Agenda item 2 is on accountability and audit. The committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government on accountability and audit arrangements for the proposed further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. Written submissions on the issue have been provided to members.
I remind members and witnesses that we are tight for time this morning. I would appreciate short and succinct questions and answers.
I am delighted to welcome John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, and, from the Scottish Government, Stephen Sadler, team leader in the elections and constitution division, and Aileen Wright, the deputy director of finance. I understand that the cabinet secretary wishes to make a short opening statement.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the audit and accountability arrangements for the further devolution of powers following the Smith commission’s recommendations.
As I indicated in my letter of 5 May, it is important that appropriate and robust arrangements are put in place to support the new powers and responsibilities and to allow the Scottish Parliament and its committees to hold to account those who collect or spend public money in Scotland. The committee’s consideration of what those arrangements should look like is as timely as it is important, as we await the publication of the United Kingdom Government’s Scotland bill later this week. More work will be required in the coming months to develop audit and accountability arrangements at the same time as we discuss and develop the detailed proposals to devolve the powers themselves.
Since the publication of the draft clauses, we have been working with the UK Government to ensure that the Scotland bill delivers the substance and the spirit of the Smith commission’s recommendations. We have offered comments across a range of the subjects covered with the aim of developing legislation that the Scottish Government can support. There is, however, some way to go to achieve that. The recent Devolution (Further Powers) Committee report concluded that, although the draft clauses achieved their aim in some cases, in other areas they fell short. Once we see the bill, we will be able to assess how far the UK Government has taken on board the range of comments that have been received since January. We will also have a firmer basis on which to take forward the work to develop the necessary audit and accountability arrangements.
The transfer of powers to be delivered through the Scotland bill will have implications for a range of organisations that will, in the future, be accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The work to put in place appropriate arrangements to reflect that development will need to continue alongside parliamentary consideration of the bill’s proposals, both at Westminster and in this Parliament. The committee’s consideration of those issues and its eventual report will help to ensure that the UK Government and the bodies concerned give the issues the prominence and attention that they deserve.
The Scottish Government’s approach will be to ensure that the audit and reporting arrangements that are put in place enable this Parliament to scrutinise satisfactorily the use of the transferred powers and what is spent on them. We will take a pragmatic view, seeking to build on existing experience of what works well, and that view will be informed by the comments of the committee and Audit Scotland.
It is important that, whatever the specific arrangements are for individual bodies, they are clear, consistent and transparent in terms of responsibilities and reporting. Where bodies have an established relationship with the Government, there will be existing frameworks for accountability and audit. Where it is clear that those arrangements work, we will build on them in a proportionate way that provides efficient and effective accountability while minimising additional burdens. Where new requirements arise, the Government will prepare to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to establish effective scrutiny in partnership with the committee.
I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
I thank the minister for his opening statement. Before I open up the questioning to other members, I will ask about one specific example. Arrangements for reporting to the Scottish Parliament, particularly in relation to audit, will need to be put in place for the BBC. How does the minister envisage that particular bit of process being followed?
The command paper indicates that the BBC would be required to lay its annual report and accounts before the Scottish Parliament and submit reports to, and appear before, committees of the Parliament in the same way as it does in the UK Parliament. As long as the presentation of those accounts provides clear and satisfactory information that enables the Public Audit Committee and other committees of the Parliament to fully and properly identify, and accordingly scrutinise, the BBC’s operations in Scotland, those arrangements are broadly satisfactory. Crucially, the issue will depend on the degree to which that information reflects the activities of the BBC in Scotland and, thereafter, the ability of committees to scrutinise those activities. I envisage that being set out in a memorandum of understanding between the respective Governments, the Parliament and the BBC.
What discussions have taken place with the BBC on that? Can you make public any elements of those discussions?
The discussions on that issue and on a range of subjects have so far taken place at a Government-to-Government level. Obviously, we will have to see the clauses that will come from the UK Government in their final form before we will be able to begin the detailed follow-up discussions that will be required. There will be a necessity for discussion with the BBC in that respect, and I expect that discussion to take place once the clauses are available to us in full, which we expect to be on Thursday.
Organisations such as Ofcom have identified that they have a reporting requirement in relation to their annual accounts that is set out in legislation and is subject to direction from UK ministers. Should the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament be consulted before UK ministers give any such directions? Should any such consultation requirement be set out in statute?
The Smith commission’s report makes provision for the Scottish Government to contribute to the formulation of strategic guidance for organisations such as Ofcom, and we will wish to utilise that access to the full to ensure that Ofcom is particularly well sighted on the requirements and needs of people in Scotland. I will give an example. Just the other week, I met Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom, and I made the point to her that, on broadband, it is all very well for Ofcom to tick a box that says that 97 per cent of the United Kingdom’s population have access to broadband, but if the 3 per cent who do not have access to broadband are located mainly in rural Scotland, that is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
It is important that the Scottish Government is able to have dialogue with organisations such as Ofcom to ensure that their strategic direction properly and fully reflects the needs of the people of Scotland. That is an important responsibility for us to have. As a consequence, it is also important that parliamentary committees can hold Ofcom to account on some of those tests, to establish whether it is properly and fully taking into account the needs and requirements of people in Scotland. That is what the Smith commission had in mind when it considered enabling the Scottish Government to have access to the formulation of strategic guidance for organisations such as Ofcom.
Has the Scottish Government done any analysis to determine whether further UK legislative change will be required to ensure that the annual reports and accounts of bodies that are identified in the draft clauses include Scotland-specific expenditure and performance information?
That will be the responsibility of the UK Government, and I expect any provision of that nature to be reflected in the draft clauses that come from the UK Government.
In relation to the Department for Work and Pensions, universal credit and the benefits that we hope will come to the Scottish Parliament, Citizens Advice Scotland highlights that
“the process does not seem to be equitable.”
CAS highlights the fact that
“The clauses require the Scottish Government to consult the UK Government and to gain their agreement to the timing of any variance. However, should the UK Government wish to make regulations in this area that affected Scotland; they merely need to consult the Scottish Ministers, but are not required to seek their agreement.”
That does not seem a very equitable partnership agreement.
That is one of the issues that have been material to consideration of the draft clauses that were published in January. The draft clauses place a requirement on the Scottish Government to secure the agreement of the UK secretary of state for particular changes that we wish to make. However, as Mr Beattie correctly says, there is no reciprocal obligation on the UK secretary of state, which gives the UK secretary of state the ability to withhold consent. In that scenario, there would not be a proper and full devolution of responsibility, because the UK Government would retain the ability to say that it was not going to allow something to happen, for whatever reason.
That is one of the material issues that we have raised with the UK Government. It was one of our substantive concerns when the draft clauses were announced, in January, and we have sustained that point with the UK Government. We await the publication of the Scotland bill to see whether the UK Government has amended the provision in any way. I think that that would be necessary for the Smith commission’s recommendations to be properly put into practice.
I want to return to the BBC issue—I am sorry for jumping about.
We have received a very short submission from the BBC Trust, which states:
“Our expectation is that the BBC will provide exactly the same Annual Report and Accounts to be laid in Scottish Parliament as is laid in the Westminster Parliament.”
By contrast, BBC Alba provides an annual report and accounts, indicates its progress against objectives and outcomes, provides information on corporate governance, and so on. It provides
“exactly the same Annual Report and Accounts ... as ... laid in the Westminster Parliament.”
Are those arrangements for the BBC acceptable, appropriate and robust, or would you be looking for something more in line with what BBC Alba currently produces?
In my earlier answer to the convener, I indicated that the process of laying a report before Parliament seems to be an acceptable approach. However, what is essential in that judgment is what information that report conveys and what opportunity it provides for Parliament to properly scrutinise the activities of the BBC in Scotland.
The points that Mary Scanlon raises about the comparison between the contents of BBC Alba’s report and the contents of the report of the BBC in general are welcome. A greater amount of information would be required to enable committees of this Parliament to properly scrutinise the activities of the BBC. The contents of the BBC’s report would need to be developed to take into account the legitimate desire on the part of this committee and others to properly scrutinise the BBC.
You would be looking for an annual report not just that was the same as the one laid at Westminster but that allowed this committee and this Parliament to scrutinise more meaningfully matters relating to Scotland. The same requirement would apply to the annual BBC Scotland management review report. What I am saying is that, with regard to the submission that we received from Rona Fairhead, the chairman of the BBC Trust, it would not be sufficient for the BBC simply to do what it is doing just now. We would need something much more focused on Scotland in the future—something more akin to what BBC Alba is producing.
09:45
That is a fair summary. However, the submission from Rona Fairhead is not, in my view, the last word on the subject, because a memorandum of understanding has yet to be created, discussed, scrutinised and tested.
I understand that.
I would expect issues such as those that Mary Scanlon has fairly raised to be properly taken into account as part of that process.
I first want to ask the Deputy First Minister about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Government’s submission makes a couple of observations, which I think are fair, about separating out the MCA’s expenditure in Scotland. Have you given any further thought to how that could best be done, so that the Government and Parliament could properly scrutinise that area?
To be fair to the MCA, its initial response was very much just that—an initial response. My officials have had subsequent discussions with the MCA to try to advance those issues.
The MCA’s submission predates the Scottish Government’s communication with the committee. I am optimistic that we will reach a much better position and that more information will be made available that better captures the distinct and discrete activities of the MCA in Scotland and that, therefore, enables committees to properly and fully consider all the implications of those issues. The committee has a significant role to play in specifying the type of information that it would be appropriate to have at its disposal. The Public Audit Committee is in a position to advance some of those points across a range of organisations including the MCA.
Thank you. We should not get drawn into the policy areas, as they are not our direct responsibility, but you have reflected on the Smith agreement in the context that I am describing. There may, for example, be areas of policy involving co-location of other blue-light emergency services in Scotland, which would make eminent sense. Is that the kind of area that you envisage the Government being involved in? I appreciate that that is not a matter for direct consideration by a Scottish Parliament committee, but there are members of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board sitting behind you in the public gallery and I have been thinking about that issue a great deal of late.
Those are, of course, the policy opportunities that arise from having greater scope to influence some of those agendas.
Yes.
It goes back to the crucial point of whether the bodies are prepared to consider those opportunities. In response to a question from Mr Beattie, I cited the example of Ofcom. It is appropriate that, if the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are accorded an opportunity to influence the strategic direction of organisations such as Ofcom—a point with which Tavish Scott will be entirely familiar from the Smith commission process—that must be done for a purpose, which would be to get the organisations to take greater account of the particular and specific requirements in Scotland. The example of broadband that I cited to Mr Beattie fits into that category.
The point that Tavish Scott raises about the MCA is particularly relevant because of the extent of Scotland’s coastline, our maritime interests and, to be frank, the disproportionate extent of the risk that is carried in Scottish waters—a risk with which Mr Scott will be entirely familiar, given his constituency interest.
There is an opportunity for us to shape imaginative ways of delivering public policy if we can properly use that strategic input in the way that the Smith commission envisaged.
I agree with that.
I have two brief questions, the first of which is about the Crown estate. The Government’s submission makes some interesting remarks about the continuing Crown estate. From an audit point of view, it would be for this committee—and indeed for the Government—to properly scrutinise what that might look like. Does the Deputy First Minister wish to share his emerging thoughts on the best way in which the continuing activities of the Crown Estate might be properly scrutinised from an audit perspective?
I am anxious about the use of the term “continuing”—I wonder where Mr Scott is trying to take me.
There is a real uncertainty. When I signed up to the Smith commission’s report, I felt that I was signing up to the full devolution of the Crown estate and all its interests to Scotland. That was what was in my mind. What is now emerging suggests that, although the Crown Estate may do that, it may also do other things that may open up another front of Crown Estate activity in Scotland.
Mr Scott heard the evidence that I gave to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee on that point. At best, the situation is confusing; at worst, it undermines the whole principle that the Smith commission signed up to. At this stage, I am a little bit reluctant to accept that there is a proper continuing role for the Crown Estate beyond the devolution of Crown estate responsibilities to Scotland.
I believe that, in whatever shape or form the Crown estate emerges, this committee and other committees must be able to properly and effectively scrutinise Crown Estate activities in Scotland in a fashion that has not been the case to date. The devolution of responsibilities brings that area further into the scope of this Parliament, and therefore places particular obligations on the Crown Estate specifically in relation to this committee and how it can clarify for members of the public the issues about which they are concerned.
The issues may well become clearer this week—we will see.
They may well do.
I have a final question, which goes back to the chocolate teapot analogy that the Deputy First Minister used with some aplomb. It would be open to his Government to say that Government policy could change to encourage development to happen for the 3 per cent who are without broadband, on which I entirely agree with him. He knows from his constituency, as I know from mine, that some people will not be caught by the current Government policy on broadband, which is a UK-Scotland joint policy.
The audit of that policy—Audit Scotland has done it, of course—could suggest that the policy should be targeted at such areas. Ofcom is part of that, but the Government is too. Would that be a fair comment?
Yes and no. I have been pretty clear about the Government’s intention. We believe that the roll-out of superfast broadband is an essential requirement for all localities in Scotland, regardless of where they are and how difficult they are to reach.
Indeed.
Mr Scott has extensive experience of the challenges and difficulties around the country in that respect. I am keen to ensure that that commitment is fulfilled, and it will be easier for us to do so if a greater obligation is placed on providers. I cannot do that, because I do not have legislative competence in that area, but I intend to use the strategic opportunity of dialogue with Ofcom to advance those arguments. I am in no way trying to pass the buck—I am properly trying to use the constitutional settlement to ensure that we have more extensive superfast broadband coverage by virtue of an obligation that is placed on providers.
There is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to influence that process and, if Ofcom’s chief executive was in front of the committee today, she would make it clear that she left St Andrew’s house knowing that the Scottish Government attaches the greatest importance to the availability of superfast broadband across the country. Ofcom has a critical role in ensuring that the obligations that are placed on operators and providers are set in that context.
Deputy First Minister, your comments on the MCA and the Crown Estate have certainly been helpful. Have you or other officials been involved in any further discussions with the UK Government on the potential accountability situation in the two-Crown Estate solution?
Officials have been involved in discussions about the substance of the clauses that will be implemented on the Crown estate, so those issues have been explored with United Kingdom Government officials. There has been no further discussion of the accountability issues, because a number of the detailed points will await the finalisation of the clauses. I have not yet seen a full outline of the clauses that will be published later this week.
I am sure that the committee will want to come back to that area at some point.
My second question relates to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities submission, which suggests that it might be appropriate for certain bodies to submit focused reports on specified issues, such as the Gambling Commission submitting a report on fixed-odds betting terminals, over which powers will be transferred. Would having some of those organisations report to this Parliament be useful for the Parliament’s auditing and accountability processes?
There is a case for that. If there is an appetite for inquiry in this Parliament on whatever question, the Parliament should pursue its legitimate inquiries. We might not hold all the responsibilities, but that has not stopped Parliament exercising an entirely legitimate democratic right to probe and to scrutinise any question. Committees should be free to take that forward.
What might limit that is the statute that established this Parliament and committees’ ability to command evidence. However, if my recollection of section 23(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 is not departing me, Parliament has a pretty formidable power to require information to be brought before it. There is definitely a case to be made for what is suggested.
Have you or Scottish Government officials put that case to the UK Government, whether with regard to the Gambling Commission or other bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Health and Safety Executive or the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
In my answer to one of your earlier questions, I indicated that a lot of the discussion of accountability and scrutiny arrangements will have to follow the definition of the final clauses. Early discussions have taken place about some of the accountability issues, but there is a long way for us to go on those points. I reiterate the point that I made to Mr Scott: it is important that the committee specifies many of the terms for what it believes to be the appropriate and acceptable level of information to be available to the Parliament to enable it and other committees to properly exercise their functions.
I would like to hear brief thoughts from you on what I think of as the third leg of audit. The first leg is plainly making sure that the numbers add up. The second leg is making sure that the governance is there. The third leg is having data that enables us to work out how effective an organisation is—whether it is doing what we want it to do and how efficiently it is doing that.
I appreciate that it is very early days, given the things that you have spoken about and bills that are about to appear. However, can you give us any thoughts on how you see the organisations in which we will have a greater interest accounting to us on their effectiveness?
10:00
I suppose that the issues fall into two categories. If a responsibility is transferring in its entirety to the Scottish Parliament’s competence, the Scottish Parliament’s existing arrangements under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and the other arrangements that that act provides for, which are the basis on which we undertake our audit and scrutiny work, should apply, as those arrangements work well. They are viewed as having great strength and international standing, so we should apply them as we apply them to the current day-to-day arrangements, which are the meat and drink of the committee’s work.
When there is a shared responsibility, we have to take care that the committee is properly able to have available the information that will allow it to satisfy itself of the authority, governance and effectiveness of all the public expenditure of those bodies in Scotland. That will involve greater joint working between the Auditor General for Scotland and the Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom. A lot more joint activity will have to be undertaken, because the committee has to be satisfied that it has access to proper information in order to challenge and scrutinise activity without two exercises having to be undertaken, which would be difficult to justify, provide and interrogate.
I fit my answer to Mr Don’s question into those two categories. When something is transferring in its entirety to the Scottish Parliament, requirements under the 2000 act should be applied, and when there is some form of shared endeavour, such as DWP activities, there must be a substantive response to the requirement from the UK body, which has to mean greater involvement for the Auditor General in the process.
Do you sense that the UK Government understands the point that you have just made and that it will push the National Audit Office to work with the Auditor General for Scotland?
From time to time, I encounter elements of the United Kingdom Government that do not seem to be particularly aware of devolved arrangements, so the process is by no means complete. Getting the issues and questions more widely understood and therefore reflected in practice will be a challenge.
To be fair to the UK Government, I am not altogether sure that it is its obligation to push the NAO in that direction. Perhaps it is for the NAO to realise that the landscape has changed and that it has to operate with the Auditor General for Scotland and Audit Scotland in a fashion that enables work to be undertaken and information to be presented to enable Parliament to properly discharge its functions.
That suggests that we need to talk to the Auditor General about her working relationship with the NAO.
That would be the appropriate conversation.
I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that it is quite difficult to second-guess what will be in the Queen’s speech and the bill that is likely to be published tomorrow. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has listened to feedback and has said that he is open to amendments to the Scotland bill. I look forward to that.
There are so many devolved issues under the Smith commission that it is difficult to look at just one. I thank my colleagues for raising general points. I will pick out one measure that your Government has been critical of: the work programme. Responsibility for it is a new economic power under the Smith proposals. How will you measure the employment programmes in Scotland when they are fully devolved? What auditing and accounting arrangements will there be and what outcomes will you look for to ensure that money is well spent and that we get value for money?
I will look at the employment programmes’ ability to ensure that individuals are supported into employment that is sustained on a basis that is acceptable to the Scottish Government. That is the central outcome of an employment programme. We will have a range of other key indicators to determine the basis of the programmes, the relative cost and the performance of any providers in supporting us, in the way that we have a range of key performance indicators that apply to Skills Development Scotland’s work on modern apprenticeships or to a programme such as the youth employment Scotland programme, which the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations takes forward.
At the moment, people are supported for two years back into employment and while they are in employment. Will you continue that support on a similar basis to what is provided now?
Those are policy questions that the Government will have to determine. One of my concerns about the policy area is that our being able to do this will take a great deal longer than any of us who sat on the Smith commission envisaged. I sat on the commission between September and November 2010 and, while we were discussing devolving employment services to the Scottish Government at the earliest possible opportunity, the UK Government was renewing the contracts for existing employment support arrangements, which means that we cannot exercise devolved responsibility before 2017. The Scottish Government deeply regrets that position.
I clarify for the Official Report that the Smith commission sat in 2014.
What did I say?
You said 2010. I wanted to clarify that for the record.
My apologies.
I think that the Calman commission was in 2010.
Thankfully, I never sat on the Calman commission.
In two years’ time, the work programme will be fully devolved and you will make the changes. Will the basic principles still apply—that the programme will help long-term and short-term unemployed people and support them to get back into the work environment?
Of course. There would be no point in an employment programme if it was not about getting people back into employment. That is the core purpose of an employment programme. The issues that I am concerned about in the short term are that the Smith commission envisaged the power being devolved early, whereas it is going to be devolved late, and that there is not the comprehensive scope for exercising devolved control over employment services that I would like to see in place.
I am sure that we will come back to that.
We should be careful not to stray into policy areas. The committee’s business is primarily the audit arrangements.
I appreciate that. My second set of brief questions is on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s previous recommendation that a Scottish balance sheet should be developed to provide overall context to the administration of the financial affairs of the devolved Administration. Is that reasonable? Are you looking at that?
Comprehensive information is gathered and published on Scotland’s public finances and the resources under the Scottish Parliament’s control. That information is sufficiently comprehensive. With the further devolved responsibilities, we will look to reflect that comprehensive standard in the arrangements that we put in place for presenting financial information on public expenditure performance and the Scottish Government’s work.
Will that information be equivalent to a Scottish balance sheet?
I do not quite know what information is required. The Government produces all the necessary financial information about the conduct of public expenditure in Scotland. From where I am sitting, that is a comprehensive explanation of the position. I am not quite sure what further information would be required to satisfy the point that Mrs Scanlon makes.
I am sure that that will become clearer in the weeks and months ahead.
My final issue is one that I asked you about during oral questions in the chamber, when I got a constructive answer. The understanding seems to be that the Crown Estate is responsible for parts of the shoreline around Scotland, but 36 tenant farmers in Moray and Glenlivet are worried about the devolution of the Crown estate.
The Scottish Government takes the view that
“the organisation that takes on the Crown Estate’s responsibilities should report to the Scottish Parliament and this should include performance, financial information and the contribution being made to delivering the National Performance Framework”.
Will the farmers be accountable to a minister or will there be an alternative approach, such as the one put forward by COSLA? It said:
“we need to ensure that the Smith Commission’s recommendations are acted on in full by ensuring that Crown Estate operations and associated revenues are fully devolved to local government.”
I know from having spoken to many of the 36 tenant farmers, many of whose tenancies have passed down the generations, that they are a bit worried about councillors or ministers managing their farm activities. I appreciate that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is taking evidence on the issue today, but can you provide any comfort to the Glenlivet and Moray farmers? I am not aware that any Government or council has ever controlled or managed farms. The shoreline aside, how do you see the auditing and accounting arrangements working? I want to focus on the 36 farms.
You raise a multiplicity of issues.
The farmers are worried about the issue.
I am very much aware of that. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, who represents the area, has made that point clearly in our discussions on the issue.
I will separate out the points that you made. The audit and accountability arrangements will apply to the Crown Estate’s activities. Needless to say, some farmers have a relationship with the Crown Estate in the sense that they pay rent to it. In that respect, there has to be transparency about the Crown Estate’s activities, and I would expect the Parliament to want to exercise a role in relation to those activities, but not individual farmers’ activities.
I offer this reassurance to the farmers of Glenlivet: I cannot envisage there being any appetite for the Government to direct the work or role of tenant farmers in any respect—I cannot see why on earth it would want to do that. As Mrs Scanlon rightly pointed out, these are people who have had generations of involvement in the nurturing, care and stewardship of some magnificent parts of Scotland. If the Government knows anything more than the tenant farmers of Glenlivet do, it is not worth knowing. I therefore really do not think that there is any cause for concern, but I assure those individuals and Mrs Scanlon that the Government properly and fully understands the issues.
10:15
According to its submission, COSLA thinks that management of the Crown estate is going to be devolved to local government, while the paper that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre says that it is to be devolved to an organisation. What organisation do you expect to take over the management of the 36 tenant farms of the Crown Estate?
There will be a Crown Estate in Scotland. That will be the body.
So the Crown Estate will remain as the—
This is where we have to be very careful.
I am sorry—I am just trying to understand the situation.
This is a guddle not of my making but of Her Majesty’s Government’s making, because of the lack of clarity from that Government about the proper devolution of the Crown Estate function. When I sat on the Smith commission and had a discussion in good faith with all parties about the Crown Estate’s responsibilities being devolved to Scotland, that discussion was about the devolution to Scotland of the Crown Estate’s entire functions, which would then be under the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny. Within that, we might well decide to devolve particular functions to local authorities in the way that the three island authorities—Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles—have presented to us.
There will be a Crown Estate in Scotland, but things have become somewhat muddled with the proposal that that will happen while the Crown Estate has other activity going on. As for the interests of the tenant farmers, there will have to be some body whose land they are managing—and that body will be the Crown Estate.
So the Crown Estate will still be there in some form.
The Crown Estate’s functions will be devolved to Scotland. In other words, there will be a Crown Estate in Scotland and it will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
I will leave it there, convener.
As the committee has no further questions, I thank the cabinet secretary and his colleagues for their contributions and I suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:17 Meeting suspended.Next
Section 23 Reports