, on behalf of other Members of the House, that this was a bona fide commitment that did not need to be drawn more widely to public attention, noting the strictures there may be about commercial confidentiality.

I have spoken to the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about this, and he would be very happy to receive a copy of the partnership agreement and continue to operate—as he has done over a decade or more as deputy Chair—by recognising and respecting confidentiality and the basis on which it is provided. It would provide assurance for all Members of the House that one of the pre-eminent Committees of the House has oversight of the agreement. If the Minister is not minded to agree to our new clause—I detect that he is not—perhaps he will look at the feasibility of a taking a redacted version of the agreement, or a similar approach, to the Public Accounts Committee.

In advance of this Bill Committee, I wrote to Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate, to seek clarity on the partnership agreement. I am grateful that he took the time to respond. I asked whether the Crown Estate is planning to agree to invest a certain amount with GB Energy. His response was:

“Any arrangements the Crown Estate enter into with GBE will be expressly subsidiary to our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, but with due regard to the requirements of good management…We will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to deliver on our wider obligations”.

Can the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate’s statutory duty will always have primacy? Without the agreement being laid before Parliament, we will not have the transparency to see whether commitments have been given, and to judge and assess whether they meet the criteria.

I also asked Dan Labbad how the Crown Estate will decide between projects that GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return. I note the comments from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, but it may be that the Crown Estate could identify non-GB Energy projects that may generate a greater return for the taxpayer and our constituents. In that case, it should be investing in those, not a political project under the Energy Secretary. Dan Labbad said:

“The Crown Estate will have a clear business plan in relation to the partnership… The consideration of which projects fulfil that business plan will take into account our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate…and the obligation upon the Crown Estate to secure the best consideration, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case at the time.”

“All the circumstances” is rather broad, and “take into account” could be seen as rather weak. Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen a copy of any such business plan? Would he expect to? I fear the answer will be no, but would he be prepared to lay a copy of it before the House so that Members can scrutinise it?

Finally, I asked Dan Labbad about the new division’s decision-making process, because the new clause is about trying to get underneath the bonnet of the agreement. He said:

“The Crown Estate’s agreement with GBE is such that activity undertaken through the partnership will not undermine the Crown Estate’s independence. The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

“Compelled” is a very strong word to use in that context.

On one level, the responses could be seen as reassuring, but I think back to the exuberant press release I referred to earlier and the excitement in the announcement of what the partnership could deliver and what the Government thought it could do. Can the Minister clarify how much he expects the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s personal investment fund? Can he rule out Ministers pressuring the Crown Estate, whether that be through GB Energy and the chairman they have appointed or the chairman of the Crown Estate, who will shortly be going before the Treasury Committee? Can he rule out pressuring any of those people to invest more than the Crown Estate considers to be prudent?

I have raised my points briefly. I could go on for longer, though I am not sure the Committee would enjoy that. We are asking reasonable questions about this “groundbreaking partnership” agreement—I am looking at the exciting press release in front of me. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide some clarity and assurance on this—and I hope, having listened to the argument, accept that it is not unreasonable to place before Parliament a partnership agreement that can be redacted and before the Public Accounts Committee the full agreement. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

Clause 5 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 be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms, and where they determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

During the Bill’s passage in the other place, peers felt it necessary to amend the Bill to add clause 5. The Government understand the objectives behind the clause, but we are unable to support it, as it would duplicate existing protections. Fisheries policy is also largely devolved, and therefore responsibility for this issue in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rests with the relevant devolved Government. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, and the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is also a devolved matter.

For those reasons, the clause would have almost no impact in practice on farmed salmon in the UK. As it stands, it risks impeding an already thoroughly regulated industry, while having little to no positive impact, due to the territorial realities of the Bill. Therefore, I do not recommend clause 5 to the Committee.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so soon, Mr Mundell. As the Minister noted, the clause was added in the other place, particularly following the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It was backed by peers from across the parties, and Labour peers may have supported it as well. The Minister says that it duplicates provisions that exist. Given that the Government said in the House of Lords that they support its objective, it is clearly disappointing to see them removing these provisions, with the message that that sends about the importance of protecting the future of wild Atlantic salmon.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6

Commissioners with special responsibility

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray]

Clause 6 amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That responsibility would be in addition to the other responsibilities of a commissioner. For appointments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland, no recommendation may be made to His Majesty, unless Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland have been consulted.

The legislative changes brought about by clause 6 ensure that those on the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continue working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside performing their existing duties as commissioners. The clause, which was added as an amendment, following Government support in the other place, will bring knowledge of the devolved nations even more directly to the board table and will supplement the expertise of the Crown Estate’s director for the devolved nations, who is based in its recently opened office in Cardiff. The clause will ensure that the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continues working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[James Wild]

This is a pretty straightforward clause. It is one of those that were added to the Bill in the other place to improve it, and I hope the Minister might learn the lesson of those clauses as we come to consider the new clauses shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Extent, commencement and short title

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.

[James Murray]

These are very straightforward matters to debate. Government amendment 3 removes the privilege amendment inserted by the other place. Clause 7 sets out the Bill’s extent, commencement period and short title in the usual manner for such legislation. I commend Government amendment 3 and clause 7 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Thank you for calling me to speak again, Mr Mundell—it is good to get the exercise. There is not much to add on this very straightforward clause and amendment, other than that the commencement date, which brings the legislation into force automatically within two years, could usefully be applied to other legislation from the last Parliament. Quite a lot of private Members’ Bills and other pieces of legislation were passed that have not been commenced. I could expand on that issue at length, Mr Mundell, but you would rightly say that it was not in scope. However, car parking regulations, for example, have not been brought into the code of practice or into effect. Having a clear date in legislation to say, “This will happen, as long as the Bill passes,” is a good thing to do.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Territorial seabed

“After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—

‘3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc

(1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of—

(a) any part of the territorial seabed, or

(b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed,

which forms part of the Crown Estate.

(2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void.

(3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.’”—(James Murray.)

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[James Murray]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I will respond to Government new clause 2 and to new clause 3, which was tabled in my name. As we heard from the Minister, Government new clause 2 will require the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. The Government moved this measure because of the extensive debate in the other place about the sale of certain assets, and particularly the seabed. We welcome the constructive approach taken by Ministers; Lord Livermore gave a commitment in the other place, and it has been honoured today, so we will support the new clause.

Although we welcome the new clause, we still have concerns about the disposal of other assets. My new clause 3 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to seek approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of such a disposal by the commissioners.

As previously noted in Committee, the Crown Estate owns some of the nation’s most vital assets. It is somewhat surprising to find that there are few safeguards to prevent the Crown Estate commissioners from deciding to sell critical assets. That is why the debate in the other place, which exposed the issue of the seabed and brought about new clause 2, was so important. However, the Crown Estate has lots of other assets, which Members may wish to refer to and which they may think also deserve special attention.

In the original business case for modernisation of the Crown Estate, which is publicly available, it was noted that the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals, which—coincidentally enough—equates to nearly 10% of its portfolio. In the other place, my noble Friends suggested a disposal limit of anything greater than £10 million. The noble Lord Livermore responded:

“It is the Government’s view that imposing a statutory limit on disposals in this way would undermine the flexibility required by the Crown Estate to ensure that it can operate commercially and fulfil its core duties under the future Act.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1411.]

The Minister made a similar argument in his speech, but I am not sure that it is right. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, there should be some form of greater transparency if they are to be disposed of. Reporting to Parliament and seeking approval from the Treasury for disposals over a set percentage would provide such transparency.

The disposal of assets by the Crown Estate should be properly scrutinised, given its important role and statutory purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate about its planned disposals—the £1.4 billion referred to in document on the modernisation of the Crown Estate, which any Member may access—it said that it was unable to disclose its plans. Members might guess that the old “confidential, commercially sensitive” reason was given. That raises concerns about transparency. Will the Minister confirm whether he knows which assets were included in that figure and whether the Crown Estate plans further disposals? I asked the same question on Second Reading, and the Minister replied to most of my points, but that is one he did not reply to. Perhaps he will do so on this occasion.

Having reflected on the debates in the other place, we have changed our approach from a £10 million cap to a 10% cap, after which new clause 3 would require approval and a report to Parliament. That is a modest measure, which would not inhibit the commercial freedom of the Crown Estate to take such decisions if it wants to. It owns assets such as Great Windsor Park and others, and who knows which it may decide to sell at some point in the future? Such assets are held in right of the Crown, so this is not about the sovereign’s private income, but about the income generated for the taxpayer. Transparency is something that the Government should endorse.

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility needed to enable the Crown Estate to operate commercially and meet its core duties under the Crown Estate Act 1961. As I mentioned earlier, there may be instances where it makes commercial sense to dispose of high-value assets, particularly when the Crown Estate, by its nature, takes a longer-term view of the business and its strategy.

[James Wild]

The Minister talked about flexibility, but the Crown Estate would not suddenly decide tomorrow to sell some asset; it will have a business case and a process. That business case will go to the Chancellor, who will get advice rapidly—within a matter of hours or a day—either approve it or not, and report to the House. I do not see what the flexibility issue is.

[James Murray]

I point the shadow Minister to the way the system currently operates. The Crown Estate operates independently from Government, but there is a long-standing, constructive and transparent relationship between it and the Treasury. That ensures that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. That is underpinned by the Crown Estate’s framework document, which makes it clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury

“of any matters concerning spending, income or finance that are novel, contentious or repercussive.”

That is an important point to highlight in terms of the way the system currently operates.

However, I return to my earlier point, which is that the Crown Estate is an independent commercial business, and it is not the Government’s intention to materially alter its independence in such a way that the Treasury is required to approve its business decisions. I reassure the shadow Minister and others on the Committee that the Crown Estate’s core duty, which is to maintain an estate in land and to enhance and maintain the value of the estate, is unchanged by the Bill.

Finally, to respond to the question about the £1.4 billion of disposals outlined in the business case, those published as part of the Lords stages relate to non-strategic assets.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Limit on the disposal of assets

“After section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—

‘3A Limit on the disposal of assets

(1) The Commissioners must inform the Treasury if the disposal of assets of the Crown Estate will be of a value totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets in a single year.

(2) The Treasury must approve of any disposal of assets above the threshold in subsection (1) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified by the Commissioners.’” —(James Wild.)

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to notify and seek HM Treasury approval for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Nobody is saying that this is easy, but it is possible, and it has happened with Scotland. As many Members have said to us, given that we have territorial devolution and powers over the land, why not the seabed as well? There are ways of managing this, so complexity should not get in the way of ensuring that we have fairness in the distribution of economic benefits.

This funding is desperately needed, particularly given the historical underfunding of Wales on issues such as infrastructure. The success of devolution in Scotland speaks for itself; since 2017, when Scotland gained control of the Crown Estate, it has generated more than £103 million for public finances, so let us think what could happen for Wales if it was able to retain the profits generated by the Crown Estate within their borders.

Wales is expected to generate at least £1 billion from offshore wind energy leases in the coming years alone. Keeping some of that money within Wales could add £50 million a year to the Welsh Government’s budget—funds that could be directly reinvested in public services and local communities.

But this is not just about the financial gain; as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, devolving the Crown Estate would open up opportunities for greater investment in renewable energy projects. That is particularly important for coastal communities, which have long suffered from the decline of traditional industries. When they see direct benefits from renewable projects, they are far more likely to support them. That would create jobs, opportunities and sustainable development, delivering long-term economic stability, especially for the coastal regions of Wales that need it most.

The devolution of the Crown Estate has widespread support across Wales, from the Liberal Democrats in this place and the Welsh Parliament to Plaid Cymru, a majority of local authorities in Wales and even to the Welsh Labour Government. There is clear and overwhelming backing. In addition, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of the Welsh public are in favour of seeing the Crown Estate devolved, and it is clear that the people of Wales want to see this change. We want to work together, and I urge the Government to support this new clause and allow Wales to benefit from the powers and financial resources that it so rightly deserves.

[James Wild]

I will not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the previous Conservative Government’s position, which has not changed today. The proposal would introduce an element of risk in spinning out assets and revenue streams. We heard about the particulars of the Celtic sea, so this is not the right proposal for this time.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for tabling new clause 5, which would require that within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed a transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to make provision to ensure that the employment of any person in Crown employment is not adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 12, which would require the Treasury to set out a scheme to transfer all existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales and rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

The Government believe there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. Both new clauses would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales which, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, 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. Its reform aims to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Do you wish to say anything, Mr Wild?

[James Wild]

Well—

[The Chair]

It is not compulsory.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I am up now. I will not detain the Committee long. We did not support new clause 5, so it follows that we do not support new clause 6, although it raises a thought in my mind. The east of England, which is home to the largest offshore wind sites in Europe, is perhaps not getting its fair dibs. That is probably something I need to reflect on for another time.

[The Chair]

Indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

May I take this moment to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions? I also thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing the Committee. I thank the Treasury officials, the House of Commons officials and everyone else for making the Committee run so smoothly.

[James Wild]

I am grateful, Mr Mundell, for your chairing this afternoon, and I am grateful to Ms Furniss for chairing the first session this morning. I am grateful for the support, help and advice of the Clerks and for the contributions and responses provided by the Crown Estate during the passage of the Bill. I look forward to reconvening with Members for its remaining stages, which I understand will be on 24 February—they will be a pleasure. I am grateful to the Minister for getting on the record my strong opposition to the 100 miles of pylons coming from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency and the need to look at underground options.

[The Chair]

As ever, it is a disappointment to me that I can take no further part in these proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

[Ben Lake]

I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government— his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales?

[James Wild]

We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.

The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?

Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.

New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?

In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.

We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.

Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:

“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.

There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.

If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.

The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill.

There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.