Small Farms and Family Businesses

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as the owner of a dairy farming business, commercially managed forestry and let agricultural property, and as a shareholder in Agricarbon and John Deere. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Leicester for securing this vital debate on these highly unpopular Budget proposals. It allows the Government to reflect on whether they are wise or appropriate.

I very much enjoyed my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s valedictory speech, bringing an end to a remarkable 34 years in this House. It is clear that the House has been lucky to have my noble friend as a Member and is very grateful for her dedication to healthcare, and women’s healthcare in particular.

It is widely reported and understood that this was a business-unfriendly Budget, with the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions the biggest hit to business. However, I want to spend my time in this debate addressing inheritance tax reliefs. This was a disastrous Budget for family businesses. The reduction in APR and BPR inheritance tax relief to 50% of the value of estates in excess of £1 million will destroy existing long-term plans for those businesses. According to Oxford Economics, family businesses employ 14 million people; they are already responsible for £225 billion per annum in tax, according to PwC. Given that most of our largest businesses began as family-owned companies, I ask the Minister how this tax can be anything but negative for our economic growth outlook.

Beyond that, this tax is cruel as it falls unexpectedly on those who are now nearing the end of their lives and have no ability to mitigate or plan around it. It also falls on those who die young through accident or illness. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have already mentioned, what do the Government expect the most elderly and infirm to consider to avoid the inheritance tax burden on the next generation as the tax deadline nears?

In a Written Answer to my question on whether the Government planned

“to keep monthly data on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides”,

the Government answered that

“the ONS is committed to continuing its quarterly publication of suicide statistics and analysing suicide deaths by occupation using annual data … a more regular presentation of suicide deaths by occupation is not planned”.

Given that the Government have just created an incentive for such individual tragedies, I think this House might feel that they should at least measure its outcome. I ask the Minister to commit that the Government will gather and publish monthly statistics on suicide rates by those potentially impacted by these taxes in the run-up to their introduction on 6 April 2026.

Members of His Majesty’s Government have suggested that this can be avoided by passing assets to the younger generation more than seven years before dying, relying on the potentially exempt transaction rule. Who in this House knows when they are going to die? Should this tax be paid only by the children of those farmers or business owners who have suffered a fatal accident or succumbed to a sudden illness?

The Government have claimed that only 500 farms will be affected in 2026-27—equivalent still to over 10,000 farms in total with this guillotine hanging over them. However, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers calculates that 75,000 farms will be impacted and the NFU, 75% of commercial farms. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, citing 50% of Northern Irish farms also being caught.

The Government have failed to take into account the 14,000 tenant farms, many of which have over £1 million of business property, or the vast number of farms that are in companies or partnerships, which also qualify for BPR only. Can the Minister explain whether this is indeed the case and makes the claim of 500 farms incorrect? It would appear in recent answers to my Written Questions that this claim has been modified to 520 estates claiming APR that will be affected. Could it be that the real answer is that many times as many as this number of farms will be affected, as every organisation well informed on this sector claims?

On tenant farmers, I would add that the loss of 50% APR will incentivise private landlords to dispose of their land rather than let it out. Rental yields are typically less than 2% before tax, making the payment of IHT completely unaffordable. Surely it is not the wish of the Government to restrict the opportunities for those wishing to rent farmland. Around two-thirds of working farmers rent some or all of their farm’s land, according to the NFU.

While family businesses outside farming may be better placed through lower capital intensity to pay this death tax, many, if not most, will be structured as companies, with the tax paid from dividends. The cost on those companies being transferred from one generation to the next will incur a full inheritance tax rate of around 50%, as tax on dividends will also be levied prior to HMRC getting its money.

As my noble friend Lord Leicester also mentioned, family businesses compete against foreign-owned, publicly owned and institutionally owned companies that will not face this death tax. For family-owned companies, investment in new products and services, in more efficient equipment and in expansion becomes crippled by this new cost of doing business that is not borne by their competitors. Markets are fiercely competitive and small cost or technology advantages can mean the difference between thriving and dying. In a post-Budget survey, CBI Economics found that 56% of family businesses planned to reduce investment and 32% to reduce employment. That does not bode well for the competitiveness of family companies.

The figures, explained so well by my noble friend Lord Leicester, show that family farms have no prospect of paying this death tax out of income, which in turn means either taking on debt or selling off assets. Both further cripple those farms by either high annual interest and capital repayments or reduction in scale. On the payment data that my noble friend gave as an example, it is likely that family farms will not have paid off the debt for one inheritance tax bill before another one comes along. This is why 13,000 farmers protested in Whitehall recently and why we saw more than 600 tractors driven in Parliament Square yesterday. This is an attack on a way of life and farmers are in despair.

In answer to an Oral Question on 2 December, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said that

“the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further”.—[Official Report, 2/12/24; col. 912.]

Does this mean that the Government are still consulting on these Budget proposals?

I hope that this debate has explained to the Minister that the reduction of IHT reliefs for agricultural and business assets could lead to a loss of £9.4 billion of economic output, a loss of 125,000 jobs and a net cost to the Treasury of £1.3 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30, all according to CBI Economics, while bringing misery to many, as it will largely be a tax on unexpected tragedy, if business owners follow the Government’s tax advice. Noble Lords have highlighted so many other negative impacts—on rural communities, land stewardship, food security and nature restoration. That leaves the only remaining justification for this policy to be ideology, or perhaps a mistake. I hope that the Government are big enough to concede that this was a mistake that they will reverse or heavily revise. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment, and I might have a slightly different take on it. To start with, the amendment requires the Crown Estate to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this issue and for the interest he has sparked in it across the House. His partnership with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is an unexpected one.

The noble Lord, in his personal conversations with me, as he has had with others, has spoken about his personal journey on these issues. He has gone from a time when he was in government and supported these farms to a time now when he recognises the damage that they do. I do not disagree with him at all on that. There is a real need to protect animals; there is a real need for animal welfare; there is a real need to look at the associated pollution and at the escape of farmed salmon and the impact on natural salmon that happens as a result of these farms. As far as all that goes, I have no problem with this amendment.

However, the issue here is that the Crown Estate is devolved in Scotland, so I have had to turn to the philosopher George Berkeley to try to analyse this amendment. He came up with the question: if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound? My response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: if his amendment protects no salmon, is it helping the salmon? There are literally no salmon farms in England. I have an assurance from the Minister personally that there is no intention from the Crown Estate to start producing salmon farms in English waters. In fact, I do not think those waters are able to support salmon. I do not think that is happening. I listened to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are legislating for the longer term—that is an issue —but, again, I see absolutely no plans for this to happen.

This matter is devolved. My strong suggestion to everybody in favour of stronger protection for salmon and the environment is to raise these matters with the Scottish Parliament, which is responsible for these matters. Noble Lords can put this in the Bill, but it will be overturned in the Commons. If not, it will have no impact on any salmon. I fail to see the point of this amendment.

On these Benches we are not able to support this amendment, not because we do not support animal welfare but because this simply does not impact any fish. There is no point in making bad, pointless legislation; that just makes us all look foolish. It does not do anything to increase animal welfare standards if the standards do not apply to any animals. It is pointless.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as an owner of fishing rights and president of South West Rivers Association. I will also speak briefly, as the arguments have been well made by many noble Lords.

We have heard from noble Lords around the House that this is an important amendment that strikes at the heart of our care for the environment and animal welfare. It imposes reasonable obligations on the Crown Estate to take responsibility for environmental damage caused by salmon farming on its property, and for the welfare of the fish being farmed. As I understand it, there is only one salmon farm in our waters, off the coast of Northern Ireland, although there are 210 in Scottish waters. But this amendment will ensure that any future salmon farms are developed with those obligations in place.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted existing legislation and regulations that cover the salmon farming industry. However, given that the wild Atlantic salmon in our country is now on the IUCN red list, and given the sometimes dire conditions that farmed salmon are kept in, it is hardly surprising that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean continues to press this amendment. We are disappointed that the Government have so far failed to see its merits, and we hope for a more constructive reaction from the Minister today. We on these Benches will support my noble friend if he decides to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their points. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, 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 also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms and, where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, again made a powerful speech on his amendment. As I noted in Committee and can repeat today, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind it but I regret that the Government are unable to support it. I recognise that this is not what the House wants to hear, but it remains the Government’s position that this amendment would duplicate protections that already exist in legislation or that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, that, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I have had no contact with the industry. I may have written to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, following Committee, but, if not, I will absolutely ensure that I do.

All salmon farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare. As noble Lords know and some have observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter. My officials have been in contact on this matter with the Scottish Government, who have said that it is their view that salmon farming is strictly regulated to ensure that the environment on which the aquaculture sector and others rely is protected for future generations. They have also stated that Crown Estate Scotland works to ensure responsible use of Scotland’s seas through leasing the seabed. However, as is proper, it is the role of local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to conduct a thorough assessment of development proposals, including environmental impact assessments and habitats regulations appraisals, with advice from statutory and other consultees.

I am aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and I recognise that many noble Lords will not agree with the case I have set out. However, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw his amendment.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief intervention on the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and I would like some assurance from the Minister on some important points that the noble Earl made.

One of the points the noble Earl made was that we need to look at offshore developments not one by one in sequence but holistically. We are moving now into new waters with floating offshore wind; I am particularly aware of the Celtic Sea development, but obviously there is also floating offshore wind further out in Scottish waters. I would very much like an assurance from the Minister that, before those developments take place, in terms of actual building and specific location, there will be an overall environmental assessment for the whole of the future developments as opposed to each one individually. We want to understand the total effect rather than those individual effects.

We also need to consider the issues around the landing of those electric cables and all the infrastructure. In the North Sea, we have had the issue of a spaghetti of energy cables coming into various places all around it, and now, far too late, we are looking at trying to change that into a rational grid where we can have greater interdependence and greater trading but also fewer landing areas in terms of environmental damage.

In an earlier group, I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interests between the Crown Estate wanting to have offshore wind and therefore doing its own environmental assessments for these developments to be oven-ready—to use that phrase so badly used in the past. I very much wish to be assured by the Minister that there will be that global view of future areas of development, particularly of floating offshore wind, rather than doing it piecemeal in the ineffective and rather damaging way that we have done in the past.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Douglas-Miller and Lord Leicester for these important amendments. I first declare my interests as set out in the register as the owner of fishing rights in both Devon and Sutherland, as a developer and owner of renewable energy assets and as president of the South West Rivers Association.

Amendments 37 and 37G require the Crown Estate to take responsibility for the environmental impact of salmon and broader fish farming, as well as the welfare standards in those industries. This applies both to existing licensed salmon and fish farms as well as new applicants for licences.

We support sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or any fish species when it is done with sufficient respect for animal welfare and with protection of the environment in mind. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and recognise that it is critical that fish can be farmed so a growing global population can continue to include fish within its diet without putting unsustainable pressure on wild fish populations. We also celebrate that the United Kingdom is one of the few places in the world that has ideal coastlines and sea conditions, and that the industry can bring much-needed jobs to parts of the country with limited employment opportunities. Its contribution to those communities is important. However, the salmon farming industry should not be at the expense of the wild population that spawned it and was already occupying this coastline and these river systems for millennia before farming began, or at the expense of equally valuable jobs in managing the rod and line fisheries or indeed historic salmon-netting rights.

This Bill and these amendments target only England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As we all fully understand, the Scottish Crown Estate has been devolved. However, it is hard to debate these amendments without acknowledging the damage that Scottish salmon farms have done not only to the west-coast-of-Scotland rivers but to English, Welsh and Irish rivers. Migratory patterns of salmon and sea trout are still not fully understood, but it is clear that fish travelling to these rivers also have to navigate open-cage salmon farms in Scottish waters.

To my knowledge, there is only one fish farm in UK waters outside of Scottish waters, and that is in Northern Ireland. While these amendments will capture that farm, we also hope and intend that they will provide that any future development of salmon farms in our waters, or indeed any other aquaculture, is done with much greater scrutiny of the environmental implications and with full accountability for any harm caused and with the highest standards of animal welfare.

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and other noble Lords mentioned, the evidence against salmon farms for their impact on wild Atlantic salmon and other salmonids has been well laid out: they are a reservoir of sea lice that prey on passing salmon; they are a reservoir and breeding ground of disease and bacterial and fungal infections; and there is the long-term existential threat, as farmed species’ genetics increasingly diverge from wild, that interbreeding with the wild species by escaped fish has on their continued viability in the wild. I note that it is thought that 5,000 salmon escaped from the Northern Irish salmon farm earlier this year.

There are other environmental impacts that have also been discussed: the amount of wild fish that are caught solely to be processed for fishmeal and fish oil to feed farmed salmon; the dead zones created on the seabed; and the chemicals that are used to treat diseases impacting on local wildlife. In addition, lumpfish and five species of wrasse have been used since the 1990s as cleaner fish in the industry to eat sea lice. The lumpfish are also farmed, and the industry is moving to farming of wrasse as well. What environmental standards do these have, as well as animal welfare standards?

There are also significant welfare concerns for the farmed fish themselves, as expressed during this debate—exposure to predation from sea lice; images of hundreds of tonnes of dead fish routinely being taken out of these cages and disposed of by incineration, burial and other means; and the apparent overcrowding of these fish within the open-cage salmon farms.

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, Washington state chose to ban open-cage Atlantic salmon farming in 2018, and British Columbia plans to shut all its open-cage salmon farming by next year. That is not what is suggested by these amendments, which would ensure that the Crown Estate environmental and welfare obligations are explicit and that the entity is held accountable for any environmental damage or welfare issues caused on its estate. Better practice is available in the world; there are better techniques for farming Atlantic salmon that could be brought into operation to mitigate and even eliminate many of the causes of damage. We understand that these are all likely to add to the cost of production, but why should our environment and our wild Atlantic salmon subsidise this industry? Surely we have learned our lesson from the impact of the green revolution on native bird species and river system health?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I appreciate that intervention from the noble Earl because I now understand his position better, but I do not think that is how this clause would be used. It would create a level of dissent, with each side saying, “We do it better than you do”, and “You need to copy us”. We can see the kind of constant pressures that come to—I am losing language; it is just so late—dilute the power of devolution.

On that basis, I do not support this language. Co-operation, partnership, looking at best practice—all those things are extremely positive, but let us be absolutely clear: the Crown Estate Scotland falls under the Scottish Government. Interestingly, it is often much more regulated than the Crown Estate back in England. I hope we learn from the Scottish experience not that each needs to mirror the other by rote, but that devolution works and should be extended to Wales.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I may not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this. I agree with the intention of this amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. While we also acknowledge that the Crown Estate in Scotland is devolved, the entity remains closely aligned in its nature and the objectives sought from it, with considerable overlap in the kind of assets that are owned and managed. The Bill before us creates considerable new powers for the Crown Estate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. First among those is the power to borrow, with the benefits to investment and flexibility that that allows. It also creates new obligations—hopefully, to include taking full responsibility for the environmental impact of offshore energy and fish farming. Those are not present in the devolved Crown Estate of Scotland. As noble Lords have described, it may well be helpful if the Minister committed to providing clear information on those differences once the Act has been implemented in order to allow both entities to learn what is best practice. Oversight and transparency are desirable in all areas of government, and I am most interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment and debate.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 37D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the day this Act is passed that assesses any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.

It is possible now to provide such an assessment, and I am happy to set that out. Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland and rights in relation to the Scottish zone.

Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.

The relationship between Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish Government is governed by a public framework document which sets out a broad framework within which Crown Estate Scotland operates, and certain financial aspects. Any changes to that framework document or the wider legislation that underpins it are a matter for the Scottish Government.

I turn to the principal differences and similarities. The Bill grants the commissioners of the Crown Estate a power to borrow with Treasury consent and provides the Treasury with the power to issue loans and financial assistance to the commissioners, including out of the National Loans Fund. The Bill also specifies that the Treasury may determine the rate of interest on any loan and requires the Treasury to pay any sums received in respect of the loan into the National Loans Fund.

In comparison, Part 2, Section 1.1 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that

“Scottish Ministers may make grants and loans to Crown Estate Scotland”

and such grants and loans are

“subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.

Part 2, Section 2.1 requires that:

“All borrowing by Crown Estate Scotland … shall be from the Scottish Ministers in accordance with guidance in the Borrowing, Lending & Investment section of the”


Scottish Public Finance Manual.

On investment, this Bill clarifies the commissioners’ existing ability to invest by inserting into the 1961 Act that:

“The powers exercisable by the Commissioners in the discharge of their functions under this Act include powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions”.

It also omits subsection (4) from Section 3 of the 1961 Act, which will broaden the commissioner’s investment powers.

In comparison, Part 1, Section 3.2 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that Scottish Ministers are responsible for

“approving Crown Estate Scotland’s Corporate Plan”,

which includes their investment strategy. Part 2, Section 7.3 requires Crown Estate Scotland to

“undertake investment in line with its legislative duties”,

which are set out in the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, principally in Part 3, across Sections 7 to 21.

On the constitution of the commissioners, the Bill increases the maximum number of commissioners from eight to 12 and omits the requirement that the second Crown Estate commissioner, if any, be deputy chairman. It also simplifies the legislative process by which commissioners are paid, such that the commissioners’ salaries and expenses are paid directly out of the income of the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which comes from the return made by the commissioners to the Government each year.

In comparison, under Part 1, Section 3.5 of the frame- work document for Crown Estate Scotland, the board membership is limited to nine members, including the chair. On remuneration, Section 7 of the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 makes it clear that

“Crown Estate Scotland … must pay each member such remuneration and allowances (including expenses) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.


The differences between these two organisations reflect the fact that the organisations have formed in different ways. The 1961 Act, which, as I have set out, is the legislative basis of the Crown Estate in its current form, was fulfilling a recommendation of the government Committee on Crown Lands—as set out in its report presented to Parliament in June 1955—to appoint an independent board of commissioners to manage the Crown Estate, with provisions designed to enable Parliament and the Treasury to know how it is discharging its responsibilities. To briefly quote from the 1955 report:

“The board should be a public authority, but not a government department in the sense of an organ of executive government. … We do however respectfully advise that the board should be more, not less, independent than the present Commissioners and that they should be given defined powers and duties as trustees and allowed to work them out with the minimum of direction and control.”


In comparison, Crown Estate Scotland was created by the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, which makes specific provisions about the management of the Scottish Crown Estate and followed on from a process of devolution established by the Scotland Act 2016. Crown Estate Scotland is specifically required to align its aims and objectives with the Scottish Government’s published programme for government, and Scotland’s economic strategy and national performance framework.

I hope this assessment was helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

38: Clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out from “force” to end of line 15 and insert “two months after a revised Framework Document has been laid before Parliament and the Secretary of State has arranged for the tabling of a motion for resolution on the Framework Document in each House of Parliament”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Crown Estate Bill from coming into force until two months after the Framework Document has been laid before Parliament with a motion for resolution in both Houses of Parliament.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 39 and 40 in my name.

These amendments concern the publication of a framework document and the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. We must have the opportunity to see, and vote on, the framework document before the Bill can be passed. Amendment 38 prevents the Crown Estate Bill coming into force until two months after the framework document has been laid before Parliament and has been subject to a vote. Amendments 39 and 40 in my name similarly seek to ensure the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate is laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.

It would be negligent to pass a Bill without consideration of such integral documents. We must see the framework document and partnership agreement with Great British Energy before we can accept this legislation and I express my deepest concern over the absence of these documents to date. We must scrutinise the framework document to understand and be confident that it is appropriate for the Bill. Currently, the details on the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy are similarly limited. As I propose with the framework agreement, we must also have sight of the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate and Amendments 39 and 40 demand that this will be laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.

This is a major and unprecedented partnership. The Crown Estate estimated that it will result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. Considering this, we must be given the opportunity to read, review and scrutinise the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy before we accept this legislation.

I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her Amendment 41, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his Amendment 42. I echo their concerns over the absence of the publication of the fiscal framework with Wales and its lease extension policy.

I hope the Minister will carefully consider the concerns I have raised and will confirm to the House that the framework document and partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will be published and laid before Parliament before this Bill is passed.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name is included in this group of amendments and is supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley. This amendment would require the publication of an agreed fiscal framework between the Treasury and the Crown Estate before commencement of the Act.

During day one of Committee there were strong arguments made in support of the second group of amendments—a number of them seeking to write a fiscal framework. I believe that there is a shared view from around the Chamber that such a framework should have been drafted and published before Second Reading of this Bill. I am therefore grateful that the Minister, in his response to the second group of amendments, committed to publishing the framework before Report. If that is the case, I will not need to push for an amendment of this kind on Report.

However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some concerns regarding the possible content of the fiscal framework. I am concerned by the possibility of no hard cap on borrowing. I am led to believe that the framework will instead impose a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, which, as the Minister has already noted, would currently be around £3 billion and could go beyond that. To put this into perspective, the Welsh Government fiscal framework has a cap of £l billion on capital expenditure, with an annual borrowing limit of £150 million, which it can borrow from the National Loans Fund or a commercial bank. I ask the Minister: would the passing of this Bill as it stands, alongside a fiscal framework of a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, give the Crown Estate more or less borrowing power than the devolved Government of Wales?

I share the view expressed by the noble baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Crown Estate is no “cuddly” organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my question on how the proposed borrowing powers will compare to the current fiscal powers of the devolved Governments, particularly the Welsh Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I offer another view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: perhaps going into government also changes the perspective of Members of this House. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to these amendments and for his contribution to this debate. We have not really had the answers that we are looking for but, in the meantime, I am happy to withdraw.

Amendment 38 withdrawn