The House of Commons Treasury Committee last week slammed the bosses of the Crown Estate’s £5bn portfolio for being too commercial. But that is not the end of the investigation into whether it is acting in taxpayers’ interests.

The report also revealed that the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, would carry out further investigation into whether the Crown Estate had broken its own regulations on borrowing money. It has called on the government to launch a wider review into the Crown’s management, addressing such issues as:

• its duty towards local authority housing requirements in London
• the fairness of its monopoly over the marine environment, and its effect on onshore infrastructure to support renewable energy
• whether the Crown Estate Act should be revised to make the Crown Estate’s public service remit clearer
• how far ministers should be involved in the management of the Crown Estate
• and whether important historic buildings in the estate should be transferred to another public body, such as English Heritage.

MPs said that the “good management” required by the Crown Estate Act 1961 went beyond earning revenue. Michael Fallon, who chairs the Treasury subcommittee, said: “We had a lot of praise for its management, particularly its rural estate. But we think the government’s power of direction over the Crown Estate is much wider than it construes. Ministers could give directions for setting a broader framework of public interest.”

The Treasury will report within two months.

Until then, the question over the Crown Estate’s obligations to taxpayers will remain.

• Treasury Committee slates Crown Estate
• Scots ministers brand Crown Estate “unaccountable”
• “Old fashioned” Crown structure may change, says Treasury
• Crown Estate sets affordable housing tests for London resi sale
• Crown Estate buys Capital Shopping Centres’ Westgate in Oxford