📜 Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

• The Crown Estate Bill [Lords] was discussed in a Public Bill Committee session chaired by Gill Furniss.
• The session focused on amending the Crown Estate Act 1961 to modernize the Crown Estate’s operations, allowing it greater ability to invest and borrow to increase revenue for the Treasury.
• Amendments were proposed to limit the Crown Estate’s borrowing power by setting a cap at a 25% net debt-to-asset value ratio and requiring parliamentary approval for changes to this limit. However, these amendments were rejected.
• Discussions also touched on increasing the number of Crown Estate Commissioners from eight to twelve and adjusting their remuneration to better align with corporate governance practices. Proposed amendments to require parliamentary notification of changes to the chief executive’s remuneration were withdrawn.
• The bill includes new requirements for the Crown Estate to review the impact of its activities on sustainable development, with amendments proposed to specifically consider net zero targets, regional economic growth, and resilience to risks. These amendments were not adopted but the government confirmed the term “sustainable development” would be defined at Royal Assent.
• Concerns were raised about the potential impact of Crown Estate activities on coastal communities and the allocation of profits. An amendment to allocate 5% of net profits to affected communities was not adopted but the government highlighted existing local benefits and plans for community engagement.
• The session also addressed transparency around a new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy (GB Energy). An amendment to require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament was discussed but not moved, due to the commercial sensitivity of such agreements. However, the government committed to reporting on the partnership’s activities in the Crown Estate’s annual report.
• Overall, while the government showed willingness to modernize the Crown Estate’s operations and ensure alignment with national interests like sustainable development, it resisted specific amendments that would impose additional legislative oversight, preferring to keep the Crown Estate’s commercial operations flexible and independent.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3. Here is a detailed explanation of the disagreements observed during the session, along with specific examples:

1. Disagreement on Borrowing Limits: The primary source of disagreement is seen in the discussions on amendments to clause 1, which relates to the Crown Estate Commissioners’ power to borrow. James Wild proposed amendment 4 to limit the Crown Estate’s borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, arguing that parliamentary oversight is necessary due to the newness of the borrowing power. This was supported by Pippa Heylings, who proposed amendment 7, expressing similar concerns about fiscal responsibility and the need for parliamentary oversight.
   • Example: James Wild expressed disappointment with the Minister’s response, emphasizing the need for legislative safeguards rather than relying on a memorandum of understanding, which can be easily changed. He pushed his amendment to a vote but was unsuccessful.
2. Remuneration Framework Oversight: There was also contention regarding amendment 5 to clause 2, which proposed parliamentary notification of any changes to the chief executive’s remuneration framework. James Wild argued for transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, whereas James Murray, the Minister, highlighted existing arrangements and the Crown Estate’s independence, suggesting that the amendment was unnecessary.
   • Example: Lincoln Jopp raised concerns about the proposed chair’s political donations and linked it to the transparency sought in amendment 5, although the Minister clarified the appointment process and transparency measures.
3. Sustainable Development Objectives: Amendments 1, 6, and 8, and new clause 11, focused on the Crown Estate’s responsibilities toward sustainable development, net zero targets, and community benefits. Proponents argued for more explicit duties and obligations, but the Minister emphasized the Crown Estate’s commercial focus and existing commitments to align with national interests.
   • Example: Melanie Onn and Pippa Heylings discussed the importance of ensuring the Crown Estate considers net zero targets and regional economic growth, whereas the Minister maintained that the proposed duties might complicate the Crown Estate’s core commercial objectives.
4. Transparency of Partnership Agreements: New clause 4 aimed to require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. James Wild argued for transparency due to the significance of the partnership, while the Minister resisted, citing commercial sensitivity.
   • Example: James Wild questioned the commercial confidentiality excuse and proposed alternatives such as redacted versions or sharing with the Public Accounts Committee, showing a clear disagreement with the Minister on how much transparency is required.

The disagreements were not extreme or heated, as amendments were discussed respectfully and debates were conducted within the procedural norms of the Committee. However, the frequency and the substantive nature of the disagreements on key amendments suggest a moderate level of discord. The disagreements were pivotal to the session’s progression and influenced voting decisions, thus justifying a rating of 3.