Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 07 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Official Report 279KB pdf

---

Crown Estate

Item 2 is further consideration of issues relating to the Crown Estate. The paper that has been circulated outlines the main options for pursuing the matter. Various other papers have also been circulated, including a response from the Crown Estate and unsolicited letters from the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and NFU Scotland—unsolicited by the committee, but perhaps not unsolicited in a more general sense.

We need to have a quick discussion about where we go from here. The background to the issue is that, at our away day, we identified the Crown Estate as an issue that would be worth considering for a day or whatever. The matter then grew slightly when it transpired that there were perhaps more questions than we had first anticipated. I do not want the committee just to drift into deciding to have another meeting about the issue without having a clear idea of what the end point is. The options before us are set out in paragraph 13 of the next-steps paper. There are three ways in which we can proceed, not all of which are mutually exclusive. I invite members to make some quick comments.

From the two meetings that we have had on this issue, it is clear that there are issues that merit further consideration. I agree that we have to be sure that we do not drift into a fuller inquiry without proper consideration of other demands on our time. We should follow the suggestion that is made under the second bullet point in paragraph 13, and consider this issue when we come to consider our work programme later. We should also follow the suggestion that is made under the third bullet point, which is that we write to the Government.

Paragraph 11 notes Mr Grant's offer to come to speak to the committee every year. That would be useful in some ways, but we should be careful about taking up the offer. Everyone might decide that that would be an appropriate thing for them to do as well, which might lead to our being inundated with offers. Perhaps we should say that we will invite him to appear before the committee after the submission of the annual report only if it is felt necessary to do so.

I advise members that a reconsideration of the committee's future work programme is provisionally scheduled for the meeting of 19 December.

I have no problem with our having a fuller discussion in December. We should also ask some of the outstanding questions that we did not have a chance to ask the representatives of the Crown Estate last time, some of which came from the supplementary evidence from the Crown Estate review working group. It would be worth putting those questions to the Crown Estate to ensure that, when we discuss the matter in December, we have even more clarity.

I am quite encouraged by the response that we have had from the Crown Estate. It is clear that it is on the move in a variety of ways. The fact that we have picked up these issues has helped with that. The offer to come and be scrutinised by the committee is to be welcomed. As Jamie Hepburn said, we should not fall into the trap of saying that we will scrutinise the Crown Estate every year. On the other hand, given that we have highlighted some issues, it would be nice to check, in a year's time, how far things have moved. Therefore, I think that we should accept Mr Grant's offer to come to speak to us next year.

I agree with Jamie Hepburn that we should write to the Government, as is suggested under the third bullet point. Perhaps we could also write to the Crown Estate to say that we welcome the offer of annual scrutiny and the fact that it is offering a separate Scottish report and that, in a year's time, we would like to revisit some of the issues and examine what the Crown Estate has done about the advisory liaison structure that it talks about in its letter—which is something that represents progress—and about engaging in discussions on the marine bill. Ian Grant hinted that there would be further announcements made on investment strategies in the marine estate. We should consider those in a year's time. We should also consider the investment issues that Mike Rumbles raised.

I should indicate that, along with other members, I accepted the invitation to go to the reception that the Crown Estate held in Parliament last week, which was followed by a dinner at which we learned a great deal about other financial aspects of the Crown Estate and the investment operations that exist. It would be good to consider the progress that had been made in that regard in a year's time.

We could certainly write those letters. Regardless of what decision we make today, we should write to the Government to seek a clear indication of its views about the Crown Estate and to see whether we can get more information about the issues that were raised in the responses from the harbour authorities.

A lot of good information has come back. I put on record that Ian Grant's statement that the Crown Estate had invested £200 million in Scotland last year was not correct. The information from the Crown Estate shows that it invested £1.1 million—that is a significant difference. I understand that the reference was to a future investment, in Fort Kinnaird.

The Crown Estate wants to give us oral evidence on its annual report in a year's time. That is extremely important and we should accept Ian Grant's offer for next year, without making any commitment for future years. The committee wants to consider the issue during the coming period, and I am convinced that we need to review our work programme on 19 December with that in mind. I am happy to put the discussion back until then, but I agree with the suggestions about what could be done in the meantime. A number of questions deal with the CERWG report. It would be useful for the clerks, until we get to 19 December, to deal with Robin Callander, the expert behind the report, rather than anybody to do with the report itself. It will be helpful if the clerk can liaise with him and say that there are fundamental questions.

The clerks are already in contact with Robin Callander.

That is super. As long as we do that, I am happy for us to proceed in the way that has been outlined.

We want to make progress behind the scenes and then have a further discussion on 19 December.

I agree with Peter Peacock that the process that we have gone through has given us useful information about how the Crown Estate works. It has also forced the Crown Estate to think differently about how it engages with devolved institutions under the devolved arrangements in Scotland. If the convener writes to the Crown Estate, she should also ask it how, in the light of its experience of coming before the committee, it might take matters forward and address the issues that have been raised with it. It might help us if the Crown Estate could respond to the committee prior to the next review of the work programme.

It is worth asking the Crown Estate to comment on the marine bill, in the context of decisions south of the border and potential decisions in Scotland. Its evidence suggested that it would consider the marine bill in the context of the United Kingdom marine bill. That may not now happen within the expected timeframe, so the arrangements might be different now. In the light of that, it might be worth asking the Crown Estate for a comment on how it will proceed.

I, too, largely agree with all that has been said. Many sensible suggestions have been made. I welcome Ian Grant's letter and the clear explanations that he gives, particularly on Mike Rumbles's point about yield. The letter explains the matter clearly. It is interesting to note the difference in yield between the Scottish estate and the English estate. The Scottish estate's yield is lower than that of the UK estate—14.7 per cent compared with 16.4 per cent. In many ways that clears up what had been a contentious issue. [Interruption.] In my mind it does. It is a clear explanation.

We should take up the offer of conducting scrutiny of the Crown Estate next year, but we should not take it up every year, bearing in mind the number of other bodies that we do not scrutinise.

I agree with Peter Peacock's suggestion about a liaison group. That would be sensible as it would enable us to see what progress is being made.

I feel that somewhere in all this there is an issue to do with harbours, but I am not sure that we want to predicate everything—

If we are going to have a further discussion about our work programme on 19 December, that is the appropriate point at which to discuss these matters.

In the range of matters that the committee should be discussing, the harbour issue is almost a local dispute, if you know what I mean.

It would be a local dispute if we were looking at only one harbour, but we can look at more general issues.

Is there a way of resolving it and taking the matter forward before then, by correspondence?

We have agreed, as far as we can, to get as much as possible down on paper before 19 December. At that date, we might decide that we have sufficient information to present a short report to Parliament—or not, depending on how we decide to proceed—or we might decide to consider the issue further. Let us wait until 19 December to see where we are and—importantly—where the rest of our work programme is.

I disagree with John Scott's interpretation of the yield.

Okay. We can assume that there will always be disagreement around this table on any matter.