My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group of amendments, not least to support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in the point he made. I think it raised—as did Amendment 31 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the question of the interpretation and interaction of the powers in the 1961 Act and how they are being used. I want particularly to raise one issue with the Minister. I should also say that in the register of interests noble Lords will see that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and the Crown Estate is a member of that, although I do not think any of its activities or that interest impinge on this Bill in any way.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to the way in which the Crown Estate interprets its statutory duty in Section 3(1) of the 1961 Act, which says that it must secure

“the best consideration in money or money’s worth” in

“all the circumstances of the case”.

That is indeed what the statute says, but I have had the benefit of looking at the Crown Estate Act and talking with officials. I am grateful for their time, not least because it seems to me that there is an inherent restriction on the function of the commissioners which, as the Minister earlier made clear, is in Section 1(3) and sets out that they should “maintain and enhance” the value and return obtained from the estate with

“regard to the requirements of good management”.

As far as I understand it, the view of the Government and the Crown Estate is that, over 60 years or thereabouts, the requirements to obtain best consideration in money or money’s worth have effectively been trumped where necessary by the function of the commissioners, particularly as regards securing the requirements of good management. My first question to the Minister is: in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was saying, does he agree that the requirements of good management in that instance mean that the Crown Estate would live by the practice of other public authorities, or those with public responsibilities, in relation to the interests of the leaseholders?

I have a second question for the Minister. Is it wise, as we are reviewing the Crown Estate Act 1961, to make it fit for purpose, as the essential Act for the Crown Estate, to keep that best consideration requirement? What does it add to the function in Section 1—that of securing, maintaining or enhancing the value of the estate, subject to the requirements of good management? Does it actually add any restraint? In that instance, of course, many noble Lords on other amendments are talking about how the Crown Estate could go about trying to secure other, wider national interest objectives, not least in relation to environmental considerations —and then we come on to talk about the seabed and other issues.

There is a risk associated with Clause (3)(1) and best consideration: that it might prevent the Crown Estate from fulfilling what it might regard as its core objective, which is to secure the maintenance and enhancement of the value of the estate but with the requirements of good management. In this context, good management embraces many of the issues that no doubt we will discuss in other amendments. We will probably not amend the Bill because putting them into the statute will be onerous, but we want to be assured that the Crown Estate, by virtue of Section 1 of the 1961 Act, has all the powers—and they are not just implied, because the Minister makes it clear that it actually has the powers—to do these things, meet these obligations and secure these objectives, and that Clause (3)(1) will not prevent it from doing so.