Crown Estate Bill

Debated on 24 February 2025

Henry Tufnell:

We live in uncertain times, and as a nation we face many challenges ahead. For one, there is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The impact on our domestic energy prices has shown the extent of our reliance on the international oil and gas markets.

Since 2022, gas prices for households across the country have spiked, and the cost of living continues to bite. Putin’s boot is on our throat.

Another challenge is the result of rapid deindustrialisation across the UK since the 1980s, and too much economic focus on London and south-east England.

We have seen massive job losses at Port Talbot; we face an uncertain future at Grangemouth; and we still bear the scars of the loss of the mining industry. Regional inequality is stark, and in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, the rate of child poverty is steadily increasing.

And of course there is our climate crisis: wildfires in California, torrential rain in Spain, and extreme heatwaves and longer droughts. Even walking through the village of Angle in Pembrokeshire with members of the local community council, it is all too easy to see the increase in frequency of flooding, not to mention its damaging impact on residents and local farmers.

Prior to the general election of 4 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out her economic vision of securonomics: we would make, sell and buy more in Britain, and so deliver energy security and create good, well-paid jobs while tackling the climate crisis. My Labour colleagues and I stood for election on that manifesto, and it is time to deliver.

At a time when the challenges are so great and the need for leadership is so acute, it is vital that the Crown Estate has greater scope to rise to those challenges and do its part for the revitalisation of our great nation.

The provision in clause 3 that commissioners at the Crown Estate “must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom” is therefore to be welcomed. That amendment was hard fought for by the noble Lords in the other place, and I commend them for it.

However, it is our duty in this House to provide clarity about the meaning and scope of “sustainable development”, and about the mechanism for enforcing that provision. Maintaining transparency and accountability is critical for an organisation as big and influential as the Crown Estate.

Allowing the estate to define “sustainable development” and report annually is a move straight out of the environmental, social and governance playbook. Given the financial firepower that this House is granting the Crown Estate, allowing it to effectively self-regulate on an issue of national importance is a dereliction of our democratic duty.

Under amendment 5, the commissioners must have regard to net zero, regional economic growth and energy security. It would not impede the independence of the Crown Estate, but would provide unambiguous purpose and direction on an otherwise undefined and unexplained term. It should therefore be welcomed.

Jim Shannon MP:

Of course, a key issue for all of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly for us in Northern Ireland, is the fishing sector. Any net zero development, such as a wind farm—wind farms have been proposed for my constituency in the past—could have a direct impact on the fishing sector there.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the fishing sector could be impacted by measures that take away the opportunity to fish in the seas around this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the detriment of those in the sector, and their families?

Henry Tufnell:

The fishing industry has a great history in my constituency, and it is vital that the Crown Estate takes on board the issues in the fishing industry when it looks at leasing and consenting.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I am grateful also to the Minister for his assurances in Committee that the public framework document will give context to clause 3, on sustainable development.

However, no text has yet been shared with this House, nor will any be shared until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This reduces scrutiny and will encourage a retrospective review, rather than a proactive approach.

Furthermore, relying on a public framework document reduces this House’s ability to ensure that the clause is properly enforced.

What is the mechanism for enforcement in the event of non-compliance? What if the Crown Estate failed to report in good faith—what would the penalties be?

Off the back of Labour’s resounding victory last July, we know there is democratic consensus across the nation on our economic vision, which promotes energy security, regional economic growth and net zero, yet the Crown Estate appeared to be relying on the window dressing of ESG standards to obfuscate its desire to maximise its 12% of profits, at the expense of our nation.

Liz Saville-Roberts MP:

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument, and I share his concern for communities such as Milford Haven, in which renewable development will be critical in future.

I am sure he will also agree that devolution of the Crown Estate would be a key way to make the best use of supply chains, and to ensure that money stays as local as possible, particularly in Wales.

Henry Tufnell:

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.

I sometimes feel, though, that the ideas of her party are slightly for the birds.

The idea of devolution—where is their plan? There is no plan. What are the practicalities?

Ben Lake MP:

I thank my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way.

The plan is quite simple: we could look at what is happening at this very moment in Scotland.

Henry Tufnell MP:

The issue, though, is the practicalities.

Is the hon. Gentleman going to draw an artificial line in the Celtic sea? What about the issue of consenting? What would that do for the leasing rounds, when certainty of investment for the private sector is so critical at this stage?

Furthermore, other Government agencies and Departments have to take account of this economic vision.

In its latest contract for difference round, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero set a criterion of achieving shorter supply chains, in order to ensure that manufacturing facilities, installation firms and ports are located in areas of deprivation. It also adheres to science-based targets, which are goals that businesses set to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with obligations under international treaties, so that we can reach net zero by 2050.

The national wealth fund has an overall goal of increasing investment in resilient and sustainable infrastructure to support the UK’s net zero transition, and to contribute to improved local economic opportunity and productivity.

In partnering with the private sector and local government, the national wealth fund has two clear strategic objectives: to tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth.

Great British Energy facilitates, encourages and participates in the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and measures for ensuring the security of energy supply.

In providing clarity of purpose, this House is not overreaching and dictating individual organisational decisions; instead, it is setting out a broader direction of travel, based on the democratic will of the people of this great country.

In my constituency, people are desperately in need of that radical intervention to address the high levels of social deprivation and bring back economic prosperity.

To be clear, I support the Bill.

However, in order for this Government to deliver on their election manifesto, the Crown Estate must be given clear purpose and direction that are directly aligned with the Prime Minister’s plan for change.