Crown Estate
Agenda item 4 is discussion of matters relating to the Crown Estate. The item has a history in the committee. Last year, concerns about the management of the Crown Estate were communicated to us by the Crown Estate review working group. Following an evidence session with the commissioners, the Crown Estate undertook—among other things—to set up a stakeholder group that would meet regularly and report annually on the management of the Scottish estate. The Scotland report of the Crown Estate was published in July, and it is for us to consider what, if anything, we should do in response.
The clerks have circulated to members a paper that goes over the issues in more detail. It contains a number of enclosures, including an update report from the chairman of the Crown Estate and correspondence from Mr Iain MacIntyre, the former chairman of the Tarbert Harbour Authority, and Mr Whitelaw, the chairman of King's Park community council in Fife. There is also a letter from Councillor Foxley, the leader of Highland Council, on behalf of the Crown Estate review working group. Members also have a copy of the Crown Estate's annual report.
We need to discuss the Crown Estate's Scotland report and any other written material it has sent us. I also need members' views on Councillor Foxley's letter and related correspondence. In particular, we must decide what further action the committee will take. There has already been considerable movement from the Crown Estate, which is important.
In keeping with practice in the Parliament, the legal advice that we have received will not be made public, but that does not preclude members from referring to it in the course of any discussions that we have. The import of that advice is that the Crown Estate—including all the management structures and so on—is a reserved body on which the Parliament cannot legislate directly, but there will be occasions on which there are devolved competencies, depending on the specific issues that arise, relating to areas into which we could have input on a case-by-case basis.
I welcome the Crown Estate's report. It has moved a long way in a relatively short time in answering some of the criticisms that have been levelled against it. I welcome the direction of travel and the effort that the commissioners have made. There still seems to be an issue with Tarbert and other ports but, in general, I am taken on with what they have set out to achieve. Even the working group acknowledges that. I am positive about what the Crown Estate is doing. Given our workload and the effort that the Crown Estate is making, I do not think that we need to discuss matters with it further. Other members may take a different view.
It is useful to have this item on the agenda. Only a year or so ago there was clear concern in my part of the world—the Highlands and Islands—about the performance of the Crown Estate. When, as a consequence of that concern, we had representatives of the Crown Estate give evidence to us, they gave the impression that devolution had largely passed them by, which was surprising. Rightly, the committee articulated a number of concerns about that.
I agree with John Scott that over the past year there has been substantial movement by the Crown Estate. We must determine whether that is just a charm offensive or whether it is substantive. I think that it is much more than a charm offensive and is substantive in many ways. The Crown Estate has published a Scottish report and area-based reports. The stakeholder group has been set up, which I did not think would happen. It provides an internal mechanism—the minutes of the group's meetings are also published—for people to give the Crown Estate direct feedback on what is happening from their perspective. That will be a powerful instrument for driving forward the Crown Estate in a number of ways. There has been substantive improvement.
Notwithstanding what has happened as a result of the scrutiny that we have brought to bear, we have always been aware that there was a chance that we would have to scrutinise the role of the Crown in relation to a range of other agencies, especially during consideration of the marine bill. That opportunity remains as a backstop. However, it would be worth our having a further discussion with the Crown Estate, as there are outstanding issues with the ports that have not yet been fully resolved. Not inviting it to give further evidence might give the impression that we are entirely satisfied that everything is moving forward. I am satisfied that things are moving forward and pleased with the progress that has been made, but I would hate to give the impression that we have ceased to be interested in making it clear that we would like progress to continue. We should have the chance to take evidence from the chairman of the Crown Estate and to probe him on other issues.
My view is so far, so good—I acknowledge that in the past year the Crown Estate has shown itself to be really willing to move matters forward, but we cannot yet say that we are completely satisfied. We should be grateful for what has happened so far but keep a close eye on the matter and not let it drop.
I agree wholeheartedly with Peter Peacock and John Scott. There is still an issue of trust. The fact that we are talking about whether this is a public relations exercise evidences our doubts, notwithstanding our acknowledgement of the progress that has been made. I refer to paper RAE/S3/08/18/10, especially the letter from Councillor Foxley. Understandably, the working group partners take some credit for starting a process that has resulted in movement by the Crown Estate. The letter helpfully sets out two or three examples of where reporting, which has been ramped up, might be improved further. We should press the commissioners to respond constructively to those points.
The Crown Estate is almost a nationalised industry. Most of its activities would be totally within the remit of the Scottish Government if they were conducted by any other body but, because of its strange history and the Scotland Act 1998, they are not.
As it is extremely rare for the Crown Estate's activities in Scotland to be subject to any scrutiny by Westminster, it is clear that we have a role to play, but given all our other activities and the fact that responsibility for the Crown Estate is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, I think that we should consider issues on a case-by-case basis.
It would probably be useful to follow up some of the suggestions to seek further information from the Crown Estate and to raise further points with it. At this stage, I would be inclined to do that by letter, bearing in mind that we can ask the Crown Estate to appear before us at a future meeting once we have received further specific information. We would obviously have to consider carefully how we timetabled that into the committee's work programme, but I am sure that we can manage to fit in such a session at some point. It is more likely that we will be able to do so on the other side, rather than on this side, of Christmas.
We will act on some of the proposals that have been made, particularly those in Councillor Foxley's letter, and write to the Crown Estate on that basis. When we receive a response, we will consider when we might timetable a session with the commissioners.
The other letters that we have received since we received the letter from the Crown Estate provide additional information and, in some cases, raise quite specific issues. We will do our best to elicit from the Crown Estate some of the information that is requested, or a response to the points that are made, and will see how we can proceed from there.
I take the point that, as regards the Parliament's competency, we can do nothing about the management structures of the Crown Estate or how it chooses to carry out its work. Our remit relates to individual issues as they come up. We will have the Crown Estate pretty clearly on our radar, which has perhaps not been the case in the past.
As Alasdair Morgan helpfully pointed out, the Crown Estate is not our responsibility at the moment, so we are probably not in a position to insist on anything. Nonetheless, we are in a position to invite it to take certain action and to acknowledge the letter that Councillor Foxley has provided.
In fairness, the Crown Estate has been responsive to our work.
You made the point that I was going to make, convener. I agree that we should proceed in the way that you have suggested, but despite the strict demarcation of responsibilities, the Crown Estate has demonstrated a desire to listen and to act differently, which is to be commended.
Ultimately, there is nothing to prevent the committee from flagging up issues directly to Westminster, but the Scottish Parliament cannot directly affect the Crown Estate.
Any letter that is sent will be circulated to committee members.