Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

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 hansardnotes@parliament.uk 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.

Clause 1 - Power of Crown Estate Commissioners to borrow etc

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

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.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair, Ms Furniss. I will turn to the amendments in a moment, but I will first briefly address why clause 1 should stand part, and what it would achieve in amending the Crown Estate Act 1961.

The clause amends the 1961 Act to clarify the powers of the commissioners and remove certain statutory restrictions in respect of borrowing. Those changes are central to the aims of the Bill, which are to modernise the Crown Estate and to remove limitations on investments, to ensure that it can meet its core statutory duties. Those duties—which it is right for the Crown Estate to pursue in the national interest—are to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the returns obtained from it.

The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit and competes for investment. However, limitations placed on it by the Crown Estate Act 1961 currently risk its ability to compete and invest most effectively, meaning that it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it might otherwise be. The clause therefore makes two main changes.

First, the clause clarifies the investment powers of the Crown Estate commissioners by expressly conferring powers that are currently implicit in the 1961 Act. That ensures that the commissioners have the power to do anything that is designed

“to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to,”

discharging their statutory duties, including their core duties to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. The clause also removes restrictions on the commissioners’ powers to invest.

Through those broader investment powers, the Crown Estate will have greater flexibility to invest in new growth opportunities—for example, in digital technologies, to support the acceleration of offshore energy through digital mapping of the seabed. These broader powers will also unlock the Crown Estate’s ability to under de-risking activities, such as surveys and grid co-ordination, which will increase the frequency of offshore wind leasing and support the clean energy mission.

Secondly, clause 1 inserts a proposed new section into the 1961 Act that would grant the Crown Estate the power to borrow out of the national loans fund via the Treasury, or otherwise subject to Treasury consent. It also authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners. That change will unlock the Crown Estate’s ability to compete more effectively, by enabling it to borrow as its competitors currently can.

The clause has been carefully drafted to include the requirement for Treasury consent prior to the Crown Estate accessing debt. That strong safeguard will ensure that borrowing is carefully considered and controlled. Furthermore, as borrowing will be from Government at commercial rates, the interest paid by the Crown Estate will outweigh the cost to Government of the borrowing.

Any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate will be for investment in activities that will drive increases in its revenues, thereby also increasing the profits it generates and provides to the Government, which will help to provide funding for our public services. That will be a net benefit to the public finances, and builds on the Crown Estate’s long track record of delivering significant returns to the public purse year after year. As the shadow Minister mentioned, that has totalled more than £4 billion in the last decade.

I will now turn to amendments 4 and 7, which were tabled by the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for South Cambridgeshire respectively. The amendments would place a legislative limit on borrowing, through regulations, but it is the Government’s view that limits on borrowing are best set outside of legislation. For that reason, a limit will be set in the memorandum of understanding between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, with the cap set at no more than a 25% net debt-to-asset value ratio. That document has been made available in draft to aid the House in its scrutiny.

The primary safeguard built into the Bill is the requirement for Treasury consent. We are also retaining the requirement for the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, while having

“due regard to the requirements of good management”,

as set out in the 1961 Act. Taken together, those elements provide clear guardrails and strengthen the important fiduciary duty of the commissioners not to take decisions that could endanger the estate or compromise its core duties.

To underscore the point—given that the two Opposition Members raised questions about this—the Bill is clear that any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate can only be from the Treasury or otherwise with Treasury consent. The Treasury will, of course, ensure that any borrowing is consistent with our wider fiscal rules. Therefore, in addition to the requirement to secure Treasury consent, the draft memorandum of understanding between the Treasury and the Crown Estate sets out additional guardrails. For instance, it says that the borrowing should “target a sustainable range”, and is “not to exceed 25%” of the

“Loan to value ratio (defined as the ratio of net debt to asset value”

As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that this is consistent with managing public money principles, to ensure value for money from the taxpayer. On that basis, I hope hon. Members will not press their amendments.

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Clause 2 - Number of Crown Estate Commissioners and their salaries and expenses

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

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

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

Lincoln Jopp (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Clearly, the highest standards of independence and probity will be required of the chair in order to execute their duties, particularly given that we have not brought back to Parliament the ability to raise debt on the assets of the Crown Estate. I feel duty bound therefore to ask the Minister whether he is aware of media reports that the Chancellor’s preferred candidate for chair is a recent Labour party donor who gave £15,000 to the Labour party in 2023 and £30,000 to the Foreign Secretary. It is not unreasonable of the shadow Minister’s amendment to seek that level of transparency by asking for any future changes to salaries for chairs to come back to Parliament.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

I am not sure the Minister addressed the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about donations and whether the Chancellor was aware of that before she nominated the proposed chair to this position. It is important that we get an answer to that on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3 - Sustainable development

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In keeping the impact of their activities under review, the Commissioners must have regard to—

(a) the United Kingdom’s net zero targets;

(b) regional economic growth; and

(c) ensuring resilience in respect of managing uncertainty, risk and national security interests.”

This amendment 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 United Kingdom’s net zero targets, regional economic growth, and resilience in respect of managing uncertainty, risk and national security interests.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In complying with the duty under subsection (3A), the Commissioners must—

(a) set and publish sustainable development objectives in relation to their activities,

(b) take all reasonable steps to meet these objectives, and

(c) have regard to the relevant environmental legislation for the UK, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to making these objectives.

(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), ‘relevant environmental legislation’ includes—

(a) the Climate Change Act 2008,

(b) the Environment Act 2021,

(c) the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and

(d) the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.”

This amendment would require the Commissioners to set sustainable development objectives for their activities, having regard to the Climate Change Act 2008, Environment Act 2021, Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) Any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate and the Commissioners must define ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of this Act.

(3C) The definition under subsection (3B) must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

(3D) A ‘climate and nature duty’ means a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”

This amendment would ensure that this act’s Framework Agreement must define “sustainable development”, and that the definition must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to speak to this amendment. Its intention relates to the additional funds that the Crown Estate will be able to unlock—something I welcome to improve investment in the country, rather than it being tied up by coming back into the Treasury to then be redistributed. It aims to ensure that there is an arrangement for funding from the Crown Estate, in projects and activities that it is already engaged in, to support the local regions where those are taking place.

It does not seem to me unreasonable that consider- ation should be given, as part of the Crown Estate’s considerations, to the UK’s net zero targets, as is expected of other organisations. Net zero is one of Government’s key missions, so to have some sympathy and some similarity in the way that organisations are expected to conduct themselves in relation to their overall objectives seems straightforward.

The amendment also adds the gentlest of additional check-ins for the Crown Estate to ensure that those wider community benefits that have the opportunity to generate lasting change in coastal communities are part of the Crown Estate’s considerations. There are so many benefits from this Bill—it is very welcome for that reason—and they should be specifically included.

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

The Crown Estate, until now, has made decisions on the leasing of the seabed based mainly on price and cost and nothing else. This Bill will change that by asking commissioners to “keep under review the impact of their activities on…sustainable development”.

Amendment 1 simply clarifies “sustainable development” and slightly expands on what that means for, for example, net zero targets and economic growth. I ask the Minister to consider that and to assure us that that is what the Bill is intended to do, and that it will be the progress and direction of the Crown Estate.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to amendment 6, tabled in my name. The amendment would amend clause 3, which relates to the regard of sustainable development that the Crown Estate commissioners must have when undertaking their activities. It would require the commissioners to set sustainable development objectives for their activities and require them to have regard for UK-wide legislation, such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I note that is also the intention of amendment 8.

In addition, amendment 6 would require regard for devolved legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For Wales, that would include the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Shockingly, child poverty in Wales is set to reach its highest rate in 30 years by the end of this decade, with more than 34% of children living in low-income families. That is 5% up on the current rate, and means that around 32,000 more children in Wales could be pushed into poverty.

The activities of the Welsh Crown Estate could be geared towards helping to address rising child poverty by having regard to the seven wellbeing goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, such as to develop a more equal, prosperous and resilient Wales. More broadly, this amendment draws inspiration from measures within the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, which legislates to ensure that management of the Scottish Crown Estate’s assets is done so that it is likely to contribute to economic development, regeneration and social and environmental wellbeing.

The Crown Estate manages a huge amount of land and natural assets. It is only right that it works with existing devolved legislation across all nations to meet sustainable and wellbeing goals, and to do so by fulfilling clear objectives. I urge the Government to incorporate this aim into the Bill.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

I will speak to amendment 8, which is similar to amendment 6. It would strengthen clause 3 by ensuring that sustainable development is properly defined within the Crown Estate’s framework document and that this definition explicitly includes a climate and nature duty.

The Crown Estate plays a pivotal role in the management of our land, seas and natural resources. It is well known for its ambition around nature recovery. It is a key player in our offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management, but in areas in which there are multiple competing uses and values, including fishing, marine protected areas, and even highly protected marine areas. Therefore we need reassurances, as were obtained in the other House, that clause 3 does not just require commissioners to keep under review their impact on sustainable development without clearly defining what that means in practice.

I must acknowledge where this amendment started in life, which is with Baroness Hayman’s work in the other House. After much debate, it was agreed that sustainable development must be kept under review by the commissioners, but with a reference to the framework document in which a definition would be provided. Baroness Hayman said:

“What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1448.]

This amendment seeks to provide clarity and accountability for what was agreed verbally in the other House—that the definition would not be on the face of the Bill, but would be in the updated framework agreement. We need that to ensure there is a consistent benchmark against which decisions can be assessed, in line with the public duty to our climate and nature targets. As the definition within the framework agreement would specifically refer to, those are the climate targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the nature restoration goals under the Environment Act 2021.

This would mean that the Crown Estate cannot simply pay lip service to sustainability; it must actively contribute to decarbonisation, biodiversity protection and the UK’s broader environmental goals. Climate change and nature loss are economic risks, as well as environmental ones. Embedding clear, enforceable sustainability duties in the Crown Estate’s framework, according to our existing legislation, will ensure that its investments and operations support long-term resilience and prosperity. This amendment strengthens the existing clause. It does not seek to define it on the face of the Bill, but assures us, as happened in the other House, that the definition is within the framework agreement.

Perran Moon (Labour, Camborne and Redruth)

I will also speak to amendment 1. I add my voice to the request for assurances from the Minister on the alignment of sustainable development with the UK’s net zero goals, and also on community benefits. I agree with him that we must not lay too narrow a scope on the Crown Estate and seek to limit its opportunity as a key revenue driver for the UK economy. Goodness knows, we need it after 14 years of Conservative failure.

I am really concerned, however, about the potential bypassing of deprived coastal communities in the revenue from the Crown Estate to the Treasury. It would be nice to get reassurance from the Treasury of the Government’s plans to ensure that coastal communities closest to many of these huge revenue opportunities will see some of the benefits of that growth.

Andrew Snowden (Conservative, Fylde)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

Noah Law (Labour, St Austell and Newquay)

I recognise that it might not be the place of statute to outline some of the specifics brought up by the amendment, but does the Minister agree that the spirit of the amendment is well in keeping with the mission of this Government and, moreover, that of regional economic development in particular, which spreads to all corners of Britain? That is important, and it is incumbent on the Treasury more widely to ensure that that takes place, particularly through the channel of supply chain development.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A priority of the Government is to ensure not only that there is economic growth at a national UK level, but that all regions and nations of the UK benefit from such economic growth and the increase in productivity. We want to ensure that people right across the country are better off and have more money in their pocket through greater investment and growth in their local areas. He makes an important point.

To return to the definition of “sustainable development”, I will briefly address the point made about that by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I assure her that that definition will be published on Royal Assent of the Bill, at that point. It was, however, a deliberate decision not to specify specific targets or objectives such as net zero on the face of the Bill, given that the Crown Estate is already required to “maintain and enhance” the value of the estate responsibly. Referencing specific targets would risk complicating the Crown Estate’s existing clear commercial objective.

As I have already noted, the Crown Estate is required to pay its entire net profits to the UK Consolidated Fund every year, worth more than £4 billion over the past decade. That supports the UK Government’s spending on policy priorities, including net zero and, indeed, regional economic growth.

On national security interests specifically, it is important to be clear that the Government are responsible for ensuring that national security interests are managed effectively at a UK-wide level. It would not be appropriate to require the Crown Estate to have a specific regard in that matter. As I have noted, while the Crown Estate has goals under which its strategy can align with wider national policy objectives, the 1961 Act provides the Crown Estate with independence and autonomy. The Government believe that it should continue to operate in that way, as a commercial business independent of Government. This requirement would encroach on that independence by drawing the Crown Estate into interests managed directly by the Government.

The Government believe that the Crown Estate’s existing duties give it a clear focus, leading to a consistently significant return to the Exchequer to support the funding of public services and priorities. The duty to have due regard to the requirements of good management, alongside the new requirement to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development, are already sufficient to cover the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

I turn to amendments 6 and 8, tabled respectively by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for South Cambridgeshire. Amendment 6 would require the commissioners, in complying with proposed new subsection (3A) of the 1961 Act on sustainable development, to

“set and publish sustainable development objectives in relation to their activities…take all reasonable steps to meet these objectives, and…have regard to the relevant environmental legislation for the UK, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to making these objectives.”

It would further specify that the relevant environmental legislation includes the Climate Change Act 2008, the Environment Act 2021, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Amendment 8 would require any “framework document” published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate or the commissioners to define “sustainable development”, and that that definition include a reference to a “climate and nature duty”. It further specifies that such a climate change duty would mean a duty to achieve any of the targets set out under part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.

The Government understand the intention behind amendments 6 and 8, but a key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over the 150 years previously, which were hampering the effective management of the estate. By focusing the commissioners’ duties on enhancing the estate’s value and the returns generated, the commissioners have a clear objective for which they can be held to account. It is an important principle that giving an organisation too many objectives will make it far less effective than giving it clear and focused priorities. As I have already noted, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

To seek clarification, is the Minister saying that, unlike what seemed to be the agreement reached in the other House, we will not seek, through this legislation or any burden put on the Crown Estate, to ensure that it has a climate and nature duty, such as other bodies have? That will not form part of the definition of sustainable development he said will be published on Royal Assent.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

As I mentioned, the definition of “sustainable development” will be published on Royal Assent. Perhaps we can return to any questions that the hon. Member may have on that definition at that point.

The fundamental point that I am seeking to make is about ensuring that the Crown Estate can operate effectively. By having clear and focused priorities, it will operate more effectively than having too many objectives, which end up meaning overall that it will perform less well in the public interest. As I have noted, the Crown Estate is a commercial business. It is independent of Government and operates for profit. Although it has goals that, under its own strategy, can align with national policy objectives, fundamentally, the 1961 Act grants the Crown Estate independence and autonomy.

The Government have accepted the amendment to require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development. However, expanding the Crown Estate’s core purposes in legislation, in particular with additional duties or objectives that may unnecessarily complicate or conflict with the achievement of the core commercial objective, would risk undermining that core objective being achieved.

Any actions that undermine the core commercial objective risk undermining the very funding that is used to support environmental and other policy objectives. The Government believe that the Crown Estate should continue to operate in this way—as a commercial business, independent of Government—because it has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation, with a proven track record and effective management.

As I noted, the Crown Estate is already a trailblazer in its efforts to tackle climate change and support the environment, and it is required to pay its profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year. Furthermore, I confirm that the requirement under amendment 8 for any framework document between the Treasury and the Crown Estate to define sustainable development has already been agreed by the Government.

As confirmed on 5 November on Report in the other place, the public framework document that exists between the Treasury and the Crown Estate will be updated in the light of that amendment to clarify that “sustainable development” means regard for the impact of the Crown Estate’s activities on the environment, society and the economy. It will also make it clear that that regard includes, where relevant, consideration of relevant legislation, such as part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, which deals with the targets set for 2050, and section 56 of the Climate Change Act and sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, which also deal with specific environmental targets. The framework document will also make it explicit that the Crown Estate will include in its annual report a report of its activities in relation to sustainable development. For those reasons, I trust that hon. Members will be able to withdraw their amendments.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I accept the point about the Crown Estate being a commercial business, but I am less persuaded that it is unable to cope with an additional objective. When I think about other organisations in the public sector and the number of objectives that we set for them, I am fairly sure that a commercial business has the wherewithal to be able to manage that. However, I accept the potential for an impact on the returns of that commercial business. The Minister has given indications regarding the annual report, and I hope that he will have heard today the determination of Members from coastal communities and the importance of this to them. He will be aware of the strength of feeling about the necessity of ensuring that we have real delivery and community benefits from the extended powers and facilities that we are providing to the Crown Estate.

We will not press the amendment to a vote, but, when it comes to accountability, we know where the Minister’s door is and I am sure we will happily knock on it should the need arise.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

Will Llinos Medi wish to press amendment 6 to a Division?

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

indicated dissent.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

Amendment 8 has just now been debated with amendment 1. Pippa Heylings indicated that she might press amendment 8 to a Division. Will she wish to move it?

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

We have received assurances that we will have the chance to discuss the sustainable development definition at the time of Royal Assent and that the framework document will pay due regard to climate and nature duties in relation to our targets for 2050 under the Climate Change Act and to our nature restoration duties under the Environment Act; that is good. I urge the Minister to consider that it is an economic choice to consider climate and nature up front, not only that we then raise the money to provide for environmental funding post operation. That is something that we should all embrace, in particular in the Treasury.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

Before we come to amendment 9, I impress on the Committee that this is grouped for debate only with new clause 10. Clause stand part will be debated next.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In pursuit of the objective under subsection 3A, the Commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities.”

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Marine Spatial Planning: coordination—

“In relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must—

(a) ensure that the decisions are coordinated with the priorities of the Marine Maritime Organisation, and

(b) consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.”

This new clause ensures the Crown Estate collaborates with DEFRA’s Marine Spatial Prioritisation through the MMO.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

Given our conversations in this debate about the importance of considering our coastal communities in relation to the new powers that are to be given to the Crown Estate, I draw attention in particular to an example on the north Norfolk coast, the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe.

Key sites, vital to our energy infrastructure and security, lie on that coast. For decades, Bacton gas terminal has been a cornerstone of the UK’s gas network, ensuring the smooth distribution of supplies arriving from overseas. Just along the coast, in Happisburgh, we find the landfall sites for the Norfolk Boreas and Norfolk Vanguard wind farms, which will generate 1.4 GW and 1.8 GW of power respectively—critical contributions to our renewable energy future.

To protect Bacton’s vital infrastructure, a £20 million sandscaping project moved 2 million tonnes of sand, shielding not just the terminal, but the villages of Bacton and Walcott. In Happisburgh, however, despite its pivotal role in our transition to clean energy, no such protections have been put in place. Already, 40 homes have been lost to coastal erosion, and the latest national coastal erosion risk-mapping data shows that even more of the village is at risk in the years ahead. The amendment would ensure that, as we harness the power of North sea wind, we also safeguard the fragile North sea coast, protecting the communities that host that vital infrastructure.

I will also speak to new clause 10. We have heard about the importance of considering coastal communities within all the decision making, and this new clause on marine spatial planning co-ordination would ensure that the Crown Estate’s decisions on marine priorities were properly co-ordinated and aligned with the Marine Management Organisation, which has the mandate for mediating use priorities on our seabed and along our coast. Affected communities, in particular our fishing communities, would therefore be properly and fully consulted through the Marine Management Organisation.

Similar to the land use framework, this would be a sea use framework for the marine spatial plan that the Marine Management Organisation is mandated to under-take. We need a joined-up approach to decision making, with marine plans balancing economic, environmental and social interests. The Crown Estate must therefore work in full co-ordination with the marine spatial prioritis-ation framework of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

The Crown Estate has started to consult, and is publishing plans before it takes decisions about where to put floating offshore wind stations, for example. Can the Minister assure us that that will be the case in the future, and that when the Crown Estate is planning to build out in the ocean, there will be consultation with fishermen and environmentalists? I think that is the intention, as discussed on Second Reading.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

Andrew Snowden (Conservative, Fylde)

I feel sympathy with the contributions from both the Minister and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. There are some issues at the heart of what the amendment and new clause are trying to achieve, but whether they are within the scope of the responsibility of the Crown Estate is an equally valid point. New clause 9 talks about coastal erosion and, while that is an issue, there is also the issue of coastal damage caused by projects where the seabed in particular is licensed. Again, Morgan and Morecambe off the Fylde coast will lead to years of work trying to rebuild sand dunes that will be cabled and tunnelled through for a new cabling corridor. The dunes will be completely damaged due to activity coming in to connect to the national grid.

Furthermore, the new clause talks about consultation. This is where I really do have some sympathy with the Minister, because that is not the responsibility necessarily and primarily of the Crown Estate. The root cause of the issue is that there are already regulations in place for consultation to happen where licences are being issued. The consultation happens; people consult and then they just ignore local communities and industries. Nothing changes, and perfectly valid objections and alternative routes for cabling corridors coming in from the sea are just ignored—but that is a broader issue rather than specific to this point.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

I will not press either of these amendments to a Division, but I would like to call attention to the fact that, given the greater borrowing and investment powers, the existing frameworks and regulations under which the Crown Estate has been co-ordinating the Marine Management Organisation need to be considered. I think we can all recognise that the situation has changed hugely. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider how they will ensure that there is greater consultation on decisions around prioritisation of what happens where, that greater weight is given to that, and that more resources and powers are given to the MMO to ensure that that happens. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Sustainable development: community benefits—

“(1) Before making any investment decision, the Commissioners must assess—

(a) plans for community benefits for local communities, and

(b) plans for community benefits for coastal communities of offshore activities.

(2) In section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, at end insert—

“(1A) The Commissioners must transfer at least 5 per cent of all net profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities to local communities impacted by those activities

This new clause would require the Commissioners to ensure their activities benefit local communities, including coastal communities, and that 5% of any profits would be transferred to local communities.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

Clause 3 amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. I have referred to various aspects of clause 3 as part of our earlier debate, so I will try to be brief. As hon. Members know, this clause was added as an amendment in the other place, based on productive debates that reflected the important role that the Crown Estate has in stewarding our natural environment. As I noted earlier, the Government believe that the Crown Estate’s existing duties give it a clear focus, leading to a consistently significant return to the Exchequer to support the funding of our public services.

At the same time, the Crown Estate can, and does, focus on activities which also 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. That said, it is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to achieving our climate change targets, and the Crown Estate should continue to be a national trailblazer in that regard. The Crown Estate has committed to becoming a net zero carbon business by 2030, aligning with the 1.5° target, and will prioritise activities that help to enable a reduction in national carbon emissions, such as building net zero homes, transitioning its holdings to sustainable agricultural practices and working in partnership with the Government to meet the national renewable energy targets.

Regarding the biodiversity targets in the Environment Act, the Crown Estate is committed to delivering a measurable increase in biodiversity by 2030. It will publish its delivery plan to meet that goal later this year, which will include commitments to restore habitats in line with targets in the Environment Act. The Crown Estate also published its approach on nature recovery last autumn, where it committed to delivering increased biodiversity, to protecting and restoring freshwater, marine and coastal systems and to increasing social-wellbeing benefits from nature. However, the reforms introduced by this Bill are not intended to alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate as a commercial business independent from Government.

The commissioners operate under a clear commercial objective, as set out in the 1961 Act: to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. As I have already noted, the Crown Estate operates under a duty in the 1961 Act to have due regard to the requirements of good management. Alongside its core commercial objective, the duty obliges the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate responsibly. It is the Government’s view that these existing statutory requirements and this clause are the best approach.

New clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require the commissioners to assess plans for benefits to local communities and, in the case of offshore activities, coastal communities before making any investment decisions. It would also require the commissioners to transfer at least 5% of the Crown Estate’s net profit to the local communities impacted by its activities.

At present, local communities benefit from onshore and offshore developments through the economic advantages that such developments bring, including job creation and increased business for local suppliers, and individual developers also contribute to local initiatives. The Crown Estate has also specifically designed the leasing process for its offshore wind leasing round 5 opportunity in the Celtic sea such that developers must make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of their new wind farms. Those commitments will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.

The Crown Estate is committed to proactively working with the local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. For example, it has allocated £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs and is developing a green skills pipeline, from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 “Destination Renewables” course with Pembrokeshire college. The Crown Estate is also partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.

The Crown Estate already works closely with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies and to keep them relevant and effective. The Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains that flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered, to ensure that it can contribute to skill training in the best possible way and, importantly, without conflicting with its statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw her new clause. It is the view of the Government that the existing statutory requirements and this clause are the best approach going forward. I commend clause 3 to the Committee.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

Clause 4 - Annual reports

Gill Furniss (Labour, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Noah Law (Labour, St Austell and Newquay)

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

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing new clause 4—Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”—

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. In his remarks, the shadow Minister essentially set out a similar question, rephrased in a number of different ways, about the publication of the partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, and I would like to remind him of some of the points we discussed before lunch.

The Crown Estate is keen to ensure that details of the partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government agree that it is sensible to require the Crown Estate to include the relevant detail in its existing annual reports. I would also emphasise—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that this is less important than we do—that 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 investing in clean energy infrastructure.

Andrew Snowden (Conservative, Fylde)

The shadow Minister talked about the agreement being presented to the Public Accounts Committee in confidence. I am not sure how it would create commercial issues for GB Energy or the Crown Estate if the agreement was viewed in private by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and its members.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

We have considered the importance of making sure that the details of the partnership are publicly available. Because of the highly commercially sensitive nature of partnership agreements, the Government have set out that the way forward is to ensure that the commissioners include in their annual reports a summary of their activities, and of any effects or benefits resulting from their activities, under the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. We believe that that measure fulfils the aim of making sure that the information about the partnership is publicly available.

The work of GB Energy and the Crown Estate is very important for achieving some of the Government’s goals. They will work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects by co-ordinating planning, grid connections and leasing to de-risk projects for private developers to build. That will unlock private investment, speed up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure, boost energy independence, save costs for families, create jobs and tackle the climate crisis.

I hope that the Opposition would support some of those goals, although it was drawn to my attention that the shadow Minister campaigned against national grid infrastructure last year in his constituency. He teamed up with Liz Truss to do it; it was the shadow Minister and Liz Truss. Am I going to get sued now for having referenced that? I do not know whether the shadow Minister would like to express his regret at having campaigned against national grid infrastructure, which is obviously so important for the energy transition. Perhaps that is why this debate has touched a particular nerve on the Opposition Front Bench, but that is for him to say, not for me to speculate about.

What I do not have to speculate about, and what I can say with great certainty, is that the Great British Energy and Crown Estate partnership is very important for this Government, and the measures in clause 4 ensure that the relevant information is publicly available. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 5 - Salmon farms on the Crown Estate

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Clause 6 - Commissioners with special responsibility

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

Clause 7 - Extent, commencement and short title

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

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

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

New Clause 2 - Territorial seabed

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss 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.’”

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.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

New clause 2 relates to the seabed, which is obviously an important asset held by the Crown Estate. Specifically, the clause will prevent the Crown Estate from selling the seabed without obtaining consent from the Treasury. During the Bill’s time in the other place, there was significant interest in the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of unique national assets such as the seabed.

It will be no surprise to the Committee that the law on the ownership of the seabed is incredibly complex. As such, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to explore the matter further and, if required, to bring forward a legislative provision to restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to sell the seabed.

I am pleased to say that the clause delivers on the commitment made by the Financial Secretary by putting special protections in place for the seabed. It does that by requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate’s interests in or rights and privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

Could the Minister give examples of when the Crown Estate might consider selling the territorial seabed?

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

I will come in just a moment to some of the scenarios that the new clause might cover.

As I said, the new clause ensures that the Crown Estate commissioners must obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate’s interests in or rights and privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. To be clear, that does not mean that the Crown Estate could never be permitted to dispose of a seabed. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, national or local interests may be best served by such a sale, including, for example, to another part of the public sector to enable local infrastructure development. Any such sale could, under these measures, take place only with the agreement of Ministers, and it is right that they are decision makers on such sales.

I should also make it clear that the clause would not fetter the Crown Estate’s existing right to agree licences or leases in relation to the seabed, which by definition do not represent a permanent disposal of the asset. The ability to agree long-term licences and leases for the seabed will continue to be an important feature of the Crown Estate, to attract significant investment needed for offshore clean energy developments.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, seeks to limit the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of assets without Treasury approval. Specifically, it would require the Crown Estate to seek consent for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of its total assets in a single year, and that the Treasury lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of disposals above that threshold.

The Government’s view is that 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 Bill. There may be instances where it makes commercial sense to dispose of high-value assets, particularly when the Crown Estate takes a long-term view of the business and its strategy.

I recognise that the new clause would not prohibit disposals above the specified limit, but would require the Crown Estate to obtain Treasury approval. However, as I have set out for the Committee, 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.

However, I do understand that there may be concerns about the Crown Estate’s ability fundamentally to change the nature of the estate. I reassure the hon. Member that the core duty of the Crown Estate—to maintain an estate in land and to enhance and maintain the value of that estate—is unchanged by the Bill. I hope that that provides the appropriate reassurance and that he feels able not to press new clause 3.

The Government are thankful for the constructive engagement of the Opposition on the matter of disposals. That has led to special protections being put in place for the seabed. I therefore commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

New Clause 3 - Limit on the disposal of assets

New Clause 4 - Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy

New Clause 5 - Management of the Crown Estate in Wales

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

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

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Devolution of Crown Estate powers to Wales—

“(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 7 (powers of Minister of Works in Regent’s Park) insert—

‘7A Commissioners’ functions in Wales

(1) The Treasury must set out a scheme to transfer all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(2) The existing Welsh functions under subsection (1) are the Commissioners’ functions relating to the part of the Crown Estate that, immediately before the transfer date, consists of—

(a) property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and

(b) rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a date to implement the scheme under subsection (1) to the transfer of functions to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”

This new clause would require the Treasury to devolve Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

The new clause places a duty on the Treasury to transfer management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of the commencement of the Bill. This would correct the glaring imbalance in the constitutional settlement of the UK whereby Wales is unable to direct and benefit from its own natural resources in the way that Scotland can. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of devolving the Welsh Crown Estate; it has been called for by the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales, the national infrastructure commission for Wales and the Labour Welsh Government. I note, sadly, that the Welsh Government have failed to submit any written evidence in favour of devolution to this Committee.

Half of all Welsh councils have passed motions calling for the devolution of the Crown Estate, with more preparing motions for the coming weeks and months. Devolution is also supported by 58% of the population of Wales, according to the latest polling—a clear majority. The Government have argued consistently that devolution of the Crown Estate would “fragment the market”. I note that that is the same position as the previous Conservative Government, which is why the former Labour Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Hain, was right when he said, during the Lords Bill Committee, that this position

“reflects old, centralised, conservative, anti-devolution Whitehall thinking.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2024; Vol. 840, c. 18.]

Scotland is also a proof of concept that a devolved Crown Estate does not impede investment or fragment the market. If there can be a smooth and orderly transition of the management of the Crown Estate to Scotland, why not the same for Wales?

On Second Reading in the Commons, the Government argued that devolution would complicate existing processes and potentially delay grid connectivity reform, as well as the further development of offshore energy. Let me take those points in turn. First, with proper planning and a guarantee by the UK, working with the Welsh Government, to protect reserved interests, including the national grid, it would reduce the risk of impediments to ongoing reforms. That is why new clause 5 includes provision to ensure that the Treasury acts to secure reserved matters, such as the national grid, as part of the transfer of the management of the Welsh Crown Estate to the Welsh Government.

Secondly, on the potential further delays to offshore development in Wales, a devolved Welsh Crown Estate creates the opportunity for it to be strategically integrated into the planning of sub-sectors, including offshore wind in Wales. Looking again at Scotland, devolution has allowed for greater alignment between marine energy planning and licensing for renewable energy projects, such as offshore wind. With a devolved Crown Estate, the Scottish Government have taken a sectoral marine planning approach for offshore wind. They have made a specific plan for offshore wind development that provides the strategic frameworks for seabed leasing for commercial-scale offshore wind by Crown Estate Scotland. While England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have various forms of marine plans that the Crown Estate must have regard to, they cover a wide variety of policy areas and are not sector-specific.

The Welsh Government have a number of other areas that overlap with the responsibility of the Crown Estate in conducting early development of offshore wind. Those include their devolved responsibility over Welsh ports and responsibility for education in Wales, including skills and apprenticeships. These are crucial for the development of robust local supply chains for offshore wind projects. Wales could integrate a devolved Welsh Crown Estate into Welsh devolved plans and responsibilities, leading to a more strategic and joined-up approach to offshore development. In this way, devolving the Crown Estate is about not just profits from renewable licensing, but driving economic development in Wales. That would surely be a more attractive proposition to developers. The Government cannot continue to hide behind the excuse that devolution creates uncertainty. Yes, devolution will mean change.

Noah Law (Labour, St Austell and Newquay)

Does the hon. Member recognise that the potential devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales could cause no end of issues for the fair distribution of supply chain and economic benefits in communities, alongside their Celtic neighbour in Cornwall, for example?

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

That is why we have asked for a two-year approach, so that we can work together. It has happened in Scotland and it is possible. I think it is only fair that we ask the new UK Government, who want to devolve local authorities and regions in England, for devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales as well. It was another Labour Secretary of State, Ron Davies, who said:

“Devolution is a process. It is not an event and neither is it a journey with a fixed end point. The devolution process is enabling us to make our own decisions and set our own priorities, that is the important point.”

I urge this Labour Government to heed those words and support my amendment to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

I will speak to new clause 5 and to new clause 12 which calls for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales has been left without these powers, despite the fact that vast Crown Estate assets lie within its borders. It is time to correct that unbalance and bring Wales into line with Scotland. Devolving control of the Crown Estate would not only recognise Wales’s status as an equal nation, but deliver substantial economic benefits to communities across Wales. Under the current system, profits from the Crown Estate flow directly to the UK Government.

Jayne Kirkham (Labour/Co-operative, Truro and Falmouth)

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay partially explained, there is an issue relating to, for example, the Celtic sea, where the Crown Estate has great interest in floating offshore wind. That lies between Wales, Cornwall and the south-west, so where would the line be drawn? It would open up a huge number of complexities that would be very difficult to solve.

Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat, South Cambridgeshire)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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 (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

For clarification, does that plan not include Scotland, which has already been devolved?

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, but we must consider the proposal before us in terms of the situation we face now, rather than consider decisions that have been made in relation to another nation in the past. We are considering not only the challenges but the opportunities for generating renewable energy in connection with assets closer to Wales or closer to England. The Government believe that having a united approach, through retaining the Crown Estate’s current form, is the best way to improve lives for people in Wales and across the rest of the UK.

As I was saying before the hon. Lady intervened, our reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid. I am sure she would not want to see those waiting times increase. The cumulative impact of the changes that she and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire are suggesting in their new clauses would likely significantly delay the pathway to net zero.

Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s marine investments are currently made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. To devolve to Wales would disrupt the existing investments, since they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh-specific entity. To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would risk jeopardising the existing pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic sea planned into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic sea. It was launched in February last year and is expected to contribute 4.5 GW of total energy capacity, or enough to power 4 million homes.

In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider UK. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and create a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy.

Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as managers of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. For Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its current pipeline of Welsh projects, the biggest of which is the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic sea, can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front. It would not make commercial sense to introduce a new entity, with control of assets only within Wales, into that complex operating environment, where partnerships have already been formed. Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales, as compared with its assets in England, are of a fundamentally smaller magnitude, which would likely not be commercially viable if the costs were unsupported by the wider Crown Estate portfolio.

The Crown Estate, in its present form, has the ability to take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the costs of those investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability, nor would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades in delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch, midway through a multimillion-pound commercial tendering process, at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero.

For example, the commercial viability of all three 1.5 GW floating offshore wind project development areas in the Celtic sea, which straddle the English and Welsh administrative boundaries, benefited from the Crown Estate’s significant investment of time, expertise and capital to enable entry to market. UK floating offshore wind, which is an emerging offshore technology that the Crown Estate is supporting, would be particularly vulnerable to market disruption.

It is also important to underline that income generated by the whole Crown Estate benefits the people of Wales. As I have noted, the Crown Estate pays its entire net profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year. That means that much of the revenues already support public services in Wales, either through supporting UK Government spending in reserved areas or through the funding provided under the operation of the Barnett formula and the Welsh Government’s block grant funding.

Perran Moon (Labour, Camborne and Redruth)

On that point, does the Minister agree that a lot of the concern and anxiety expressed so far stems from the idea of huge opportunities for revenue generation by the Crown Estate passing through deprived rural coastal communities and going to the Treasury? Will he comment on how a place like Cornwall, which is not subject to the Barnett formula, will benefit from all the resources from something like the Celtic sea?

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a collective approach to projects such as those in the Celtic sea, which cross English and Welsh administrative boundaries, can increase a return for the UK Consolidated Fund, which benefits people in Cornwall, Wales and other parts of the UK. It ensures that we get the best return on our investment through Crown Estate activities. Our concern about the proposition in the new clauses is that it would undermine such revenue generation for all our public services, as well as disrupting the emerging market in offshore floating wind at a critical time, when what investors need is stability, certainty and confidence to invest in a growing sector, not organisational change that might undermine the investment they seek to make.

To pick up further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, were Wales to benefit only from the income generated in Wales, it would likely receive zero or negligible benefits for several decades to come, because Welsh assets are relatively new and it will take them time to mature—in the order of 10 to 15 years. The Crown Estate has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation, with a proven track record in effective management and profit generation, which are valuable outcomes that we need to be careful not to undermine.

As I set out earlier, the Government supported the inclusion of clause 6, which will require the appointment of a commissioner responsible for giving advice about Wales. I will not repeat what I have already set out, but it is important to underline that that will help to ensure that the board of commissioners for the Crown Estate continue to work in the best interests of Wales, alongside their existing duties as commissioners. That will certainly strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability and mission to deliver benefits for the whole UK.

I am aware that hon. Members may not agree with the points I have made, but I hope that I have set out clearly why the Government believe the existing structure remains the best approach. I hope hon. Members feel able not to press their new clauses.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I thank the Minister for those comments; I will come back on a few of them.

This debate is about fairness. We are asking for fairness and equity for Wales, and parity with Scotland. It is important to give a bit of history. Our natural resources in Wales have been extracted from our communities yet, as I mentioned earlier, by the end of this decade 34% of children in Wales will live in poverty. If the money we are discussing was spent back in Welsh communities, it would have a dramatic effect.

There was a discussion about the Barnett formula; I could stand here all day and discuss the fairness of the Barnett formula for Wales, including how it does not impact deprivation and the effect on expenditure on public services. We have asked for details about the profits for Wales, but unfortunately they are not calculated. As demonstrated just now by the Minister, we have not had those figures because unfortunately the profits go into one pot and the figures for Wales cannot be shown. I will press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 6 - “Transfer of net revenue profit to Wales

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I beg to move, that the Clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the Crown Estate commissioners to transfer all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government on an annual basis. Although figures for the profits generated in recent years by the Welsh Crown Estate are not available, the figures from across the whole Crown Estate show that overall profits have increased dramatically. Since 2021, there has been a 408% increase in Crown Estate profits and therefore the profits from Wales have likely seen a similar level of increase.

Even if one accepted the Government’s argument that devolution of the management of the Crown Estate would involve too much risk, that does not justify profits generated on assets in Wales not remaining in Wales. Therefore, will the Government outline whether they support the principle that all profits generated through Welsh natural resources should be kept in Wales, as is the case with Scotland?

Some argue that Wales would not benefit financially from the devolved Crown Estate given the impact on the devolved Welsh budget. However, the Scottish model already demonstrates how profits from the Welsh Crown Estate could interact with the devolved Welsh budget. In Scotland, all profits from the Scottish Crown Estate are paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund and redistributed for public spending. These profits interact with the Scottish block grant adjustment mechanism, which was agreed with the Treasury under the 2016 Scottish fiscal agreement.

The mechanism removes a portion of the block grant as the profits from the Scottish Crown Estate increase, to avoid Scotland gaining twice over. That is due to the Scottish budget benefiting from a Barnett share of the expenditure in England, supported by Crown Estate revenues arising from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Crown Estate Scotland has estimated that net revenue profits in 2023-24 will be £113.5 million. The current reduction to the Scottish block grant under the adjustment mechanism will be £10 million, which should result in an estimated usable revenue from the Crown Estate Scotland for the Scottish Government of £103.5 million.

If Wales followed a similar approach to Scotland, it would likely gain additional revenues from the Crown Estate and would have only a small proportion removed from its block grant in return. That would occur through a Welsh block grant adjustment mechanism to be negotiated between the Welsh Government and the Treasury. Will the Government look at opening discussions with the Welsh Government on retaining profits in Wales and establishing a fair block grant adjustment mechanism to account for rising profits over time? It would be up to the Welsh Government to decide what to do with the money from the Crown Estate.

Plaid Cymru has proposed targeting investment into deprived communities in rural Wales and our deindustrialised valleys, and using the money to develop a Welsh sovereign wealth fund. However, that is not within the scope of the new clause. I hope the Government will listen and agree to the new clause, thereby endorsing the principle that profits generated in Wales should remain in Wales.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Do you wish to say anything, Mr Wild?

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Well—

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

It is not compulsory.

James Wild (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Indeed.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for tabling new clause 6, which would require that the commissioners must transfer all net revenue profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities in Wales to the Welsh Government on an annual basis. As The Crown Estate’s operations are not divided into business units for each nation, calculating the exact net profit figure attributable to Wales is not straightforward, because most of the associated costs cannot easily be disentangled from the Crown Estate’s overall costs and would, in places, require subjective judgment.

Furthermore, as I set out earlier, given that the Crown Estate takes a long-term approach to investments, it is anticipated that its investments in Wales could take up to 10 to 15 years to see an appropriate return. Therefore, if net profits were transferred to the Welsh Government now, they are likely to be zero or negligible. I hope that explanation was helpful and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the new clause.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I am unsure how the Minister can say that we would not receive any profits when the Government cannot work out what profits Wales generates. It feels a bit difficult to understand that argument.

I am fighting the corner for fairness for Wales. We have lost all our natural resources and that has been feeding the UK machine. Unfortunately, we are seeing poverty on the rise and deindustrialisation in communities. The new clause would see the profits that are generated given back to those communities, to be spent in those communities and on their future.

New Clause 7 - Annual disaggregated reporting of capital and revenue for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

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

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I note that since 2021 the net revenue profit and asset value data for Wales has not been published by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate says that the reason for this is that:

“While in the past, we have produced illustrative figures for Wales, we have since shifted our focus to a more holistic approach to assessing value and increasing our investment, and we realise that such figures are not a fair reflection of value. The previous Wales numbers we published have not included a cost allocation.”

In an answer from September 2024 to my written question asking about the merits of producing regular disaggregated assets and revenue data for Wales, the Government said:

“To achieve efficiency in its operations, the Crown Estate runs many of its functions at a whole enterprise level. As a result, separate financial statements for Wales would not reflect the fact that expenditure is incurred for the benefit of the whole portfolio, and it is not possible to disaggregate net revenue profit attributable to Wales.”

I also note that the Government accepted an amendment to the Bill in the House of Lords to include national commissioners for England, Wales and Northern Ireland on the board of the Crown Estate. The amendment also grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted about the Welsh and Northern Irish appointments. Therefore, can the Government outline how these national commissioners will be able to advise on the affairs of each respective nation if there is no process by which the Crown Estate can measure and delineate the profits and costs incurred separately in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

New clause 7 would address this gap by requiring annual reporting of both asset value and revenue across all nations under the Crown Estate, and by doing so, it would require the Crown Estate to develop a way to measure asset value and revenue in a consistent manner. I hope the Government will accept this amendment to strengthen the ability of national commissioners to fulfil their intended role to advise and act in the interests of the nations they represent on the Crown Estate board.

I turn to new clause 8. Under the current arrangements, many public bodies, such as local authorities, pay lease fees to the Crown Estate simply to lease the land in their own area. However, details of these are not routinely published. In response to my written question in October 2024, the Government noted that,

“Publishing details of those fees would risk prejudicing the commercial interests of both The Crown Estate and the local authorities involved.”

However, local authorities are able and willing to provide this information through freedom of information requests. These FOIs have revealed that in 2023 local authorities in Wales paid fees amounting to well over £300,000 a year. At a time when council budgets are under enormous pressure, how can these fees be justified? This is public money that vital council services such as housing, education and social care are being deprived of.

We should be having a debate on the merits of these fees. This has to start with total transparency and a full account of what is being charged and where. That is why I have tabled new clause 8, which requires the Crown Estate to publish in its annual accounts a list of all lease agreements it has with public bodies in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, including each lease’s name and valuation. I ask the Government to support my new clause for the sake of transparency and to agree that, where public money is being spent, the public should be able to see where this money is going.

New clause 9 is similar to new clause 8. It would require that the Crown Estate commissioners report separately for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that the devolved legislatures have these reports laid before them. The Crown Estate already produces highlights reports for Wales and Northern Ireland. This amendment would place this type of reporting on a statutory footing by ensuring that these reports are made available to both the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and would allow for greater transparency and engagement between the Crown Estate and the devolved legislatures. Diolch.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

New clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, would require the Crown Estate to disaggregate reporting in its accounts to show capital and revenue figures for the activities of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, the Crown Estate’s operations are not divided into business units by nation. It would therefore not be straightforward to disaggregate reporting in that way. It would be a complex task, requiring a series of highly subjective judgments to be taken. Although it is possible to identify gross revenues from each nation, reporting them without any representation of the costs associated would be entirely misleading. However, the Crown Estate does publish broader information relating to its activities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as part of its annual report and accounts. The Government’s view is that it remains appropriate for the Crown Estate to continue its reporting on a whole-business basis. I hope that that explanation is helpful and encourages the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.

New clause 8 seeks to require the Crown Estate to publish a list of all individual lease agreements with public bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including the name and value of each agreement. As I set out in earlier debates, the Crown Estate is an independent organisation that competes in the commercial markets for profit. Although I understand that the sentiment behind the amendment is one of transparency, it would not be appropriate to require the Crown Estate to make public specific details relating to all lease agreements with public bodies, including agreement values, as this, by definition, would include commercially sensitive information.

The publication of commercially sensitive information could disadvantage the Crown Estate and its lessees, undermining competitive positions and potentially affecting negotiations with future tenants. This would be an additional requirement on the Crown Estate and not one that its competitors face. I remind the Committee that the intention of the Bill is to modernise the Crown Estate to ensure that it can compete more effectively, thereby generating maximum returns for the public purse. For that reason, it is important that the Bill does not confer additional obligations on the Crown Estate that could undermine its ability to compete in the market. I hope the hon. Member will agree and feel able to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 9 would require the publication of separate reports for each of the nations that the Crown Estate operates within on the performance of their functions. The reports would then be laid before Parliament and the devolved Assemblies respectively. At present, the Crown Estate operates as an independent and unified commercial entity, engaging in a variety of business activities across Wales, England and Northern Ireland. To achieve efficiency in its operations, the Crown Estate runs many of its functions at a whole-enterprise level.

As the Crown Estate’s operations are not divided into business units by nation, attempting to disaggregate performance in each nation is a complex task. The division of the Crown Estate’s performance by nation would inevitably require a high degree of subjective judgment that would likely be misleading. It is therefore the Government’s view that it remains appropriate that the Crown Estate continues to report on a whole-business basis, supplementing its annual report with a Wales review that highlights its activities in Wales. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the new clause.

Llinos Medi (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

This is a leadership discussion—it is about the leadership we are asking the Government to show in giving Wales the fairness it deserves. We are asking for clarity around public money. I am a bit concerned that there should be a commercially sensitive discussion around public money, which is meant to be transparent. We can get it through freedom of information requests, so it should be easy to collate that information so that the people of Wales and across the United Kingdom can see how their local authorities are spending their money on the Crown Estate and where that is spent afterwards.

In addition, I am unclear about the role of the commissioners. The information that we are asking for in these new clauses would strengthen the role of the commissioners and give them the ability to fulfil their role for the benefit of those regions whose concerns they are there to voice. I will press this matter to a vote.

New Clause 8 - Publication of lease fees

New Clause 9 - Publication of separate reports for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

New Clause 11 - Sustainable development: community benefits

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

My decision is that new clause 12 is sufficiently similar to new clause 5 as not to justify a separate vote, so we will move on to the remaining procedures.

James Murray (Labour/Co-operative, Ealing North)

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 (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

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.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

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

Written evidence reported to the House