Live Debate: Public Accounts Committee - 13th Jul 2026

Public Accounts Committee

Monday 13th July 2026

(began 2 weeks ago)

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

15:28

Speaker 1

-

Welcome to this session of the Public Accounts Committee. Monday the 13th of July 2026. Today we will be examining how the Crown Estate manages its extensive portfolio of land and property, including its responsibility for the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Today, we'll be exploring the arrangements for residential properties occupied by members of the Royal Family, where the responsibilities are shared between the Crown Estate and the Royal Household, the Crown Estate generates significant returns for the taxpayers. Over the past three years, it has returned more than £1 billion to the taxpayer, with much of this growth driven by the seabed leasing for offshore wind development and is an area we will explore during this session.

Given the scale and value of the assets managed by the Crown Estate and the royal households role in overseeing royal residences, it is important that both organisations demonstrate good stewardship of public resources and deliver value for money. So this afternoon we will examine how effectively the Crown Estate is managed managing its assets, whether its administrative costs are reasonable and justified, and whether the property and leasing arrangements managed by both the Crown Estate and Royal households are delivering the best possible value for the taxpayer. So without any further ado, I'm going to start with you, Dan, if I may, and welcome all three of you.

Ask each of you to introduce yourself. Say who you are, what you do, and how long have you been in post would be really helpful.

15:30

Speaker 2

-

Thank you, Sir Jeffrey. I'm Dan Lebard, chief executive of the Crown Estate. I'm also the accounting officer and the second commissioner. I've been in post for just over six years. Um, and, my responsibility is to oversee both the strategy and the management of the Crown Estate on a day to day basis.

15:30

Speaker 1

-

And, Helen, please.

15:31

Speaker 3

-

Hello. My name is Helen Price. I'm the CFO of the Crown Estate. I look after all things finance for the Crown Estate. And I've been here since January 2025.

15:31

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Finally, James.

15:31

Speaker 4

-

Sir. Thank you. I'm James Chalmers, I'm the keeper of the Privy Purse. I've been in the role for 18 months, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions.

15:32

Speaker 1

-

Well, thank all three of you very much for coming. We appreciate it. So I'm going to start off with my very able deputy, Clive Betts, please.

15:32

Speaker 5

-

General. The Crown Estate probably has responsibilities that not everyone is aware of around the the seabed and much of the coastline. Um, so last but. Then if you could just explain, uh, all the conflicts, any tensions, any prioritisation, it's got to be done about the returns. You've got to generate finance returns as it goes, as opposed to the, the social and environmental responsibilities you have as well.

15:32

Speaker 2

-

Thank you. Um, yes. So as accounting officer um my responsibilities um are to ensure that I'm meeting those obligations in the context of the Crown Estate Act 1961 and 2025. Um, and that act gives us a number of obligations, including making sure that we're maintaining and enhancing the estate in land and assets. Secondly, ensuring that we are, um, achieving money or money's worth in doing so, but also that we are reviewing our responsibilities towards sustainable development. And as you say, um, at times.

Those things can come into conflict. A good example is um in. The rollout of renewable energy and for example, the natural world or the environment and, and profitability. Um, our responsibility is to ensure that we're thinking about the long term benefit of the activities of the Crown Estate, both for today and the return that we need to make to Treasury, but also ensuring that the Crown Estate can go on and endure and continue to provide both returns, but also value in the broader sense of the word for the UK.

Um, in 50 to 100 years from now. Um, what's important to sort of um highlight is that we have a strategy that brings our need for making a return with the, the need to protect the environment, with the need to ensure that we're doing social good. And what we find in the way that we operate through our investment committee, we have something called the value creation framework. And that is all about how we ensure that we can stand up to scrutiny, and that we are transparent in how we bring those things together.

Um, whether we're talking about the seabed or we're talking about the way that we integrate our urban portfolio or the way that we're thinking about our farmers and, and our commitments to agriculture.

15:34

Speaker 5

-

Okay. So coming back to the, the seabed there, um, you've obviously got financial responsibilities. You've explained, uh, and some of that you can easily measure by how much money you make from, say, allowing, um, wind farms to be, um, progressed. How do you actually measure the success or otherwise of your environmental and social responsibilities?

15:34

Speaker 2

-

Well, um, I guess first of all, we don't do anything unilaterally. Um, everything we do, um, needs to be done through collaboration. And that includes working with a broad set of stakeholders. So again, a good example is the rollout of round five in the Celtic Sea last year, where we've been working on that for the last three years, but we least, um, we entered agreements for lease with a number of developers for 4.5GW of renewable energy in the Celtic Sea. We worked with a whole range of stakeholders, including international developers and investors, um devolved nation in this case in the form of the Welsh Government, um global environmental groups and ensure that as we looked at those things, we were making sure that we were bringing the interests of everyone together.

The other thing that we did is we invest heavily in data and evidence. So we spend a lot of time making sure that we really, really understand the the underlying data that informs environmental, the environmental context, bearing in mind that the environmental challenges we face aren't specific necessarily to a local jurisdiction. They're systems wide. And then finally, we are not the ultimate decision maker. We have to work through the planning process and other regulatory approvals. And so that we don't we don't have, again, the unilateral right to make these decisions in isolation.

So to answer your question, we work across a range of diverse stakeholders that have those different interests in mind. We invest in data and evidence heavily, and we rely on the planning process and other regulatory processes to ensure that decisions are informed in the right, balanced way.

15:35

Speaker 5

-

Do you take account of the interests of. Get their living from the sea. Fishermen and others who may be affected by some of the um you know, wind. Farms or other things that you might give approval to?

15:36

Speaker 2

-

Yes we do, we, we work across um fishing environment, navigation, defence, um renewable energy. We look at all interests. Um and again, when you look at the rollout of successful leasing programs, um, under the procurement, in the procurement context that we work within, there is ample ability for judicial reviews and other things to be put forward to stop these leasing processes. And I think an example of how we're doing that successfully, uh, is that we have been relatively unfettered in our deployment of the 13GW that we're that we've generated to date, plus the leasing rounds that we're doing, um, to bring on new renewable energy in the years to come.

Um, the other thing that we're doing, uh, that's important that I mentioned is we're investing at the moment in something called the marine delivery route map. And it is a tool that uses the data that we've been able to gather over 25 years of doing renewable energy and working with the seabed in that way to really, um, and bring in other uses, I should say, in other data sets to really start to map out the future scenarios of seabed deployment in all the areas that I talked about, including the interests of, say, fishing communities as one stakeholder.

And the reason that we're doing that is because up until now, we've run a leasing program up until three years ago, one in every ten years. Now we're looking at running one every other year. Given the deployment requirements of renewable energy in line with government targets. Um, and in order to do that, we can't rely on engaging with stakeholders on a, on a scheme by scheme basis. We have to plan ahead over the next 30 to 50 years and ensure that communities understand what we're doing and why that the economic benefit of this deployment will will transverse the UK.

Uh, and finally, that international investment can gain confidence from the fact that they can see where deployment is going to come from.

15:37

Speaker 5

-

I think you've mentioned obviously, that's the talk about, um, what about drilling?Do you allow any drilling for either um fuel or for minerals of any kind.

15:38

Speaker 2

-

No. The Crown Estate does not have the rights over oil and gas, fossil fuels that sits with other government authorities.

15:38

Speaker 5

-

We don't have that problem to deal with. Helen Price, can you think of any examples then when you've foregone um financial gain in order to preserve environmental or social benefits.

15:38

Speaker 3

-

I think that when we look at the investments that we make, we use our value creation framework. So we look at both financial, um, capital and sustainability impacts when it comes to assessing whether or not we want to move something forward. And so it's important that we make sure we meet those financial thresholds, but also that we don't ignore social impacts as well.

15:38

Speaker 5

-

An example of where you said make some money off of that, but we're not going to.

15:39

Speaker 2

-

There's there's several examples. Um, so firstly, the way that we allocate our balance sheet is not just a balance sheet isn't allocated simply on, say, for example, traditional financial hurdle rates in isolation. We have an aspect of the balance sheet that is geared that way. But we also have aspects of the balance sheet that are more looking at longer term investments. Are we planting the seeds for the future?Um, so I just wanted to make that point because, um, often, you know, when these questions are asked, it's like, well, you know, you've got a balance sheet that's geared towards short term returns.

How do you make these trade offs?One example is, um, we'll give you two examples. One example is on the seabed. There are um um. Several leasing opportunities are either densification of existing wind farms, uh, or the rollout of new wind farms where our advice has been not to develop those out because of environmental concerns, because we felt that these particular parts of the seabed were getting to the threshold of being overexploited from a renewable energy perspective. And we're going to impact, um, biodiversity in the area.

And those impacts could not be mitigated. They would have been, um, extremely. Profitable for us, but we haven't done it because again, we take our responsibilities incredibly seriously with regards to both transparency and also, um, future scrutiny in that down the track, if somebody looks at these decisions and sees that we have actually taken short term profitability decisions ahead of material environmental degradation, we, we are not going to be able to stand up to that, to that scrutiny. Another example is, at the moment, we're looking at the future of, um, Regent Street, something called the Park to Park Scheme.

Nash's original vision was to link Regent's Park with Saint James Park. Um, we we um, could easily continue to derive an income out of Regent Street and put as little money into it as possible. But we are looking at the entire urban design from a number of areas. Um one being um the vision, the other being the weather that we're facing at the moment, um flooding. How do we ensure that that Regent Street is climate resilient for the future?And also how do we ensure that the street as an international and local beacon is for everybody, not just a select few?If we took a, a, I guess, straight commercial approach, we could derive a lot more shorter term income out of Regent Street.

But we're looking to invest for the future because we believe that if we don't in in 30 or 40 years from now, um, we're going to have done things that our successors are not going to be able to rectify.

15:41

Speaker 1

-

Good question from me. I'm told that the blades of these big windmills are very difficult to recycle. Do you put anything in your agreement about recycling?

15:41

Speaker 2

-

Are we put a number of. Just taking a step back. What we do is we work with the industry on a whole host of things. Firstly, these, um, these turbines, they offset um many factors of carbon, you know, positively against what their embedded carbon or their wastage is. But we don't accept that as an excuse. We measure our business. And you'll see in the annual report we talk about scope one, two and three emissions. And in that um the turbine carbon cost is, is measured.

Um because we don't think that's an excuse to not try to reduce carbon regardless. Um, with regards to the blades, they are difficult to recycle at the moment. There's a lot of innovation going into um, at the moment because there are some of them are carbon fibre, some of them are balsa wood, a lot of innovation going, like I think about recycling boats because boats are made out of um, shipping uses a lot of the same type of material. And there is an industry emerging around the world looking at that.

But it is a challenge to recycle. So what we do is work with the industry on a whole host of social and environmental areas. Um, first of all, ensuring that the deployment of this technology is done safely, ensuring that, uh, developers are doing what they should to reduce carbon impact and also doing what they should to reduce wastage impact. And then finally ensuring that we're taking social economic benefit from their deployment into UK waters. So we work across those things. Um, but there's a long way to go on turbine recycling because of the nature of not turbine recycling, but the blade recycling because of the nature of material.

But we were at the forefront of that.

15:43

Speaker 1

-

I'm very pleased to hear that. Chris, please.

15:43

Speaker 6

-

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to declare an interest on the Vice Chair of the oceans Appg. Um, so my questions are very linked to seabed management and decisions. So clearly there, there are a variety of uses for the seabed aquaculture, fish farming, one renewable energy we've discussed my colleagues previously, conservation is another significant one. There are a variety of different strategies that different organisations use around our coastlines. RSPB is one such example. Um, can I ask how do you work with government to prioritise different uses for the seabed within within your brief, have you have you skewed towards renewable energy or have you have you got a diverse portfolio?

15:44

Speaker 2

-

Um, we look at it from a diverse, from a, through a diverse perspective because, um, you know, one of the challenges as, as you would know, is that, um, you know, when you look out at the sea, at the seas, it looks empty, but it in fact isn't, there's a lot of usages. And it's one of the reasons why in recent years we've developed the marine delivery route map. Um, the reason that route map is required is because then we felt as managers of the, of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland that there needed to be a holistic planning approach that engaged a wide diversity of stakeholders.

And then what we could do is run scenarios, you know, hundreds of scenarios on different usage topologies. Um, it's not for us to decide how that usage, um, manifests itself. That is a decision for government. Um, but what we have the ability to do is to provide a tool that can enable hundreds and hundreds of scenarios informed by the best data and evidence that we can find and others can find, um, and hearing the interests of different stakeholders as this is being developed. So to answer your question, we don't make those decisions.

What we have the ability to do. And I think a responsibility to do in enhancing the seabed as part of our objectives under the 1961 act, is to use what information we have in order to provide a tool that can enable the best decisions possible.

15:45

Speaker 6

-

And just within those decisions that you're making, because obviously, there will be competing priorities between different, um, operational elements of potentially planning permissions versus stewardship of the oceans versus potentially challenges around, uh, the natural environment and, and conservation of fisheries stocks. How do, how do you, how do you prioritize those?I mean, in nature, sometimes they call it the precautionary principle that you always, um, maybe you utilize that as a principle. The Environment Agency does, or maybe you're more commercially focused in terms of revenue streams from energy.

Can I just get a sense of where the organization sits within that?

15:46

Speaker 2

-

Yes. So, so, um, probably the best thing to do here is provide an example. Um, and the latest example we have is round five in the Celtic Sea. We're in the process of um working through the possibility of a new leasing round in the north east, but the Celtic Sea has been uh, that's in agreements for lease with a number of developers, um for a new technology called floating offshore wind. And the reason why we're deploying that technology is because it's deep water technology in the Celtic Sea is deeper waters.

And I should say, for the deployment of renewables under government targets, we've we have to move into deeper waters. Um, that was a 2 to 3 year engagement process going through, um, everything from environmental surveys, geological surveys, engaging stakeholders, understanding the different interests and ensure and having also various advisory groups, um, including an. Environmental advisory group on how to, how to work through and ensure that what was happening. There was appropriate and sufficient, um, we also have a process called the HRA, which is the habitats regulation assessment process, uh, which brings together a group of, um, diverse stakeholders in the environmental area to look at the strategic environmental merits of a particular leasing decision.

And it's the outcomes of those processes that then make a recommendation to either the Secretary of state or secretary of states, if it's a devolved matter or it includes a devolved matter, in order to ensure that all the relevant information was taken into consideration in making that decision. So our role is to ensure that we are analysing the diverse elements that go into seabed use. If we are going to explore a leasing round, ensure that we're exploring that with a diverse set of stakeholders. Because there are many examples around the world of where that hasn't happened, and then what happens through various procurement challenge process, these leases get stopped.

So it's not in our interest. Um, regardless, to push through leasing activity for the purposes because that will never deploy if we do that. Um, so make sure we win, we win the goodwill of a broad range of stakeholders where there are issues, they are identified, mitigation measures are in place, compromises are in place that people accept. And then ultimately the habitats regulation assessment process and other other processes inform the relevant government decision makers through the planning processes on what they believe is appropriate and viable for a particular for a particular scheme.

15:48

Speaker 6

-

Okay. And just lastly, people are aware, uh, oceans are contested territory at the moment. There's grey zone activities with um, other nation states into interfering with cables and subsea um, sort of transmission mechanisms. Uh, and there's concerns about future energy supply as well. Just in terms of your future security and resilience, or do you do an assessment on that?And do you engage with other stakeholders to ensure that we're not seeing choke points or other types of concerns associated with that?

15:49

Speaker 2

-

Yes. So we, um, we don't have security responsibility ourselves. However, um, we take it incredibly seriously and we work with the relevant government and regulatory authorities on security. And as you say, it's, it's a key issue at the moment. We have a number of people at the Crown Estate that have the appropriate security clearance for those purposes. And we engage actively on those on those issues.

15:50

Speaker 6

-

Thank you very much.

15:50

Speaker 1

-

Thank you very much. Chris. Um, we've come to Catherine, please.

15:50

Speaker 7

-

Thank you. I think my questions are probably for you, Dan, because I wanted to ask you further about the offshore wind farm. Um, sites. And you've you've set out. Some of the lengthy stakeholder engagement and the processes required to progress such leases. But clearly, um, the Crown Estate has faced significant challenge in making progress on these. And I just thought it would be helpful if you could explain what are the main challenges in. Progressing other than obviously the stakeholder engagement, but it would appear from the, um, the reduced option fees that there are clearly additional challenges to progressing these sites.

15:51

Speaker 2

-

Yes. So I think first of all, we think challenge is good because, you know, we're lucky enough to live in a democratic society and everyone has a view of what good looks like. Um, and I think the UK offshore wind industry is a great example of, um, this country at its very best having, you know, deployed what we've deployed and being a world leader in this area. Um, and that has come about because a diverse, um, cross. Section of stakeholders has leant in and had an opinion on, on how you get this done and how you do it in the right way.

Um, we were approached now all the time by other parties from around the world to give them advice as they embark on this journey. Because, you know, a lot of them are starting out where we've been for quite, quite a long time. We have the scars, but also the, a huge success story to, to talk about. Challenges. I guess the biggest is, um, making sure that there are adequate processes moving forward to coming back to the previous questions that were asked by the committee to ensure that we are embracing stakeholder interests in the right way.

Um, at the pace of deployment that's required. Um, you know, and, and I think that's why our marine delivery route map is such an important tool. The whole purpose of that tool is to be, rather than talking about leasing programs 2 to 3 years in advance, talking to them 5 to 10 years in advance so that we can engage the interests of, of all the different stakeholder groups we've been talking about early enough to ensure that, um, we're getting ahead of the curve. Um, and the reason that that's required is because, um, whether it's security concerns, whether it's, um, the prosperity of our fishing communities, whether it's how we use the technology to come onshore and support the supply chain and economic potential of this country.

Um, all of that requires forward planning and can't be done on a wind farm by wind farm basis. So that is probably the biggest challenge. In response to that question.

15:53

Speaker 7

-

Okay. That all sounds very upbeat in terms of response. And I guess this is an opportunity for you to say, you know, what could be done to actually support this process. How do we, you know, can government do more, for example, to, to free up some of the obstacles that might be in the way or to ease the path?Is there more that could be done?

15:53

Speaker 2

-

Would say that one of the things working with um. Government departments on this, um, and I think this is again, I'm certainly not someone who's shy at laying criticism where I think it's due, but I think in this case, the offshore wind industry has been a collective crown estate government. Community and stakeholder endeavour over many, many years. And the industry has come up, come across some significant challenges over the years. Um, right now there are economic challenges facing the industry. Um, there's geopolitical challenges facing the industry.

If you look at, um, the international Offshore wind collective balance sheet, um, it's shrunk considerably in the last five years as the big oil and gas majors have moved away from it. And so, you know, the challenge right now is making sure that the UK remains a viable destination for that inward investment, not only because of the energy security benefit of the technology or the climate benefit of the technology, but also because of the economic benefit, the skills and the jobs that the technology will bring. Um, and so, you know, I think, you know, if, if just thinking about your question, if I was to sort of think of something as it's incredibly important that policy consistency remains.

Because coming back to this question of how we retain global interest in our markets, so the UK can benefit economically. Um, you know, that, that, that consistency is incredibly important.

15:55

Speaker 7

-

Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you. Um, I'm a an MP that represents the northeast from Newcastle. So um, obviously there's quite a lot of talk about the you know, round six. It's primarily off the. North east coast. Um, are there any particular learnings for that round that the Crown Estate will be applying to make sure um that this opportunity for investment does happen?

15:55

Speaker 2

-

Um well I think there's a few and, you know, we are an organisation that is, as you'd expect us in meeting best practice corporate governance requirements is constantly learning. So, um, there's always something to learn a few things, um, from the top of my head, I think first of all, working in partnership, the crown estate can't, um. Deliver. And deploy alone, uh, local authorities, combined authorities, devolved nations that, that public finance partnership is essential at the national level. The public finance institutions working together.

Um, also important because there is no point, um, deploying. Offshore wind, which is an economic development pool and at the same time not think about how do we build the infrastructure and the supply chain benefits so that as we put obligations on our developers such that they can plug and play with and, and we build our, our apprenticeship, our skills and our, and our industry, our ports. So I think, you know, one of the lessons that we're, we're, we're actually deploying now in partnership with, um, the North East broadly is how do we ensure that we're thinking about supply chain benefit?Um, in parallel with considering the notion of a leasing program because around six could deliver up to six gigawatts.

Uh, Blyth is obviously the, the home of offshore wind in this country. And I think it, I think the north East has the ability to be a world leader. Um, but economically, um, we understand that, you know, we're talking about over over £10 billion in terms of economic development over the next 20 to 30 years as a result of this deployment. Um, the second piece is, um, we have to work nationally as a system. One of the things that we're up against is.

Losing port. Activity to international competitors. Losing um, supply chain opportunity offshore. Um, and I think in order to maximize what we retain as a country, we need to think about the UK as a system of opportunity, not this part of the country will win over that part of the country. So I think that's the other learning, uh, that again, we're bringing to, to the round six deployment.

15:58

Speaker 7

-

Okay. That's helpful. So I wanted to go on to urban development, which I think follows quite nicely from what you're saying in terms of, um, supporting the areas as much as the industry offshore, um, and you. Know, as you are well aware, the Crown Estates established as a, a company founded for the benefit of the country. And as you say, it needs to benefit the whole of the country. So how do you make sure that your urban portfolio is delivering for the whole country in an inclusive way?

15:58

Speaker 2

-

Yeah, I might say a few things there and then just ask Helen to maybe provide a, an add to. To what I say, um, so. I think firstly, we have property interests around the country and I think we've um, earmarked, uh, a large amount of our future investment, which is one of the reasons why borrowing is so important to, um, supporting supply chain activity in regards to offshore wind deployment and other uses of the seabed. Um, we're also invested heavily in science and innovation, not just, um, in the South east, but over the.

Next few years nationally. Um, we also, if you think about the numbers that I just rattled off with regards to the jobs and the economic benefit of the North East, um, round five in the South West, we're talking about 5000 jobs. We're talking about over £1 billion in economic development. That's only the first leasing round. The Celtic Sea, we believe, has the potential for an additional 12GW of activity. So the way that we measure, whether it's our urban deployment or our, um, total portfolio deployment, isn't only in what we're looking to directly invest, but also and I think this is where the scale comes from, the ripple effect of that investment, which from the numbers that I've just provided, you know, quite a quite profound.

16:00

Speaker 7

-

Do you want a challenge before you come in, Helen, with some further information that the portfolio is currently heavily. Um, weighted to. Towards London, I would say. So if you could reflect on that within your answer and what what's happening to diversify that?If there is anything happening that would be helpful to understand?

16:00

Speaker 3

-

Sure. So you're right to say that we have a weighting towards London in the South east, it's about 75% of our existing portfolio. Um, and as Dan mentioned just now, um, one of the reasons that we received borrowing powers from Parliament was to enable us to invest more broadly. And what we're looking to do over the course of the next 10 to 20 years is invest across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And clearly, we will be investing within London. We have, um, a significant portfolio within London that needs redevelopment, but we look to invest, for example, around two thirds of our upcoming investment outside of London.

So we're looking to over time, rebalance the shape of our portfolio.

16:01

Speaker 7

-

And could you just clarify why. And is, is this to do with the, um, partial. Buying out of lend lease. Um and the investment in that, how does that fit with the plan to invest um on new developments and to sort of expand it around the country.

16:01

Speaker 3

-

So I'll give you a bit more color in terms of the initial numbers, and then hand over to Dan to talk a bit more about lend lease. So the numbers that I'm quoting exclude lend lease. So we look at our development pipeline both with and without lend lease, because that transaction is only just completed. Um, but the lend lease portfolio is not weighted towards central London in the same way that, for example, the Regent Street portfolio is, it's much more outside of London, but also Birmingham.

But Dan, do you want to give a little bit more color?

16:02

Speaker 2

-

Yeah, I think there's a few things, um, just building on what Helen said, there's a few things that we think about in terms of the lend lease portfolio. The first is, um, the need to support housing in this country. And, um, one of the things that we, that was essential is can the crown Estate support large scale housing and commercial in the form of life science and tech space deployment?And we're looking at doing a couple of things. There is one, providing diversification opportunity for our portfolio.

Um, because we have a responsibility to ensure the Crown estate remains resilient. Lend lease, the lend lease arrangements, don't commit us to follow through with vertical development. Our initial role is to enable those projects and what we will be doing. I would envisage is doing some vertical development, but also looking to crowd in capital and capability to again support the industry because again, like offshore wind, a key part of our role is to help make the market, and there is the need to build, in particular, housing deployment capability here.

Um, and we see that over time, in addition to Birmingham, that there would be the ability to take that particular partnership to other parts of the country. We also have our own portfolio in house, which is about 30,000 units, most of which is outside of London housing units. And again, we would see ourselves doing that either directly with partners or within the lend lease portfolio over time. So I think what you're going to find is what we'll end up doing is taking a more active involvement in housing, but it's going to probably parallel what we do in offshore wind, with us looking to take some direct interest, but ultimately enabling the market to build the markets capability to develop and deliver more housing.

16:04

Speaker 7

-

So is this relationship partnership with Lend Lease?Is this a new approach by the Crown Estate to have a partner that actually retains the position as development manager?Um, and is that something that's something you're looking to expand just in terms of lend lease or with perhaps other development partners?

16:04

Speaker 2

-

When you look at our where we sit today, so five years ago, we were for all the right reasons, a predominantly contained portfolio in that, you know, we had our London, um, holdings, we had our offshore wind holdings, our regional holdings and our agricultural holdings. And we worked within our means, so to speak. Um, we have been actively moving the Crown Estate, um, given where we are in the world now to be a more active, um. Actor in supporting the UK's needs, um, energy security, climate resilience, nature recovery, inclusive economic growth and making sure that we maintain the resilience of our portfolio.

Um, today, when you look at our, um. Offshore wind, future interests, um, you know, there is 30 to 50GW in the future that we need to deploy there. And if you look at our, how.

16:05

Speaker 7

-

Is that connected to lend lease?

16:05

Speaker 2

-

No, no, but I'm just coming back to lend lease. And then with and with, with, with just in terms of answering your question about what type of sort of operational approach are we going to take?

16:05

Speaker 7

-

I was thinking more about the sort of property development.

16:06

Speaker 2

-

So on the property development side, when you look at our pipeline today, um, we have a £40 billion end development pipeline, which is unprecedented. There is no way that the Crown Estate can deliver that under traditional means, as it always have, as it always has, I should say. Um, so we will be looking for more partners. We have a partnership with pioneer Group and Oxford Science Enterprises on the life Sciences and science and technology side, generally supporting small businesses coming out of universities. So to answer your question, yes, I think we will be looking at those types of partnerships moving forward more and more as we scale.

16:06

Speaker 7

-

Okay. And will that be sort of an open competition or at the moment, is it just lend lease that you have that relationship with?

16:06

Speaker 2

-

Well, we have pioneer Group. Um.

16:06

Speaker 7

-

In terms of the housing.

16:07

Speaker 2

-

Side, in terms of housing, um, I think, well, so what we did with Lend Lease just for clarity is we bought into an existing set of projects. Um, but in future, if we were looking at projects that we was on our land and we had the development rights to, we would be looking at following a procurement process like we do with offshore wind.

16:07

Speaker 7

-

Yeah. Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you. And just one final. I can't resist being an MP from Newcastle to ask you about the gate. And um, you know, obviously the, the out of market sale. Um proposition. Is it a significantly reduced value, uh, to the amount it was purchased at. Um just if you could explain what's happening there, it would be helpful to understand.

16:08

Speaker 2

-

Yes. Um, I'm really happy to talk to that. And do you want to add to that as well?So, um. We're going to be investing a fair amount in the North east. Um should round six. Proceed. And I'm hoping dearly that it does. We also have interests in agriculture up there. And we also have a number of um regeneration opportunities. So what we look at with our portfolio is there's elements of the portfolio we can't sell, but obviously we can sell shopping centres.

It's always is that particular asset. Is it able to be managed by somebody else?Is it where we want to invest our core investment in particular regions and the gate?There are a number of other people that can own the gate, that can do as good a job as as us. And so what that allows us to do is redeploy that capital into other things, like supporting the supply chains and the other things that we're talking about. So we're always looking at how do we move our portfolio in order to give us the most, um, for want of a better expression, horsepower in order to focus on the things where we can truly add value as opposed to where others, others can add value.

16:09

Speaker 3

-

Yeah. There's not much more I'd add to that actually. Thank you.

16:10

Speaker 7

-

That's helpful. I guess the challenge will be making sure that whoever does purchase it can run it as effectively. And, um, you know, and that it does remain a key asset within the city centre as part of that urban development.

16:10

Speaker 2

-

Yes. And I think the thing about the Crown Estate brand is that, um, and given our commitment to the North East, like all parts of this country, um, we understand the repercussions of if that wasn't to happen.

16:10

Speaker 7

-

You.

16:10

Speaker 1

-

I'll just stick on the gate for a minute. I mean, you have, as Catherine said, suffered quite a loss on that property. Can we be assured that you're not doing what is just fashionable at the moment and looking after your better returns and leaving the poor returns?I mean, it seems to me that you could sit on this, and it would probably recover, particularly with the amount of money that the government is going to be putting into the north of England. And in the scheme of things, £15 million, and you haven't sold it yet.

So it might be less than that is a very small amount of money.

16:11

Speaker 2

-

Is, but I think it's a fair question. But I think across the portfolio, you know, we have thousands and thousands of assets. Um, we have to balance. Where we can, uh. Where we focus our efforts, where we can add the most value, but at the same time ensuring that what we are selling or what we are disposing of, um, or what we are leasing, uh, is able to be managed in, in the right way. Um, you know, we won't be fi sailing, um, fire selling the gate.

Um, we have a vested interest in that part of the country. We are looking at other investments up there at the moment. Um, so I think to answer your question, Sir Geoffrey, we have to look at things in the round, putting it through our value creation framework and making sure there's a consistency to how we make these decisions. Um, we have been generally coming out of elements of regional retail for some time, but again, making sure that the appropriate counterparty is taking those assets on where that is their core business.

Okay.

16:12

Speaker 1

-

Um, I'd like to probe a little more on this deal with Lend Lease. Uh, this committee has taken a great deal of interest, unfortunately, with HS2, and that involves Euston. Can we use Euston as an example?Uh, land lease is selling off, um, six major property portfolios, I think to you so that you have a greater share of the equity in these various property portfolios. Can you tell us therefore, um, what your role will be in Houston?Houston is a fearfully complicated 4 or 5 dimensional chess, but a potential GVA of 40 billion.

We were told when we went there the other day in the redevelopment, uh, around there. So can you tell us exactly what your future role is likely to be?

16:13

Speaker 2

-

So we have. So firstly, um, the role of the lend lease joint venture, the impact partnership is for the development of commercial and residential space at Euston around and above station, but predominantly around. Um and so um. The idea is that um, as the site and the stations are developed over the coming years, that we are ensuring that the housing and commercial space gets developed, uh, in parallel. Uh, obviously it's a large scheme, the GVA that you just stated means that it will happen over 20 to 30 years, but, um, we were approached by lend lease a number of years ago about the portfolio.

Uh, and we saw that, you know, what, what the potential was not just at Euston, but across all these schemes for housing and commercial space. And given the nature of our capital, given the nature of needing to diversify and given the nature of our strategy to lean into things like housing, uh, it was it was sort of on the mark as to what exactly the Crown Estate should be doing. Um, as I said, earlier, the, our role, if not to self develop. And again, these options are available to us in the future if we want them.

Um, it'll be to enable the market to come in, put in their capital, us attracting that and helping the industry develop Houston collectively. Um, that's effectively the idea, not just of the Euston scheme, but, but across the board we have that optionality.

16:14

Speaker 1

-

We wish you well with that because it's a very important piece of redevelopment of a much needed area in London. Um, just before I hand over to Clive again, can I ask you one question, something you said, which I wasn't really aware of, was your investment in, um. Life sciences and other emerging scientific discoveries. Can I ask you the same question that I asked the, the, the. Permanent secretary at Disney as the other day when we had an inquiry on Ukri.

And it's this, um, have you thought about when you invest in these propositions, either taking a small equity stake or taking an intellectual property. Licence out so that if that company is hugely successful, uh, the crown estate will then, uh, get some benefit.

16:14

Speaker 2

-

Firstly, our role is, uh, we've identified a need with regards to, um, start up businesses coming out of universities and not having space and us losing, um, those activities offshore. Um, and. Working with pioneer Group and Oxford Science Enterprises, one of the biggest venture capital funds in the country. Uh, we've begun partnering with them and, uh. Our early and early project we're doing together is we've bought the, um, the Debenhams site in the middle of Oxford. Uh, it's just gone through planning and where we'll be starting the redevelopment of that next year for lab space and what's going to be, uh, what's going to be great about that is showing that, um, we can bring these, these businesses into the heart of city centres.

Uh, to answer your question, um. We, uh, don't do that. And the reason why we don't do that, um, unlike Ukri, we don't have the ability to invest in businesses in that way. Everything we do needs to go to land and property. Um, so, you know, that is for others to, um, obtain the. Benefit of our role is to support the industry with um, office space, lab space, etc. such that we're not losing and making a requisite return out of that.

Of course, within the remit of the Crown Estate. Thank you.

16:16

Speaker 1

-

16:16

Speaker 5

-

I'll just follow up on the the issue that, um, Catherine McKenna was, uh, um, probing at um, uh, her, you say that you, uh, got lots of ideas and possibilities and intentions about, uh, looking at developments and potential investments outside the southeast. Um, I don't see much going on in Yorkshire. Now, or with definite plans for the future.

16:16

Speaker 2

-

Sorry. In Yorkshire.

16:16

Speaker 1

-

Sheffield is a member of Parliament for Sheffield.

16:16

Speaker 2

-

Um, yes. So I think we um. There's a number of things we have to first of all um coming back to the four strategic areas that I won't repeat again. Um but go to the heart of how we discharge our obligations under the act. We look for where can we have the greatest impact in our core businesses. So we have three core businesses, one being the seabed, which we've talked about, one being our, our rural business, Windsor, um, which we have properties around the country.

We also own about half of the coastline around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Um, and then finally the urban piece, which is national with, as Helen said, a at the moment the predominant investment is in London. Um and we. Focus on I guess on two things. Where can we have and put the most effort in order to have the biggest impact against those four areas nationally. Climate resilience, energy security, nature recovery, inclusive economic growth and making sure that we remain resilient from a financial perspective, um, as we're obligated to do.

Um, and then we have a range of other initiatives where we're looking at how we support, um. Parts of the country in different ways. Um, we have an open book to the way that we share our IP nationally. Um, we want everyone to come and look at what we do well, where we've made mistakes and how can we deploy in other areas. And we're always open to approaches from different parts of the country to talk to us about a need that that aligns with the Crown Estates obligations.

Um, and again, a lot of what we've done, not all of it, but some of what we've done has been informed by different parts of the country coming and talking to us about, you know, the art of the possible. The North East is a good example of that. So, um, we're always open and very happy to have an offline conversation about the art of the possible.

16:18

Speaker 5

-

Yes. Um, I would just suggest that it shouldn't just be you sitting there and waiting for people to come along, that if you've got an inclusive policy, it has to be you going out and looking and having the intention to make sure that all you're not doing is following where the growth is happening and putting investment into the growth areas, rather than looking for other areas.

16:18

Speaker 2

-

Yeah, I agree with that. And I think a good point is, um, we have something called the supply chain accelerator at the moment, which is a start up, um, supply chain fund. Um, we've earmarked um 50. Million pounds initially. We have a total supply chain fund allocated at the moment of about 400 million, including that 50 million. And that's where different parts of the country do bid. I don't have with me today what we have in Yorkshire and the surrounding areas, but we can get that information.

But but again, what we want to do more of is look at how we can because, you know, it's impossible for the Crown Estate to be everywhere. But how can we how can we develop and evolve products where different parts of the country can access?Reasons for, for, for the reasons that you've just put to me.

16:19

Speaker 5

-

Right. Can we move on now to administrative expenses and costs?Probably price can help us with that. Um, the, um, your administrative expenses in the last financial year rose from 70 million to 88 million. That's a an increase of over 25%. Uh, at a time when most government departments are under pressure to reduce costs. Um, you seem to be going in the opposite direction.

16:20

Speaker 3

-

Right?To say that our admin costs have gone up. Um, the first thing I would say is that they're planned. Um, so as we've been talking about in our accounting officer's statements for the last few years, we need to invest in our business. So, and this year we talk about needing to invest in finance, but also procurement. So we have been, we're approaching cost very much in the line of allowing us to scale our business in the future. So we want we have, as Dan has talked about, a really significant development pipeline, and we want to be able to do that without materially increasing our headcount, materially increasing cost.

So by doing the investments that we are, particularly in our what we term group partner functions, so things like finance, as I mentioned, people and culture that should enable that in the future. Um, but I would return back to my original comment, which is all of this is in line with plan. Um, we haven't been above budget in terms of our admin expenses this year. It's something we sought to do.

16:21

Speaker 5

-

Probably better question whether it begs the question whether the budget was realistic in the first place. But you know, from compared with 2019, your admin costs have more than doubled. So has your work that's produced from those costs more than doubled as well.

16:21

Speaker 3

-

We've, um, we've been delivering a really significant strategy over the last five years. Um, so we have managed the deployment of offshore wind, as Dan has talked about the round four option fees. Um, and over the last five years, we've returned over £3 billion to Treasury. So there has been a lot of activity. Um, there's also been a number of hires across our business. So our headcount is now 980. It was 868 on an average basis last year.

We've been doing things like insourcing our London property management business, because we felt that was better for us to run ourselves and spending money on items.

16:22

Speaker 5

-

To save you money, shouldn't it?

16:22

Speaker 3

-

We not necessarily. Um, so we would look at the quality of the service provided, the types of activities provided by the insourcing versus outsourcing, um, and the types of activity. So we have a very large portfolio in London, which means that the number of parties that can provide that service is relatively small. Um, so at the moment what we're looking at doing, we're stabilizing those operations. We brought them in-house. Um, and determining the best operating model for ourselves going forward.

16:23

Speaker 8

-

16:23

Speaker 3

-

It, uh, it has done in the short term. Yes.

16:23

Speaker 2

-

So I think, I think it's worth just saying that the business has changed enormously over the last few years. Um, and for good reason. The world is changing very, very quickly and we've had to keep up with it. We identified a number of years ago that there was more risk in standing still and risking obsolescence than there was in moving forward. We've invested in a number of areas, the performance of the business has been testament to that. Um, because I'd hate to think where we would be today had we not done that.

And we've taken a number of difficult decisions in sourcing. Property management was one of them. Initially the transition, um, does cost as all transitions do, but with a view that again, Does cost, as all transitions do, but with a view that again, over the over the medium to long term, that will be a very efficient thing for us to have done.

16:24

Speaker 5

-

So going forward then.

16:24

Speaker 3

-

We are looking for them to not continue to grow. We would like them to come down over time.

16:24

Speaker 8

-

Um.

16:24

Speaker 5

-

What does that precisely mean looking at the next two years.

16:25

Speaker 3

-

We're not planning, for example, for our admin costs to grow at the same level that they've grown over the last 12 months.

16:25

Speaker 2

-

We are in the middle of a transformation. And again, my accounting officer statement on page 104 of the annual report covers this and has done for the last few years. Um, we're. We're trying to, um. Deploy offshore wind at an increasing rate. And again, we've been successful in doing that. Um, we're looking to modernise our London portfolio, being successful doing that. Part of that has been the insourcing decision. Um, I think we're going to have in the next 2 to 3 years cost continue to increase as Helen said, not at the rate it has, but what we're in the process of doing is building an operational platform that can survive the next 20 to 30 years at the scale that the Crown Estate now has the opportunity to deliver against.

16:25

Speaker 5

-

Right. So just looking where you're going to go to, um, cyber security, um, are you going to spend more on that?

16:26

Speaker 3

-

We have. So we've, um, over the last 2 to 3 years, we've had a multi-year investment programme. So, um, investing in the types of areas that you might expect. So building our resilience, making sure that we have the capabilities in place. Um, because, uh, the, the, the need for us to invest in, in the space is significant. And we want to make sure that we have taken the steps that we should do.

16:26

Speaker 5

-

AI should do that. The savings credit or.

16:26

Speaker 2

-

No, it will, yes, I will. So again, we're investing already. If you look at, um, the marine delivery route map that I talked to you earlier, we also have um a. An insight tool that we've invested. So we, the tools that we're developing now are already starting to become AI enabled, uh, which is incredibly important, especially given some of the earlier questions about, around how do we make sure we're making the right decisions?Um, so we need to be using the best tools in order to ensure that we're making the right decisions.

But then broadly, from a productivity perspective, I don't want to, um, just talk to the hype of AI. Um, but, you know, we are already seeing the early signs of productivity improvements and as those tools improve and how we embrace them, given their data concerns, given the data issues with them and the privacy issues with them, as we embrace them responsibly, we're going to see more productivity improvement come through, come through the organisation, right?

16:27

Speaker 5

-

Um, go on to pay, which you probably assumed we get on to at some point, um, just Dan your, your salary now is like a um, is it five times or more higher than it was in 2019?Um most people looking at this would think my pay has not gone up that much. It's just about kept pace with inflation. What's so special about this job.

16:28

Speaker 2

-

Um, well I can understand that. Um, I can understand the question. Um and I think it's an important question. Um, we've, uh and. The commissioners have been very transparent. Hopefully in the annual report, um, around pay and reward for me and generally, um, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on my own, on my own salary. Um, the board through specifically the remuneration committee make that decision and they work within parameters agreed with Treasury.

16:28

Speaker 5

-

Okay. Um, we just what to ask.

16:28

Speaker 8

-

16:29

Speaker 5

-

Of course. We've got to, uh, ensure for ourselves that, uh, that pay is at a reasonable level compared with other similar jobs. And I can't think of many public sector jobs where the salaries increased by five times in the last, uh, 6 or 7 years.

16:29

Speaker 2

-

Um, I'm not going to comment on that because it wouldn't be appropriate for me to what what I would say is that, um, um, separate to the chief executive's pay that I can't comment on. Um, we are today a FTSE 100 equivalent organisation. The complexity and the commercial mandate that we have. And so again, under our um framework agreement with the Treasury, we have to be able to attract the, you know, the, the best from the private sector and compete with retaining those individuals.

16:29

Speaker 5

-

You can't comment on your, your work. Uh, would you manage to persuade us that your workload, uh, both in amount and difficulty is, uh, changed a lot since 2019.

16:29

Speaker 2

-

Uh, I think the organisation over the last five years has become, um, more. More successful. I think it has become, um, its potential, I think has been set for the future. Um, I talked about some of the numbers that are real numbers that we have the opportunity to monetize moving forward. But again, I can't comment on. Um, difficulty or um, comparable comparisons to what's happened previously. That's a matter for others to.

16:30

Speaker 5

-

Tell us about your job and what's changed in it since 2019.

16:30

Speaker 2

-

Yes. So, um, we today, I guess we're, we're operating across, um, a number of sectors, uh, we, the renewable energy sector and a range of sectors in the marine space. The same from an urban perspective and the same from an agricultural perspective. That diversity in itself is quite unique. And then the scale that we're operating at, we are today close to £17 billion organisation. And we've built a pipeline of beyond 40 billion. And that's before you take our renewable energy interests into account.

Um, the obligations that we have to Parliament, the need to be commercial, uh, the need to ensure that we're engaging with stakeholders in areas like renewable energy and the environment and what we're doing socially, um, all these things add complexity to the role, which is why I think in the annual report the commissioners have laid out where the equivalent to a FTSE 100 organisation.

16:31

Speaker 5

-

And a lot of your pay is linked to performance targets. Are they challenging?

16:31

Speaker 2

-

I think so, I again um. The reality is that the those things are set by the. Remuneration committee. Uh, and um I should say also that we have under the framework agreement, a set of performance targets that we agree with Treasury annually across the financial performance of the business. Um, the capital performance of the business. So outside of revenue, the capital performance of the business and the sustainable performance of the business, given our objectives. And in addition to that, um, our senior staff, obviously, including myself, um, remuneration is geared to both short term, but also long term objectives.

And in my case with a bias to long term objective attainment. For. Again, that's not a, not something I should comment on.

16:32

Speaker 5

-

So there isn't the factual assessment is. And therefore, I suppose you always wonder, looking from the outside, whether if targets can all be hit, they are really stretching again.

16:32

Speaker 2

-

Uh, Clive, that's a matter for others. So I'm not going to comment on that.

16:33

Speaker 5

-

You obviously know whether you've been stretched.

16:33

Speaker 2

-

Uh, again, it's a comment for others. I feel I've been stretched, but I don't think it's a I don't think it's appropriate for me to judge my own performance. I think it's appropriate for others that are independent to judge my performance.

16:33

Speaker 5

-

Going to give me the same answer. You. You'll pay.

16:33

Speaker 3

-

My pay is a matter for for Dan. Um, but also for remuneration committee.

16:33

Speaker 5

-

So, Dan, you have a responsibility for having to pay them. So, uh, five times higher than what the salary level for the job was in 2019. It's quite a big jump, isn't it?

16:34

Speaker 2

-

Uh, so again, when you look at the responsibilities, the, the ambitious strategy, the responsibilities that we require of a CFO, uh, one, it's important. We can go and we can, um, attract a FTSE 100 CFO. Um, that hasn't always been easy. And secondly, that that individual then achieves their performance targets and um, that has occurred through the 2026 financial years. And it's all there in the annual report. It's not as though we're not hiding it. We're, we're very transparent about the performance of and I'm not talking about myself.

You need to ask others about me, but the performance of the Crown Estate team more generally, including Helen.

16:34

Speaker 5

-

Are you able to, um, obtain. To recruit people generally with the necessary skills to do the more challenging job that you, uh, explained to us?

16:35

Speaker 2

-

Yes, we are, um, under the Treasury Framework agreement for remuneration that we have. Um we um, I think, uh, over the last few years has been we've been able to both attract and retain the type of people that we need, the capabilities we need. We're competing now with, um, some of the best private sector organisations. The market at the moment is quite hot in that regard. It's challenging. But because of the, the brand of the Crown Estate, because of our work, and I should say we have a mix in the Crown estate of commercial skills.

Um, we have public service skills because everything we've talked about this afternoon, we're having to balance, um, how we achieve our obligations financially in a way that's responsible and in line with the broader obligations that we are accountable to under the act. And that's what we're focused on every, every single day.

16:35

Speaker 1

-

Thank you very much, Clive. I genuinely interested in this question. Dan. Um, I'm struck by what you've just said that you are the size of many FTSE 100 companies, but you are a pretty diversified company. You've got your London Marine, regional, Windsor and rural divisions. You've answered very comprehensively. I must say to this committee this morning, this afternoon. But you can't be an expert on everything. Do you have very good deputies in all those four divisions?

16:36

Speaker 2

-

Oh very good. Um, so. I, um, taking a step back, the core capability of the Crown Estate is to do what the act says, enable and enhance the land that we own. So we're not doing all the building, we're not deploying offshore wind. We're not the farmers. What we're doing is creating an environment where that land can be enhanced in the way that it needs to, and the way that that was done 50 or 100 years ago is going to be different to the way that it's going to be done in 50 to 100 years from now.

Our role is to facilitate that. But you're right, Sir Geoffrey. You've got to have domain knowledge. You've got to have an element of domain knowledge to be able to. Up to date to do that. Um, you know, I have an infrastructure property background. So I think in areas like offshore wind, uh, our urban portfolio, um. Uh, my work in the environment over many on the environment over many years and also my technology background helps, but there is no way I could do this job without able people, um, to, to save her blushes.

Obviously, I talked about the ability to retain someone of Helen's calibre, but on top of that, we have um, a number of managing directors that run each part of our portfolio. And those individuals have deep domain knowledge of, of those areas. Um, we also have a number of functional leads, whether that's, um, our work on strategy, corporate affairs, people safety operations. Again, the best, the best we can find in order to do that. Because coming back to your point about the diversity, and then you couple that with the scale potential that we have, um, it's important that we are running a lean but effective ship in the way that we operate and build the Crown Estate moving forward.

I've been involved in businesses over the years that have been too complex. The Crown Estate is not complex. What it needs is just an effective and efficient operating model to enable it to scale up from where it is now, and that's what we're building together.

16:38

Speaker 1

-

I'm going to ask the same question to both of you and James. And I'm sorry, James, we haven't asked you any questions yet, but I can assure you after and then I'm going to take a break. But I can assure you after the break, you will be well in the spotlight. Um, so it's really a question to both of you. I mean, you both are ultimately responsible to the Treasury, how you ensure value for money to the Treasury. You returned just over £1 billion to the Treasury last year.

Can we expect that to increase or not?And how do you ensure value for money for everything that you do?

16:39

Speaker 2

-

Um, I'll let Helen take this question. I'll just say one thing. We the £1 billion is heavily informed by a single leasing round called round four that we've been very open and transparent was a one off and it would be coming off, but Helen can talk to that.

16:39

Speaker 3

-

Sure. So you're right to say that last year we returned a billion to Treasury. Um, you can see that our operating profit before what we call our statutory transfer declined £200 million from 1.6 billion to 1.4 billion. And that was the impact of our round four option fees starting to decline. And we highlighted that last year. Um, this year we've returned £487 million to Treasury. Um and that's driven by an increase to the statutory transfer, which is in effect something that is used by the commissioners to maintain and enhance the estate, um, with the support of Treasury, that will sit at 60% for this year and last year.

Um, in terms of where our underlying profitability is expected to be, I would point you to our underlying operating profit. So that is £370 million. And we expect our business to grow in the sort of mid to high single digits over the next few years. And we think with the ability to borrow, that we have both the ability to invest on a net basis up to 5 billion over the next ten years. And that would result in the potential doubling of that 370 million that I've just referred to.

16:41

Speaker 1

-

We look forward to you achieving those results. Um, if I could just take you to page 22 on the on the report, it tells us there that your residential assets are worth about 1.1 billion, on which you get a return of 21 million. That's 2.1%. Um, I'm wondering whether there isn't greater scope for increasing the return on residential properties.

16:41

Speaker 3

-

Generally, but I think the benefit of the Crown Estates portfolio is that it we have a mixture of assets. So we have some assets within that portfolio that would deliver lower returns. So returns at the level that you're talking about. But then we have different parts of our portfolio. For example, our marine business, which is very capital light, um, but delivers good levels of profitability. And we've seen a 20% uplift in that profit. So we look at the overall return of our portfolio.

So the total return, for example, for this year is above 15%. That's high because of the round for option fees. But having a diverse portfolio that delivers something between 7 to 10%, for example, that kind of mid to high digit teens is just high single digits, I should say, um, is really what we're looking to achieve. We are very cognizant of the fact that we have a core portfolio. Um, you know, we're not here to take enormous amounts of risk. And so we balance our portfolio accordingly.

16:42

Speaker 1

-

Thank you very much. Very helpful reply, James, I'm sorry we haven't yet got to you, but we're now getting to you. Um, can you answer the same question?Um, returning money to the Treasury value for money for everything you do. Um, how do you balance all of those aspects.

16:43

Speaker 4

-

Yes of course. And we, we're also, as you say, subject to treasury oversight and a framework agreement. And the framework agreement is very clear about what we spend our money on. It's also very clear that we're operating to the managing public money principles, just as any other public sector body would. So we're held to those standards, which of course include a requirement for value for money. We're a little bit different in that we're largely expenditure. So it's making sure you spend the money appropriately.

But we are also and we may come on to this later. There are also three areas where we look to achieve revenues. So we charge shared service fees for to others who use the services we provide, we charge the Royal collection for visitor admissions to Buckingham Palace and Windsor, which is something we agreed to do some while ago. And also we tried to achieve rental income on our rental property. So it's sort of a little bit of income, but it's also cost.

On the cost side, we scrutinise that hard. We have procurement processes. We now have the Procurement Act and half our expenditure, more than half our expenditure is actually on heritage properties and maintaining the properties. So we need to make sure that we're really diligent in terms of tendering the work that we do there. And of course, a year ago we announced that we weren't going to renew the Royal train lease, which is an example of where we've looked at something that's got tremendous historic, if you like, value and dare I say it, fondness from the family and those who've used it, but also recognising that the world is modernising around us, the cost of investing in a train that's actually getting quite tired and in need of investment now was one where he took a decision that we felt the right thing to do from a value for money point of view was not to carry on the lease after March 27th.

16:44

Speaker 1

-

So Helen has given us an idea of the Crown Estate, sort of future prospects and the amount of money that the Treasury can expect from this committee as the guardian of taxpayers money. So we're very interested in this. How do you see those prospects going forward in relation to the royal household?

16:45

Speaker 4

-

Well, at the moment our funding is is the sovereign grant that is currently for the year we're in is going to be 137.9 million. That is including the final year of the Buckingham Palace Reservicing programme. So as that ten year project, which some of the committee went and visited and looked at a year ago, as that project comes to its end in March 27th, the requirement for the funding from that will cease. So we're expecting to see, well, we will see a significant drop in the sovereign grant at that point.

The committee may be aware that the royal trustees have have reviewed that. And we've, uh, subject to parliamentary approval, agreed. The new rate, which will be running at 100 million, which is a 40 million drop.

16:45

Speaker 1

-

We're going to take a break now. But before I do, this committee is very good at criticizing things and people we visit. I, at least I have visited Buckingham Palace on at least two occasions to see your renewal project, and I must congratulate you on doing it largely on time and on budget and operating. Still, the full suite of state of. So many. Congratulations on achieving that. And I can see where you've got 1 or 2 of your helpers in the audience who helped you achieve that.

Um, so congratulations on that. Um, the clock is almost 4:45. I think we'll try and have a very short break, comfort break or whatever and come back. If we could all be back at 10 to 5, that would be really good. Um, welcome back to this session. And um, I will be starting this and to Dan, to start with, please, um, how confident are you that your lease arrangements to deliver the best price in the circumstances as required under the Crown Estate Act 1961, actually deliver.

16:50

Speaker 2

-

Um, I'm very confident that our processes and governance to ensure best value delivers. Um, we have a set of statutory responsibilities and also as accounting officer, I'm responsible for managing public money provisions in the context of the act. Processes are set out so that we ensure that we have the appropriate independent advice to demonstrate value for money.

16:50

Speaker 1

-

Does that always apply to members of the royal family?

16:50

Speaker 2

-

I so the statutory processes that have existed now for a number of years with independent advice sought, um have demonstrated the commissioners have followed their responsibilities and obligations. And today we deploy a set of governance requirements, again in line with our statutory obligations and apply best value in that regard.

16:51

Speaker 1

-

And, um, why are some leases held by companies or trusts rather than named individuals.

16:51

Speaker 2

-

Um, again, very common in the property industry. There's a number of reasons that companies are trusts are held. We look for a number of things, including beneficial ownership, who the tenant is, who the occupier is, making sure that we're meeting our legal obligations and that we're following, for example, the flow of money. And as long as those things check out and we ensure that they check out every time we undertake a transaction, then again, we're just, um, discharging normal industry practice and coming back to the managing public money.

If, you know, with that, we ensure that independent processes are in place, whether we're dealing with an individual or a company.

16:51

Speaker 1

-

Finally, how do you ensure that these alternative lease arrangements do not reduce transparency?

16:51

Speaker 2

-

Um, well, again, we have um governance processes in place. We advise treasury, uh, when we have transactions with a related party like the royal household, but not limited to the royal household. We, we own um, for example, embassies, ambassadors, residences and a whole host of other assets that I guess I would, I would categorize as, um, a. Unique type of transaction. And again, we make sure that we go through those processes with the Treasury. Um, we also, uh, again, ensure that the governance processes that we document through our board or the value creation committee, which are for the committees benefit is our equivalent of the investment committee, um, making sure that things are documented appropriately.

And like all public organisations, we're subject to freedom of information and a number of other, um, transparency. Regulatory requirements.

16:53

Speaker 1

-

Thank you very much. Thank you. Sarah Hall please.

16:53

Speaker 9

-

Thank you chair. Um, Dan, I'm afraid it's back to you again. Um, I'd like to just look at the subletting in residential lease agreements. So how common is it for leases to be allowed to, uh, for leases to allow for income from subletting public owned property, not to be returned to the Crown Estate or the Treasury?

16:53

Speaker 2

-

So I think what's important is to just lay out how. These leases are set up and the transactions are set up. Um, in the case of long term leases, uh, beyond 21 years, uh, and in the cases here above 50 years. We look at a number of things with regards to how we transact, lease the state of the property, the repair requirements, whether an upfront premium or a rental is beneficial. Uh, the legislative environment, a whole host of a whole host of things.

The properties in question we're talking about are over 20, 30, 40 years. Um, and with each transaction, we go through a valuation process. Uh, we have that independently verified. We put it through our governance processes and we inform Treasury if as part of that, um, Subleasing is an element of the overall transaction, then then that's part of the value for money equation. And coming back to your question, Sarah, that is, uh, reasonably common in the property industry in particular when it comes to long leaseholds.

16:54

Speaker 9

-

Um, so in the case of Royal Lodge, why did the, the lease allow for the three cottages to be privately rented by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor rather than the Crown Estate, leasing them and generating the income for the taxpayer?

16:54

Speaker 2

-

Uh, again, coming back to the transaction, uh, of a long leasehold, the process, the governance process that led to the arrangements at Royal Lodge in 2003, was such that, um, a whole range of things were looked at. The premium, the refurbishment needs that would have otherwise been a crown estate cost. And a whole host of other elements that I've just said, I won't repeat within that subleasing of the cottages was part of the independent valuation that informed both the consideration and the value for money requirements being satisfied.

16:55

Speaker 9

-

Okay. And did the Crown Estate have any visibility or oversight over the rents that were charged for those properties?No, no. Why is that?

16:55

Speaker 2

-

Uh, well, that's a matter for the tenant.

16:55

Speaker 9

-

Um, and then, uh, the leases. So Royal Lodge, Bagshot Park, and the thatched House Lodge, they contain materially different provisions on subletting. So why why is that?

16:56

Speaker 2

-

Um, well, again, the properties were done over different periods of time. Um and. A range of factors. So every, every property is different. It's got a range of different needs, different costs. Um, for example, in the case of Royal Lodge, the £7.5 million in refurbishment costs, we're able to then take that money that we would otherwise have to spend and invest in other things. By way of example, um thatched house, um, the same type of thing.

So again, we look at a range of factors that go into what makes up the needs of a property, the opportunity around a property, um, and a whole host of other external factors. And at the time that these transactions were put in place, an independent valuation process was sought, um, factoring in those particular elements for that particular property at that particular time. And best value was determined by that independent valuation. And then obviously a negotiation and a transaction was had with the counterpart.

16:57

Speaker 9

-

So how do you monitor income, generate the income, generating subletting arrangements on the properties. Do you does that happen or.

16:57

Speaker 2

-

Um in the case of long leaseholds. No, because the again, the consideration for um. Uh, a number of. Cottages in the context of the overall transaction of something like a Royal Lodge by way of example. But there are other examples we have across the portfolio. Um, are, aren't large in the scheme of things. They're de minimis. And again, that was part, the key thing here was part of the original transaction. Uh, and those, those income streams, those potential income streams were taken into account in determining what best value was at the time.

Okay.

16:58

Speaker 9

-

Um, in your opinion, does allowing leaseholders to retain subletting income constitute a public subsidy or financial benefit?And if not, why not?

16:58

Speaker 2

-

Um, we rely on the, on the independent valuation process. And um, you know, if you're valuing a property and, um, at lease determines that another element goes up, um, they look at all the, all of that in the range in the range of a, of a, of a transaction. And so what it's not right to look at is subletting in isolation. It's looking at subletting in the context of an overall negotiation that included a lease premium up front, um, included refurbishment costs being taken on by the tenant.

Uh, and then within the demise of the property, um, letting the tenant lease elements of it. But again, that was taken into consideration with regards to the overall consideration and the independent valuation at the time determined that that was in that was best value.

16:59

Speaker 9

-

Just one more question from me, chair. Um, so given that the Crown Estate doesn't collect or publish information on on the receipts, how can Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee be assured that those arrangements represent value for money and are being managed transparently?

16:59

Speaker 2

-

Um, I think we've been very transparent in the um. 28th of November 2025 submission to the PAC. Um we were asked um, about a single property in return, we've provided all the information we have on all those properties. Um, what we've also done is being, and I think this has been documented quite heavily in the National Audit Office report. Um, how we go about seeking governance and valuation on royal properties and those processes being relatively consistent in demonstrating independent assessment from the requisite experts on what best value is at the time.

So I think, again, we've, we've provided all the information to that effect that demonstrates best value through the last 20 to 30 years.

17:00

Speaker 1

-

Um. Don, can I come back on Sarah's questions?Because, um, normally when somebody takes a lease on a property, you would expect that they would be taking it because they've got a particular use for themselves or their family or their employees. You wouldn't be expecting them to make a profit on it because if you were, you'd be stipulating the lease that you actually ought to give permission for subletting, and you'd want to be able to vet who was taking the sublease, because you'd want to know that they were going to be able to maintain the property.

But in particular, if they were going to make a lot of money, particularly when the lease is so long and with inflation and discounting and so on, um, they could be making a lot of money at the end of the lease, which you can't necessarily bargain for when you let it. So isn't there a case for being much more circumspect in future when you let these type of properties about the subletting provisions?

17:00

Speaker 2

-

Um. Again, there's a whole host of factors that we take into consideration when we look at contemporary leases, like we have historically, given the statutory arrangements at the time, the, um, regulation where it's at, at the time, leasehold reform legislation is one example of that. Um, but again, if we look at leases moving forward, we will look at them in the context of, of what represents best value given the conditions of that particular property. Um, and of course we're not going to want a prospective tenant to make um money.

In contradiction to what that particular lease was meant to do at the time. However, again, I don't want to comment and I can't comment on um specific circumstances historically, but what I can say is that. The Crown Estate went through all the appropriate governance processes with the questions that you're asking, being checked by experts and determining what best value was at the time. And then those negotiations delivered that best value through the transactions that took place. Moving forward, we would not want there to be something new emerge that we hadn't thought of, but that there's no nothing to say that that has has happened in the past.

What we would ensure is that, again, we were meeting the same best value requirements as we've always had to meet. And as we're obligated to meet, both through the act and through my accounting officer responsibilities.

17:02

Speaker 1

-

I hear what you say about not commenting on individual cases, and I will try and frame my questions in a way that you might be able to answer. Um, why was Royal Lodge, um, one of the only, the only ones of the major lease, high value lease lease properties that had an early surrender clause.

17:02

Speaker 2

-

Um, again, I don't. Want to comment on individual individual cases because those transactions, those transactions occurred in this case over 23 years ago. Um and, um, and, you know, again, what we would have negotiated at the time, you know, what was, what were the, what were the needs of the customer?What were our requirements?What state was the property in and what made overall sense given the circumstances?Um, that would have been put through as the records show, an independent process and that independent process determined the range of best value given those circumstances.

And that's the transaction that that took place.

17:03

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Um what lessons. Are you learning from the recent scrutiny on Royal Lodge or Royal lease arrangements?

17:03

Speaker 2

-

I think we're we're always learning as an organisation. I think I said earlier in the session, I think best practice corporate governance, you're constantly learning. We have a range of processes internally that look at, um different assets. Of learning we can talk about, you know, how we evolve our position on um, offshore wind, how we do property deals that aren't royal generally, but also royal properties. And I think, um, what we'll do as part of this process, we really welcome this process.

And as I said earlier, the 28th of November submission, we really believe in transparency. That submission demonstrated that we really believe in scrutiny. And, um, we'll take on learnings from this process once this process has completed in the coming months.

17:04

Speaker 1

-

Um, if you were negotiating Royal Lodge now, what lessons will you do?What will you do differently from what you did in the past?

17:04

Speaker 2

-

Um, again, sir Jeffrey, I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's very difficult to, um, relate a transaction that was done 30 years ago to today. What, what we would do today, um, as the commissioners did at the time as discharged their statutory obligations and we would do the same. And in fact, the Nao report has looked at um. A couple of contemporary negotiations that we've done in recent times and documents the comparison as to what and why we did it. But again, it's the key thing is we'd follow our statutory obligations.

And in my case, my managing public money obligations under my accounting officer remit.

17:05

Speaker 1

-

So given that this is within the curtilage of the Windsor estate, you won't be able to sell the property. Um you will have to re let it um when do you envisage reletting. You'll be in a position to relate it.

17:05

Speaker 2

-

Um we expect to receive the property as the report suggests in October at the end of October this year, uh, as you would envisage, we're working through knowing we're going to receive the property, we're working through the different options. And again, we have an obligation to go through and look at the different uses. As you say, we can't sell the property under section five of the act. And the and the um accepted area that the Windsor Red line demonstrates. Um, so we, we'll look at all uses all tenure lengths and types and then come to a decision over the coming months as to what we do when we, when we receive the property back.

What I would note is that we are getting the property back a number of years earlier. And that's and we want to make full use of, of that benefit.

17:06

Speaker 1

-

Thank you very much, Clive Betts, please.

17:06

Speaker 5

-

Um, thanks, chair. Just coming back to the subletting. How much was made in the subletting of the properties. Are you aware of that figure?

17:06

Speaker 2

-

No, we are not. We're not aware of that figure. Um the the transaction at the time enabled the tenant to sublet that property. Um, that property would have been for particular uses. Um, but again, that's a matter for, for the tenant.

17:07

Speaker 5

-

You never ask questions about how much was obtained.

17:07

Speaker 2

-

Um, when a long lease is entered into, um we, again, we understand what was probably obtained for it, but again, I don't want to, I don't have the figures, but we satisfy ourselves that that again, things are appropriate given the initial valuation of the property. But it's a matter you need to ask the tenant.

17:07

Speaker 5

-

Okay. You have an idea what it is. I'm not quite sure what that answer meant.

17:07

Speaker 2

-

Um, what it means is that we know that a number of the properties were used for staff. And in the context of the overall arrangements on these properties, um, again in the consideration that was determined at the time that would be appropriate subletting under the original transaction. And so, you know, I'd, I'd like to be able to answer your question, but it is not a even if I had the information, it wouldn't which I don't, it wouldn't be appropriate for me. It's a matter for the tenant because they have undertaken a long leasehold.

17:08

Speaker 5

-

Yeah. In the end we're talking about public money here. Um we're talking about money that's paid, uh, for the lease of the property, maybe just interested to know how that related to the amount of money made on subletting.

17:08

Speaker 2

-

Um.

17:08

Speaker 5

-

The end is what the tenant pays net, isn't it?

17:08

Speaker 2

-

Yes. But again, that's a matter for the tenant or the royal household. I can't answer that question. I don't have that information. It's again, the consideration that was determined through the statutory processes in 2003, determined that best value was a premium, a refurbishment cost and a number of other things. And it enabled the tenant to sublease some of the cottages. Royal Lodge is vast, and we're talking about a number of small cottages on what is otherwise a vast estate.

17:09

Speaker 5

-

I'm not questioning whether the subletting was appropriate within the terms of the lease, but simply how much it made, because that would be interesting. Then to compare that with how much was actually paid for the lease itself.

17:09

Speaker 2

-

And, um, I apologise, but it's a matter for the tenant and the royal household.

17:09

Speaker 5

-

Royal household. So over to you. Is it then.

17:09

Speaker 4

-

So my, just to be clear, my direct responsibility is for the public money and the Privy Purse, which is His Majesty's private element. So I don't have direct oversight and can't give you the specific answer to that. What I can say is the role we played with the Na report, which we can play here, was we gathered the information from the other households, and I believe if the request were made for that information, we could provide it to the National Audit Office and therefore to the committee.

17:10

Speaker 5

-

Right. So you're happy.

17:10

Speaker 4

-

We we have we can get it.

17:10

Speaker 5

-

It might be helpful to be able to have that as well. So we can come to some sort of view about, um, about the value of the whole exercise. Can we just come on then, uh, to James Charles just to stop you.

17:10

Speaker 1

-

If you do provide it, there are various different ways you could provide it. You can provide it to the Nao in confidence with us seeing it in confidence. Because I'm not sure necessarily it would want to be more widely shared. But anyway, you must make that decision.

17:11

Speaker 4

-

Thank you. We'll look at that.

17:11

Speaker 5

-

Yeah. Right on then. To the valuations on the property portfolio for the non working royals. Uh when the Nao looked at it I think it found that very few of the valuations were actually up to date. Um it's a bit concerning that isn't it.

17:11

Speaker 4

-

I think I think it might be helpful for the committee if I sort of lay out the, the properties that we're responsible for in the royal household, we have 255 properties across the occupied royal palaces. So these are fairly unique properties. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace, St James's Palace and of those properties, 255 properties, 216 are behind the security cordon. So anyone who was to take a property there would need security clearance and would need to be a suitable tenant. So that that I think is important as broader context to understand the properties.

We have the bulk of properties inside the cordon are taken by staff, and this has been a subject the Public Accounts Committee has looked at before. And over the years, we've increasingly tried to make sure that we wait staff to inside the cordon. And I'll come on to why in a minute. But we also have 12 other tenants inside the security cordon where we charge rent based on adjusted market value. So recognising the fact that there are limited number of potential tenants, um, but also that we want to get the best value for money we can for the taxpayer.

So we have 12 inside. We also have 32 paying customers who are paying the full market rent outside the security cordon. So in total, we have 44 properties where valuations are an important part of the consideration. Of those 33. We have written valuations today. All but two of the remaining ones. We have a directly comparable valuation to an apartment next door or very equivalent property. And we do have a couple where we don't have written valuations, um, where we let those property through an estate agent.

But you are right that in the, as the Na review was taking place, we decided actually to get three valuations done because at the time, on reflection, we thought it would make sense to get those valuations. And we did do that. Um, and you know, a value of a clear value of scrutiny from the National Audit Office or internal audit for that matter, is when things are looked at, you, you react and, and you reflect on it. And I'm sure we will at the end of this process as well.

17:13

Speaker 5

-

Yes, because the logic of what you are trying to do to say, well, this this is a property that you can't just put on the open market where the security and privacy. Concerns. So 60% of market value is a clearly a. It seems a reasonable assessment to base rents on. The problem is that 60% of the open market valuations. When you haven't got an open market valuation up to date. That was a bit of a lapse wasn't it?

17:14

Speaker 4

-

Well, the valuation was not up to date, but actually we had been inflating those properties. So there was a valuation in two of the cases not all three. Um but we had been increasing the rents year on year. And actually when we received the valuations, it turned out that we'd been increasing the rent slightly above the rate at which the market had moved. So at the end of that process, the valuation was very useful to have because it enabled us to build confidence that we actually were above that 60%.

And actually, in all three cases, we're above the 60% rent at the moment.

17:15

Speaker 5

-

So you were facing a 6% market. Value. You haven't got the up to date market value, but you actually started to increase the percentage figure during that period of time.

17:15

Speaker 4

-

Well, we increase it. We review it every year to work out whether an increase is appropriate. And the cumulative position. By the time we got the values, we'd actually increased it generously and to above the market value. And from a taxpayer perspective, any income we make from this rent effectively reduces the burden on the public purse. So.

17:15

Speaker 5

-

So so from now on, are you going to do regular valuations to make sure you keep within the framework you.

17:15

Speaker 4

-

At the at the end of this full process, we will look at our valuation policy as we have following the external audit. We're not going to do them every year because it wouldn't be value for money to be paying for a valuation every year, maybe every 5 or 6 years would be an appropriate time frame to look at valuations. So it's something that flows directly from an NEA recommendation on the external audit.

17:16

Speaker 5

-

Um so. This is you're going to be going forward transparent and open about this process. Are you. So everyone can see exactly how you're calculating the rents and all these properties.

17:16

Speaker 4

-

I think one of the great benefits of this report actually is it lays in one place the information that you need to understand this issue. So the rate at which we charge our staff, the the adjusted rate inside the cordon and market value outside the cordon are actually established policies that we have. We have a document called the Treasury Finance Manual, which is the document we use to to record the basis on which the public purse, if you like, is charging other parties for different things. So that covers shared services, the admissions to the palace and rentals.

These figures are in that document. They're subject to audit committee scrutiny every year. The now and Treasury attend our audit committee so they can see that process through there. So it will be visible.

17:17

Speaker 5

-

So you're confident comfortable with your process now are you. And that the charge has been levied for these properties are entirely reasonable and fair.

17:17

Speaker 4

-

We we continuously look at the portfolio, probably the, the, you know, the one of the biggest drivers for us, which I think we're in a very good position on at the moment, but is a constant watch is how many properties do you have across the portfolio that are vacant or under refurbishment?And that number is under 10%, which I think given the complexity of the portfolio we're running, is a good a very good statistic, but we will continue to monitor the vacancy rate, the pricing to make sure we are optimising the value for money for the public purse.

17:17

Speaker 1

-

One question arising from that. What is the rationale for assuming that the properties within the cordon are automatically at a discount to the open market rent?Because, after all, some people might quite like being inside the cordon because they get extra security.

17:18

Speaker 4

-

The rationale is we look at supply and demand. So first of all, what are the what's the supply of people with the right security clearance that we would feel comfortable?And I should say, within some of these areas, very sensitive locations. And we we need to be very, very careful who we're putting where. So there's, there's a limitation in terms of supply of people who might be suitable. And, and then, you know, it's a balance, frankly, at the moment, we haven't got every property occupied that we might.

At that rate, if we were filling them all up and we were fully occupied in those properties behind the cordon, we might look at whether the price was right. But at the moment it's a balance. And we don't want to get ourselves into a position where we start charging more and then or try to charge more and then find that people leave the palaces and actually it'll hurt the public purse. So it's a balance.

17:19

Speaker 1

-

You very much. Any further questions?I think you've answered our questions very thoroughly today. Thank you very much indeed, all three of you, for coming to the committee. Corrected version of the transcript will be available in the next coming days. If there's any particular factual, uh, thing that you've said that you think needs amendment other than that, we will look at your evidence very carefully. Um, we will decide thereafter what action we're going to take, but I think it's been a very interesting session and we're grateful for your time.

Thank you very much indeed.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page