Crown Estate (Devolution)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-02419, in the name of David Stewart, on devolution of the Crown estate. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee report, The Crown Estate in Scotland, and endorses the committee’s conclusion to recommend ending the Crown Estate Commissioner’s responsibilities for the administration and revenues of the ancient crown property, rights and interests in Scotland; supports the Scottish Affairs Committee view that marine and coastal assets in Scotland should be removed from the Crown Estate Commissioner’s responsibility and devolved down to the level of local communities, and notes the extent of marine and coastal assets throughout the Highlands and Islands and the potential to maximise the benefits to local communities through devolution.
18:06
I welcome this opportunity to debate the future of the Crown estate. I thank the members from across the political divide who have signed my motion. To those who have not, I say that I very much welcome sinners who wish to repent.
I place on record my thanks to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its excellent report, which is based on widespread evidence sessions from Shetland to Stirling and interviews with myriad expert witnesses from the Scrabster Harbour Trust to Scottish Renewables.
At first glance, it seems from reading the evidence to the committee that the Crown Estate has a whiff of a heady mixture of feudalism and paternalism. Angus Campbell, the leader of the Western Isles Council, said:
“Well ... quite frankly, from our local authority point of view there is no relationship and it is as blunt as that. All we have done in the Western Isles in terms of development of any harbour has been done at the hands of the local authority, and what you quite simply get at the end of the day is a bill for the extra rental.”
That view was echoed by Councillor Cluness, the leader of Shetland Islands Council, who said:
“Our only basis for complaint against the Crown Estate is that, in essence, they derive considerable incomes not only from anything we do within the oil industry and the considerable developments that come there - of course in addition to renewables - but also in relation to salmon farming. We have not yet seen any return of any size from the Crown Estate in relation to the fees that we have paid them.”
More bluntly, Councillor Michael Foxley, the leader of Highland Council, quoted a prominent developer of offshore marine, who said:
“Now I know what it is like to have dealt with a medieval feudal baron because they have the power to say yes or no with no right of challenge, no right of recourse.”
Members will be well aware that the range of the Crown Estate’s responsibilities and powers is simply breathtaking. They range from sea bed ownership out to the 12-mile limit with the exception of hydrocarbons, rights over the continental shelf to 200 nautical miles, rights to gold and silver mining, and more modern acquisitions such as west Princes Street gardens and the King’s park in Stirling, about which there has been some controversy recently.
The Crown Estate Commissioners is a public body that was set up in 1956 and is governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961. It operates commercially and all surplus revenues are transferred to the United Kingdom Treasury. For example, in 2009-10 the UK revenues figure was around £210 million. The Crown estate in Scotland accounts for around 5 per cent of the Crown Estate’s annual revenue. To give members a cash sum, the surplus in Scotland was £9.9 million, which went to the UK Treasury.
Is there a case for reform? What does the evidence say? The evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, which—in addition to just reading the committee’s report—I found quite fascinating, ties in closely with the Crown estate review group report in 2007, the Calman commission report in 2009, which we heard about in the previous debate, and the Treasury Select Committee report in 2010.
In the evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, was full account and cognisance taken of udal law relating to the Orkney and Shetland islands?
The member makes a fascinating point. I know that she has taken a great interest in the issue. Evidence was taken about what she describes. I refer the member to the 19th century case of Balfour, for example, which she might find interesting.
Is there a case for reform? It is important to note that both the Scotland Bill Committees of this Parliament added a bit more spice to the evidence for reform of the Crown Estate. Why should it be reformed? There is a consistent picture of a lack of accountability and a lack of appropriate management of assets, development and working with communities; and there is limited benefit from the Crown Estate’s involvement in Scotland.
Is there a solution? The Scottish Affairs Committee’s view was quite clear after considering the evidence, and it made a number of points, which I will summarise. First, the Crown Estate’s responsibilities for the administration and revenues of Crown property, rights and interests in Scotland should end; secondly, a key role should be given at the Scottish level for strategic decisions and to Marine Scotland in particular, and there should be accountability to this Parliament; and thirdly, we should go further with what I describe as secondary and tertiary devolution to the local authority and local community level. Members will be well aware that, at local community level, there is a high level of democracy. It is vital to flag that up at this stage. Those points echoed the views of the Crown estate working party, which was made up of Highlands and Islands local authorities and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change will be well aware of Community Land Scotland, which represents Scotland’s community land owners, who own and manage 500,000 acres of Scotland, of which all but 2 acres, the chairman told me earlier today, are bounded by coastline. Community Land Scotland has also called for radical reform of the Crown Estate and, in its evidence to the Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee and to the Scottish Affairs Committee, it called for the principle of subsidiarity to be part of the management of the interests of the Crown Estate.
In my region of the Highlands and Islands, many community owners now manage considerable land assets and, in my view, they do so professionally and responsibly. There is no reason why they, as democratic and accountable owners, should not manage the waters that adjoin their land. They are calling for the right to do so and I hope that the minister, in summing up, will reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to the management of the Crown Estate’s assets being devolved to communities as part of the further devolution of the Crown Estate’s interests.
Donald Dewar’s speech at the opening ceremony of this Parliament had grace, rhyme and stature, but it also had an element of foresight when he said:
“Devolution is not an event but a process.”
He did not want to tell Scots what country to live in, but he wanted them to have the chance to have the country that they live in work better.
The Crown estate argument is part of a bigger argument about centralisers versus devolvers, subsidiarity and working in partnership with local communities. My favourite historian, Jim Hunter, who is in the public gallery, quotes in his new book a west coast crofter saying that they
“hate us in London but ignore us in Edinburgh.”
We must ensure that that crofter and many others have nothing to fear from Edinburgh and that this Parliament is fully behind the devolution of responsibility for the Crown estate. All we need now, to paraphrase Sir Walter Scott, is the will to do and the soul to dare.
18:14
They say that great minds think alike. David Stewart and I lodged separate motions on the Crown Estate report at the same time. It is without any hint of bitterness whatsoever that I congratulate him on bringing this debate before Parliament this evening. I commend him for his speech, which I think had both stature and foresight.
Scottish National Party colleagues do not always agree with the Scottish Affairs Committee, but it is clear that the committee has examined forensically the issues in relation to the Crown Estate in Scotland. It has reached a number of damning conclusions about the operation of the Crown Estate Commissioners and it has made a number of positive and constructive recommendations.
It is self-evident from the report that the Crown Estate is simply not fit for purpose. The process of devolution appears to have passed it by. The report helpfully sets out the facts. The post of head of the Scottish estate was abolished; the CEC stopped keeping separate accounts for its operations in Scotland; and it no longer had even a section on Scotland in its annual report. There is not much sign of devolution or a respect agenda for Scotland. If anything, the CEC has reduced its accountability in Scotland since devolution. That is unacceptable.
Where we should have had accountability and democratic structures, we have had centralisation. The report welcomes the Secretary of State for Scotland’s focus on improving the commissioners’ accountability in Scotland, but it argues that such steps do not go far enough to remedy the situation.
Where we should have had transparency about the Scottish finances of the Crown Estate, we have had a lack of “hard information”—those are not my words but those of the UK Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had to admit that the £5.7 million that was cited as the net surplus revenue or profit from the commissioners’ operations in Scotland was
“of limited utility, and is likely to represent more of a judgement than hard information.”
The report concluded that
“neither the CEC nor the Treasury could provide an accurate figure for the net profits raised in Scotland ... this is an inappropriate way for the CEC to manage public assets in Scotland.”
The report said that the CEC had
“raised £10.6 million more capital by selling assets in Scotland since devolution, than it has invested in Scotland over that period.”
I believe that we all want Scottish communities to benefit from Scotland’s natural resources, but that has not happened to date, which is untenable. The report found that
“the CEC has no statutory capacity or willingness to meet”
the public interest
“and reinvest appropriately into the sectors and communities from which revenues are raised in Scotland.”
The Scottish Government has the lead role in exploiting Scotland’s unique potential for renewable energy, including responsibility for economic development and for land-based and marine planning, yet the CEC grants leases for offshore projects. Because the CEC is answerable to London, it is under no obligation to work in partnership with our economic development bodies. That is no longer credible.
The report provides a damning assessment of the Crown Estate in Scotland, which lacks accountability, transparency and clear consultation, communication and engagement with communities. The report concluded:
“Urgent reform is required and the control and management of the organisation in Scotland must be changed.”
We seek accountability and good governance of Scotland’s assets in the interests of the people of Scotland. Full control of the Crown estate should be passed to the Scottish Parliament. I endorse the committee’s view that the responsibility for the administration and revenues of the individual Crown property rights should be devolved onwards to the most appropriate level in each case. However, the appropriate degree of devolution should be for this Parliament to decide. Only once that work is complete will our communities and our country as a whole be able to reap the benefits of accountable and transparent management of our most valuable national assets.
18:18
I am pleased to take part in the debate, which I congratulate Dave Stewart on securing. We in Scotland are on the cusp of harnessing great potential in renewable energy. The waves and the wind are powerful, particularly along our coastline. My constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch also has huge potential for tidal energy. Nowhere is that more clear than at the proposed site for an 8MW, £40 million tidal power development in the Kyle Rhea narrows between Skye and the mainland, which could generate annual revenues of between £5.5 million and £135 million over its 25-year lifespan.
However, as the wind turbines, wave machines and tidal generators go up, so does the cost of living in rural coastal communities. One could be forgiven for presuming that coastal communities are well placed to reap the benefits of the natural resource as a little bit of compensation. That could be true, but before local communities or anyone else can harness the force of the sea and the resultant income, they need permission in the form of a lease from the Crown Estate, which pockets the money. As a constituent said to me, “We’ve had the clearances, the sheep, the forestry and the hydro, and the money that was promised to communities has gone absent without leave every time. Will it be the same with tidal projects?”
The Scottish Affairs Committee answered the question, at least in part, in its report in March, in which it concluded that
“the responsibilities for the administration and revenues of the ancient Crown property”
should no longer lie with the Crown Estate Commissioners but should be devolved, as David Stewart said. However, the committee also said that handing the responsibilities to Holyrood would not address the fundamental problems and instead recommended further decentralisation of the powers
“to local authority and local community levels”.
I whole-heartedly concur.
For the coastal communities in my constituency, the Scottish Affairs Committee report is therefore excellent news. It says what all rural communities said over the past few centuries when the heavy burden of tax fell on them but they got no benefit from revenues that were raised locally, and when investment and development in their areas did nothing to improve people’s standard of living.
In the current situation, in which the price of fuel and energy is high and jobs are scarce, it is crucial that fragile communities reap the benefits of their own natural resources. The question is, will London allow them to do so? That does not look likely, which is unfortunate. Independence is the only answer.
On a slightly different tack, the Glenelg and Arnisdale Development Trust’s plans will enable communities to take a stake in the £40 million tidal energy scheme that I mentioned. The plans have secured the First Minister’s approval and Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s assistance and have been welcomed by the developer, Marine Current Turbines. I look forward to progress on the project. After this debate, I will attend a meeting with HIE on renewables, just round the corner from the Parliament. I will press the agency on where it has got to with the project.
It is hoped that the Glenelg and Arnisdale project will be a pilot for a community ownership scheme, which can then be used by communities up and down the country. Glenelg and Arnisdale Development Trust envisages that revenues that are generated by its stakeholding will be ploughed back into a community renewable development fund, which will fund community investment in local green energy projects. It will also provide capital for other communities who want to develop renewable energy schemes. As surpluses build up, the cash will be used for regeneration projects. That is exactly the sort of approach that we must develop, so that local communities can benefit from marine development that affects them.
18:22
Like other members, I am grateful to David Stewart for bringing the motion to the Parliament, but I perhaps have a slightly different reason for expressing gratitude. In the members’ business debate on wind farms in December, Chic Brodie—I am delighted that he is here—made the quite extraordinary remark that beneficiaries might now include the royal household, through the receipt of profits from the Crown estate. My colleague Jamie McGrigor did his best to put Mr Brodie right on that occasion, through a point of order, but I welcome this further opportunity to spell out on the record, for Mr Brodie’s benefit, that although the Crown estate does indeed belong to Her Majesty the Queen, it is managed by independent commissioners, as I am sure that Mr Brodie knows, and the surplus revenue is paid annually to the UK Treasury.
The member is clearly unaware of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which fundamentally altered the nature of the Crown estate. Mr Brodie was entirely correct and I am afraid to say that Mr Fergusson is entirely wrong.
I am not convinced by the member’s argument, which appears not to be backed by fact. The surplus revenue from the Crown estate goes directly to the UK Treasury.
It seems to me that much of the criticism of the Crown estate, throughout the UK and specifically here in Scotland, is aimed at the management of the estate rather than at the estate’s ownership or—to a lesser degree, I accept—at where the surplus revenue ends up. An interesting aspect of the Calman commission’s discussions on the topic was the argument that because the surplus revenue from the £307 million gross UK income in 2010-11 was paid to the UK Treasury, a disproportionately large amount of investment could be made in Scotland, from which the gross income was a mere £12 million or 3.88 per cent of the total. In other words, the Crown Estate currently has the flexibility to make investments in Scotland using capital that is raised from assets outside Scotland. There is evidence to show that that has come to light in, for example, its working in partnership with the Scottish Government on investment in the development of offshore renewable energy.
Other arguments suggest that too much focus is placed on maximising revenue and that that focus could lead to unnecessarily high charges and the possibility that the surplus is not fully reinvested in Scotland. I know that Calman looked at evidence that suggested that that might not be the case if the Scottish Government played a greater role in the management of the estate. Please forgive me, but, with due respect, I cannot think of anything worse than a Scottish Government of whatever political colour being involved in estate management. The record is not good.
That is why I am very interested in the proposal in the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report that the Crown Estate’s marine responsibilities and rights relating to Scotland be devolved to the Scottish Government on condition that the powers are further devolved to a local level. Mr Stewart made that quite plain in his opening speech, and that appeals to me as a devolutionist and someone who genuinely believes in localism. The Crown Estate has considerable influence in my constituency. It owns much of the Solway Firth and an offshore area in which DONG Energy is currently exploring the option of investing in a wind farm. I may not particularly approve of the wind farm, but if it is to be, I want to see the communities in my constituency deriving the maximum benefit from it. I am instinctively attracted to the possibility of the communities that I represent in Galloway and West Dumfries benefiting directly from the true devolution of the Crown estate—not to the Parliament or the Government, but to the communities that would most benefit from it.
In conclusion, as always, the devil would be in the detail, but I am happy to accept that the general principles of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report are worthy of much further consideration.
18:26
First, let me dispense with the question that Mr Fergusson raised. Section 6(1) of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 states:
“The amount of the Sovereign Grant for a financial year ... is to be determined by the Royal Trustees as follows ... Calculate 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate”.
I rest my case.
I, too, welcome the debate and congratulate David Stewart on securing it. There is an interesting Northern Ireland Assembly report dated 18 October on the same subject that is worth reading.
Where to begin? My long-held thesis is the Lloyd Georgian one that leans towards the view that land and its surrounding waters belong to the people. That thesis recognises that, for the time being, the assets that the Crown Estate manages are the property of the monarch in right of the Crown. Pro tem, we subscribe to that. To all intents and purposes, I believe that the Crown Estate Commissioners manage the assets reasonably well in those circumstances, but they do not own the assets. The assets that that public body manages range from offshore renewables, aquaculture, foreshore activities, mussels and oysters, salmon fishing, Princes Street gardens, the King’s park in Stirling, urban properties, joint ventures and, of course, the inalienable right to all gold and silver that is found on our land.
As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which is discussing the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill, I find it surprising that the Crown Estate has not registered all the land assets to which it lays claim or from which revenues flow to it. In Scotland, those assets amounted to £207.2 million in 2010-11 and generated a net surplus of £13 million, with a large and increasing share of offshore and onshore renewables. Those investments have gone from £2.2 million in 2008 to £24 million last year. The asset portfolio in Scotland is vastly different from that in England. The Crown Estate has admitted to releasing capital from assets in central London to support renewable energy development in Scotland. That is an advantage that we discussed earlier today and which the Calman commission acknowledged. It considered the different nature of the estates north and south of the border and suggested that a separate and necessarily smaller Scottish organisation would lose out on the significant benefits for investment. Yet, the Crown Estate is doing just that.
Running the Crown estate in a way that is more appropriate for its different nature in Scotland would result in more efficient management. In the absence of full ownership, the best way of securing that is to ensure that the assets are managed in Scotland for the benefit of communities in Scotland. Returning profits to the UK Treasury—I will not come back to the monarchy—would confirm if not compound the past mistake of using our revenues to fund the UK Treasury deficit.
I believe that there is a level of good will on the part of the Crown Estate Commissioners to work with the Scottish Government, and that is welcome. However, that is not the same as ownership and democratic community control of the assets.
Paragraph 54 of the Scottish Government’s paper, “Securing the Benefits of Scotland’s Next Energy Revolution”, recognises that
“much of the revenue likely to be generated by Scotland’s huge offshore energy potential will go to the Crown Estate”
and that its surplus revenues will go to the UK Treasury. That money should flow to local communities. Better still, local communities should own and manage the assets.
As four members still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion from David Stewart that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended for up to 30 minutes.—[David Stewart.]
Motion agreed to.
18:31
I thank David Stewart for securing the debate. I share his appreciation of the sterling work that the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee has done on what is an important issue for many of us who represent coastal communities around Scotland. The debate is particularly important now, because the current constitutional debate provides an opportunity to make the case for further devolution. Although I do not necessarily agree with every word that Mr Thompson uttered, I share the sentiments expressed in the debate by him, Jim Eadie and Alex Fergusson.
At the start of the debate, David Stewart mentioned the visits that the Scottish Affairs Committee paid to many coastal communities around Scotland, not least Shetland, to take evidence. When the committee visited Shetland, it heard from a great raft of organisations—professional and otherwise—and companies that have faced the Crown Estate tax collector for too long. The committee’s recommendations show that Ian Davidson, the chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and his colleagues on the committee grasped that point fully.
For as long as I have been either a councillor at home in Shetland or an MSP, the salmon farming industry, the mussel farming industry, marina users and the harbours—the council-owned harbours and the trust port at Lerwick—have looked for change.
In a previous incarnation, the minister opened a pier extension at Lerwick. He will remember that, when I was chairman of Lerwick Harbour Trust, the Crown Estate charged us, first, to dredge the area where we improved the quay space and the ability of deepwater ships to access our port and, again, for dumping the spoil further out to sea. If ever there was an illustration of a need for change in a body, it is surely an organisation that seeks to improve an asset to further the economic interests of a community, which is what trust ports do the length and breadth of Scotland, being held back by that kind of approach. I support strongly the cross-party arguments for change and for further devolution.
Nevertheless, I will push the minister on the Scottish Government’s approach, because although I very much agree with SNP members who have called for devolution, I am concerned about what comes next. I do not want to see only devolution to Edinburgh; I want to see decentralisation to local areas. However, I can find no precise illustrations from the Scottish Government of what that means. If the minister could clarify that for Parliament this afternoon, he would do us all a considerable service. Believe me: I would strongly support him on this matter, because I think that it is very important.
When the then acting director of Marine Scotland gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, in an evidence session that I think was held in the House of Commons, it was suggested to her that
“you want the role of the Crown Estate devolved to the Scottish Parliament and then you will decide what to do with all the functions.”
She answered, “Yes.”
I hope that the minister might reflect on the fact that, for many of us who want to see these responsibilities held by either the local authority or, in Shetland’s case, the local authority and the trust port, it is not good enough to say that the responsibility should come to Edinburgh; we need detail of how devolution to local areas would take place. If he will forgive me, I say to the minister that the last thing that we want in the islands is for tax collection in London to be replaced by tax collection in Edinburgh. Instead, we want these financial responsibilities and powers to be at a local level and therefore able to be properly used to further the needs of our community.
Secondly, on the point about money, if there is to be an interim period in Edinburgh, what rates would the Scottish Government levy on salmon farms, harbours and other areas? It is not good enough simply to say that that is not known, because again the evidence in the report is that it is important to set those details out. I hope that the minister finds the time in his closing speech to deal with both of those points.
18:35
I congratulate David Stewart on bringing this necessary debate to the chamber. However, I do not think that all the details of Crown estate devolution have been worked out as far as they should have been by this stage.
As members have said, communities have wanted powers over the adjacent sea bed and sea for many decades—indeed, for centuries. I have done some work recently on the Highland Land League in the 1880s: it demanded such powers, which even then involved articulating views that were much older. People felt robbed because they could not cross the area between the high and low watermarks to get to the sea without incurring costs from the landlords, as some parts of the Crown estate in Scotland had been devolved to landlords such as the Sutherland estates.
It would be excellent if we followed the Scottish Affairs Committee’s line of thinking that this Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee should have oversight of the way in which the devolution process would work. Marine Scotland was viewed as the body that should take an overview of the process, and our committee would then look at its activities. The management of the Crown Estate’s powers must be set up in a constitutional fashion, which would involve going through this Parliament.
There is confusion around the powers of the coastal communities fund. The devolution of powers to harbour trusts and community trusts at a more local level must be spelled out, but some harbour trusts are more aware than others of their community responsibilities. We must be aware that such devolution is not a blanket solution and must be explored further.
We must avoid penalising development, as members have mentioned, and we should review the Crown Estate Commissioners’ current powers. We can remove the minor irritants, and the major irritants such as the fact that if you deepen a berth and use the spoil to build up a new quay, you will be charged for it just as you would if you dumped the spoil at sea. Those are restraints on development: harbour boards and the like should not have to pay such charges, and Highland Council should not have to pay the Crown Estate for hundreds of small jetties every year.
It is time that we in this Parliament assessed whether some of the Crown Estate’s powers should be removed. We must remove the barriers to development by stopping the need for the bureaucracy that is involved in charging £100 for a small pier on the Cromarty Firth that was built from stone 100 years ago. I suggest that this Parliament should do that, before the process of managing the charges that are levied at a local level comes into play.
There is a question around the way in which charges on fish farms and offshore energy installations will be levied. Who will decide on the level of charges? Will every community negotiate with the fish farm company or the company that is developing offshore renewables? It is surely necessary to set a sensible level of benefits in an achievable fashion, and the Parliament has a major part to play in that process.
That has been missing from the debate. We have heard about the wish for double devolution and the need to avoid what Tavish Scott described as tax grabs from Edinburgh. I suggest that the further devolution of powers to Holyrood that is to come should involve devolution of all those processes, and I ask the minister to bear that in mind when he responds to the debate.
I apologise, Presiding Officer, because I will have to leave in a moment to deal with an urgent matter, but I will be glad to read what other members and the minister have to say in the Official Report.
18:40
I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate.
It will be up to the Scottish and Westminster Governments to make up their minds about what to do with the Crown Estate’s responsibilities but, whatever happens, that will be an extremely important decision that must not be taken lightly. The motion endorses the Scottish Affairs Committee’s conclusion that recommends ending the Crown Estate Commissioners’ responsibilities in Scotland. Apparently, its view is that marine and coastal assets should be devolved to local community level. What does that mean? No detail is provided. The Crown estate is a very strategically important and unique national asset, and its handling requires great thought and detail.
The Crown Estate has recently spent considerable amounts of money in places such as Tarbert and Rhu. That money did not come from Crown Estate revenues; it came from Crown Estate capital. Where would local communities get that kind of spending firepower? We should bear in mind that all revenues from the Crown Estate in Scotland go to the Treasury, which allocates 10 per cent back to the Scottish population, even though it accounts for only 8.3 per cent of the population of the UK as a whole. That represents a gain straight away.
By the way, Scottish Crown Estate revenues are approximately £11 million or 3.4 per cent of the UK Crown Estate revenues of about £205 million. Any capital spending has to be paid for from capital assets, so it may sometimes seem that the Crown Estate is selling more assets rather than investing in new ones simply because it has to spend capital rather than revenue to get things done. For example, last year it paid out £1 million for dealing with the winter damage to the buildings in Glenlivet.
It should also be borne in mind that the capital value of the assets of the Crown Estate in Scotland is in the region of £280 million, whereas the value of the UK assets of the Crown Estate is in the region of £7 billion. Is it wise to get rid of this huge cash cow, which can produce highly significant investment when and where it is needed, without taxing anyone to do so and with the Crown Estate revenues still coming to Scotland with the cream on top? I think that members should think very hard about those points.
I agree with Alex Fergusson’s points about localism. Professor Jim Hunter has been mentioned. Anyone who has read his book “Last of the Free: A History of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland” would agree with Tavish Scott that Edinburgh taxes are liable to be much worse than London ones.
18:43
I, too, thank David Stewart for securing the debate. I must confess that, at the beginning of the debate, I could not recall whether I had signed his motion. Thankfully, Mr Thompson, who is sitting behind me, was able to enlighten me—I did not sign the motion, but I signed an amendment in the name of Rob Gibson, which did not change the sentiment of Mr Stewart’s motion. I am glad that he has brought it forward for debate.
The devolution of the Crown estate is clearly an important matter for Scotland. The Crown Estate is a significant land and property owner in Scotland. It holds 103,000 acres of land, approximately 50 per cent of the foreshore and beds of tidal rivers, and the sea bed out to 12 nautical miles, which have a combined property value of more than £200 million. The Crown Estate is a contributor to the UK Treasury. Even in its current guise, it is clearly a useful source of revenue, and I imagine that that will be the case to an even greater extent as we seek to bring forward a new generation of renewables technologies, which will provide a greater opportunity to accrue benefits.
It is not often that I congratulate Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee, but the recommendation that communities with Crown Estate properties should benefit from them is a useful and interesting suggestion. Like Chic Brodie, I agree that communities should benefit from the opportunities that their land affords them. Indeed, Shetland’s oil fund is a useful example of that. It is a shame that other local funds have not been established.
This is an important point—I say to Jamie McGrigor that it illustrates why we want devolution in this area. The fact is that, all too often, the communities with Crown Estate property do not feel that they see the benefit of having it. The Scottish Affairs Committee’s suggestion is, therefore, a useful contribution to the debate about the future of the Crown estate in Scotland.
In order to devolve power over the Crown estate to communities, power over the Crown estate must first be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I say that in spite of Tavish Scott’s point, even though I take it on board and believe that it was genuinely made. The Scottish Affairs Committee recognises that that is the position of the Scottish Government, the SNP, the Calman commission and two Scotland Bill Committees. Indeed, as Tavish Scott said, it is the position of the Liberal Democrats. I do not want to make this an overly political issue, but I think that it was disappointing, given that that is the case, that a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland explicitly ruled out the devolution of the Crown estate. However, I hope that Tavish Scott will be on the phone to Mr Moore soon.
I want to talk about the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which is an issue that I did not think would come up and which has not had enough attention. Given Mr Fergusson’s speech, it is clearly not an issue that he has paid enough attention to. The act was passed by Westminster on 18 October 2011.
Will the member give way?
I will let Mr Fergusson in, as his position seemed to be that that act was a figment of people’s imaginations. It is interesting that both Mr Brodie and I have imagined it separately. Mr Fergusson’s perspective would therefore be appreciated.
Mr Brodie was kind enough to show me the part of the act to which he was referring. It seems to me quite clear that the money is paid to the Treasury. The act bases the grant to the royal household on the income to the Treasury from the Crown Estate. That is very different from direct payment from the Crown Estate.
I beg to differ. That is very much a case of splitting hairs—I say to Tavish Scott that no pun is intended. The Treasury acts very much as the middle man. I am concerned that the act changes the nature of the Crown Estate. Roger Bright, the chair of the Crown Estate Commissioners, stated that the monarch holds Crown Estate properties
“in trust for the nation.”
The 2011 act’s ending of the system of the civil list and its replacement with a sovereign grant not only alters the system, but alters the principle that Roger Bright set out. Clearly, that is not necessarily a matter that is contained in Mr Stewart’s motion, but it is something that the Scottish Parliament has to grasp as it considers the devolution of the Crown estate.
18:48
I value all the contributions that we have heard tonight. Seldom on an issue that is widely held to be controversial have I heard such broad unanimity that something needs to be done and that responsibility needs to be delivered to this place, and from this place to communities elsewhere. That is the direction in which I wish us to travel.
The Crown Estate in Scotland is largely, if not exclusively, concerned with our coastline, which is different from the situation in the rest of the UK, where it is very much concerned with urban investments. Scotland’s seas are an important part of our natural and economic assets and are important to our economy, particularly with regard to the world of renewable energy. We need control over our sea bed to enable us to manage it properly and exploit our country’s important marine assets. The message from the debate is that the status quo is not defensible. I, too, commend the House of Commons report for its clarity of purpose and articulation of the issue.
There have been many contributions, and I will try to cover as many points as time will permit. David Stewart talked about the harbours of Highland, Shetland and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar; Tavish Scott also referred to harbours. The board at Peterhead harbour has made the same point: it builds a new breakwater and finds that its contribution rises significantly as a result of its investment. That seems as unreasonable to the board as it does to many of us.
Mary Scanlon referred to udal law; I am not sure that that touches on the issue under discussion.
I have talked to Peter Peacock, late of this place, on issues that Community Land Scotland pursues. We listen carefully to what is said there. Of course, Community Land Scotland is all about returning power to local communities and I very much look forward to working with Peter Peacock, and Community Land Scotland more generally, to continue the reformation of our land laws. We need to get assets devolved to local communities—the phrase that David Stewart used.
Jim Eadie talked about a forensic analysis of the Crown Estate and the key conclusion that it is not fit for purpose. He highlighted the lack of hard information. That is a fair point. I return to some of the points that Tavish Scott—not unreasonably—targeted at me.
One of the things that we do not know is the individual rentals that comparable fish farms and harbours pay. We know, from various sources, that they vary. The Crown Estate is a commercial operator and will get from a developer what it can in the way of resource. We need to understand exactly what the breakdown is.
I will make a wee comment about one small area in the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee. The report largely talks about devolving to the Scottish Government. However, devolving to the Scottish Government probably means administrative devolution—in other words giving ministers powers to do things—whereas I think the consensus of the debate and the intention of the Government would be that we need legislative devolution to the Scottish Parliament so that we can legislate for the appropriate frameworks for devolution on to local communities.
I will not pursue the points on Her Majesty’s interests—I would just get bogged down if I were to do that. However, I was not previously aware of the relevant act and will read it with interest.
Chic Brodie talked about land belonging to the people and referred to Lloyd George. As members would expect, I will make a personal claim. My father was Lloyd George’s last election agent, when he stood for the rectorship of the University of Edinburgh in 1942, so my father knew Lloyd George.
Tavish Scott said that there is an opportunity to make the case for further devolution. I think that the case has been made, and we are debating it tonight. What I hope is that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Government will look at the content of the debate and the contributions from all the political flavours in the Parliament and tak tent of the serious intent that is clearly shared throughout the chamber.
I absolutely agree with the point that the minister just made but, given that he cannot—I understand this—set out the detail of how he would achieve devolution to a local level, will he set out even a timescale? Has the Government given any thought to how long that might take so that we can give some comfort to the coastal communities?
In fairness, what could be done early is making sure that communities have access to the money. We can do that relatively straightforwardly. We need to look further at getting a legislative or administrative framework that gives people access to the levers of power.
Tavish Scott asked about the rates for salmon farms. We should not automatically assume that they would be much lower, because many of the interests in exploiting our offshore resources, such as salmon farms, are foreign owned, and it is quite reasonable that we should extract a price from those foreign interests while ensuring that the revenue is made accessible to local communities.
I am running out of time. I will have to read the Official Report very carefully because Jamie McGrigor’s delineation of how capital works was not entirely clear to me. I will read it later.
The message that should go out to the secretary of state from tonight’s debate is that he should act on the evidence that has been produced by the Westminster committee’s report. We have written to the secretary of state seeking a meeting on the back of that report and, on the back of that, we will continue to press for devolution of the Crown estate.
This has been a useful debate. I have not been able to respond to everything that has been said, so if anyone feels that they have a pressing need to have more information, I will be happy to supply it if they contact me.
Meeting closed at 18:56.