Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Wild and Alistair Carmichael

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

BBC Local Radio

Debate between James Wild and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

What more could the House want than a playlist of Norfolk MPs speaking back to back? I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate on the BBC’s proposals to cut local radio output. This debate is of great importance to my constituents and those of the Members across the House who have spoken, whose contributions have shown the damage the proposals would do to our communities. This is about the vital issues of local identity, community and companionship.

During the pandemic, we became far more aware of the importance of our local communities, and local radio played a massive role in that, so it is staggering, frankly, that the BBC’s response to that growing sense of community is a plan to remove local content after 2 pm on weekdays and at weekends, apart from live news and sport. Instead, content on BBC Radio Norfolk would be shared across a much wider regional area including Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire—all fine counties, undoubtedly, but how can that content be considered in any way local? On Sundays, after 2 pm, there would be only one national show across all 39 local stations. Which licence-fee payers want that loss of local content?

As I said when I met BBC bosses, I do not believe that the proposals reflect the importance that the 147,000 people reached every week by Radio Norfolk place on listening to its output and having properly localised content. Indeed, my constituents from West Norfolk want to see more content about West Norfolk as opposed to Norwich and Great Yarmouth. That is particularly true of the elderly and people in remote rural areas who rely on the radio for companionship.

Retaining only Chris Goreham’s breakfast show—on which I am always pleased to be interviewed, particularly about my campaign for a new Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn—and the mid-morning show is wholly insufficient. The proposals would lead to the loss of much-loved shows. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) referred to Essex Quest, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) mentioned Treasure Quest, which is a Radio Norfolk institution that shines a light on amazing people, places and events of which people would otherwise be unaware, and it is rightly valued by listeners. But, 15 years after it was first broadcast, Treasure Quest would go under these plans. I made those points to the BBC bosses at the DCMS Committee hearing on these proposals, and they acknowledged that Treasure Quest was a distinctive programme, so I very much hope that they will rethink their plans to scrap it.

The Bishop of Norwich has highlighted the loss of Radio Norfolk’s flagship Sunday morning show with Matthew Gudgin and others, which carries important news, debate, and discussion about and from faith communities. I could go on by listing Stephen Bumfrey, Anna Perrot, the weekend quiz and many more important shows and local content, but I think the point is made.

Of course, people are increasingly going online, and output needs to change to reflect that. I am not arguing against any change, but I encourage the BBC to drop the Aunt Sally argument that it has repeated in correspondence with me—that there will be some who believe that unless every hour of the day comes from each existing local radio base, we will be losing something special. Not everyone is shifting their listening patterns online, so the timing and scale of the cuts in local content are the issue here.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have been in Westminster Hall, so I have missed most of the debate. Is not the fact that this goes beyond the local content and into the availability of well-trained and professional journalists in each community, like those I see regularly for Radio Orkney and Radio Shetland? They are then available to feed into network news or BBC Scotland, not just on radio but on television? If we keep pulling the BBC presence out of local communities, the news content of the networks eventually becomes ever more centralised and metropolitan.

[James Wild]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We are fortunate to have such expertise in our local news and local radio stations, as well as the knowledge, passion and love for the area they are reporting on, which mean that they can come at it not only with understanding, but with an impartial eye, which is so important.

The BBC enjoys a privileged position with licence fee income of nearly £4 billion a year. That is why it is under an obligation to provide content that is of particular relevance to the area and communities it serves. Ofcom has an important role to play here. Last month, it warned that the BBC

“must not lose sight of the importance of local content.”

It said it would keep

“a close eye on programme sharing between local radio stations, to ensure the sustained provision of high-quality local content”.

Frankly, that is far too passive, as any action would only come after the event, when the shows have gone and the redundancies have been made. Ofcom needs to act now and look at the operating licences of the BBC.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned, Ofcom also has a role to play in preventing the BBC from crowding out commercial providers. In west Norfolk, we are fortunate to benefit from Your Local Paper, the Lynn News, Town & Around, as well as commercial local radio from Radio West Norfolk and KL1. The BBC should not use its guaranteed income—guaranteed for now—to undermine commercial organisations by shifting more resources online. The BBC is there to serve its audience—local people; our constituents—and it needs to engage, listen and respond by changing its proposals to protect more local content. These proposals cannot be the final answer. The BBC needs to think again and Ofcom needs to act according to its duties to protect licence fee-paying listeners. Local radio stations, including Radio Norfolk, are assets that we must protect.