 Welcome, colleagues, to the 28th meeting of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Can I remind you to switch off your mobile phones or put them in at least a mode that won't interfere with us? Agenda item 1 today, I'm asking the committee to agree to take agenda item 3, consideration of correspondence in private. Do we agree? Yes. Thank you very much. Agenda item 2 relates to the correspondence that we received from HM Treasury concerning the devolution of the Crown Estate. Obviously, we need to consider the draft scheme and the draft memorandum understanding. There are very detailed technical documents. I think that they would benefit from more scrutiny. I'm certainly going to suggest to the committee today that we follow two courses of action in regard to that documentation. First, we ask Judith Morrison from the Solicitor's Office and SPICE in due course for analysis of both the documents and observations on them because they are of such technical nature. Secondly, we also pass the documentation to the Rural Affairs and Climate Change Environment Committee as they are undertaking in-depth scrutiny of the Crown Estate provisions in order that they can come back to us and give us their view because it's for us to respond to this particular document. First of all, before we move on, can we just agree with that general approach? Does the committee generally agree with that? Yes. I would then ask colleagues to consider what issues they might like, Judith from Solicitor's or Graham from SPICE, to consider when they come back to us with a bit more considered viewpoint on the memorandum. I've certainly got one issue that I would like to put on the record as something that I think we need to look at. The understandable thrust in the memorandum from the UK Government's perspective is to make sure that, in terms of defence of the realm that nothing can get in the way of that, I get that entirely. Particularly in paragraph 6 and 9, where it lays out quite clearly what the responsibilities of the Scottish Government and UK Government would be, to make sure that that clarity is underpinned as strongly as it can be, I certainly think that we need to work out, and I'd like Solicitor's in particular to look at this, what would have the most significant primacy in any such agreement, particularly when European regulations or directives were at play in that way? In terms of the memorandum, would they stand above the memorandum? Regardless of what the memorandum said, we'd have to take cognisance of that. Other areas of law that might interplay in that some way so that we as a committee are certainly very clear about what that memorandum means when it finally is signed by the two governments. I think that it is critical for that clarity. That's my own particular point. On a supplementary, on a practical point, there's a special protection area of Cape Wrath on land and in the sea, in the middle of what is a major bombing range. That is a European-inspired designation, and it is the case that there could be others around where there could be a conflict between the interests of the use of the area for 110 days a year by the MOD if they choose to. The bird feeding season, et cetera. The point that you raise is made very clear to me for members' benefit. That's just an example. That was another example, but that's helpful. Davish? First of all, given that we debated IGR in Parliament on Tuesday, it's probably worth recognising that at least we've seen a draft. That is an encouraging step in a direction that we've all been making some noise about to a lesser or greater extent. Just two paragraphs I wanted to highlight. The first is paragraph 20, where it says, both governments commit to make the most efficient use of the sea bed in Scotland. I would be quite interested in what the definition of efficient was there. I'd be grateful if that could be looked at. That's probably a policy question rather than a legal question. The second one is on paragraph 16 at the top of that page, where it says, should there be any further devolution of the Scottish functions within Scotland, that, for me, is pretty weasly language. The Smith commission is abundantly clear, paragraph 33, something I know rather well. This is going to happen to the islands in Scotland. I think that we should be asking on a policy question, or I'd like to suggest on a policy question, that instead of should we be quite interested as a committee in words like may and can and will, well, this is the one I'm going to get worked up about. So I think instead of should that should be when, and I'd like to leave it with again our policy and legal advisers as to politely ask both governments why they're not committing themselves to paragraph 33. The Smith commission actually agreed. I think it's up to the Scottish Government and Parliament to decide how it's going to do the management, and the question of the should in their part is only that they've said it's up to us to decide how we do this. And it's not something that this Parliament is opposed to, as Tavis Scott has just said, convener, because the islands policy will lead to that devolution in various ways. So I don't think that this memorandum of understanding actually impinges on the commitment of this Parliament to do just that. We could get into a policy discussion today. I'm trying to make sure that we're dealing with the technical aspects to make sure that we've got this legally clear. Mark, I think you had one issue you wanted to raise. I know on a number of occasions within the memorandum of understanding it makes reference to UK-wide critical national infrastructure, but there doesn't seem to be a definition of what is captured by the term critical national infrastructure. I rather suspect itself explanatory, but I think that it would be quite helpful if that could be outlined at the outset, possibly in one of the annexes. Having said that, Alison, let me just do this point. Having said that, we shouldn't get into a policy discussion, it does say in paragraph 12 that the Scottish Government will undertake Scottish functions and manage the Scottish assets in such a way as not to the detriment of UK-wide critical national infrastructure, but there's no pro-rata there in terms of Scottish national critical infrastructure. I'll just use an example, and I know it wasn't true, but, for instance, if one side of the fourth had had the Crown of State land on it and we couldn't have built the fourth crossing, for instance, would that be an issue that we need to concern ourselves with? As an example of potential. I think that the reason why it's important is that if you have those provisions, you can then end up in a bind in a back and forth as to whether or not you accept that something is critical national infrastructure or not. I suspect that that wouldn't happen, but I think that there are ways to probably remove the potential for it. On that further devolution of the Scottish functions, we've not been given competence to legislate over any revenues. For example, if someone was to invest in a new harbour that was on Crown of State land and those investors were expecting a return, that return, as I understand, will go into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. My apologies. I'm just wondering if we could have some clarity over that, because would that not stymie investment in such an opportunity, the fact that we haven't got competence to legislate over where the revenues are going? The point that you made about paragraph 12 was equally applicable to paragraph 13. My general point is that I think that the questions that we want, and I certainly would like answers to your clarity to, is where there's overlapped or where the two Crown of States or the two Governments meet. It's all the points at which they bump into each other and overlap. That's where any of these difficulties will occur, whether it be on some of the issues with the MOD or other issues. It's a very general point to make to the solicitor and the SPICE, but effectively it's any of the points where there is this connection or overlap or the responsibilities or the effect on each other. That's where the issues will be. I think that the MOD is generally speaking reasonably clear, but I think that it's what lies behind some of the words and some of the paragraphs that it contains. Two people—one from the UK Government and one from the Scottish Government in the future—want to park at 39 of 41 George Street. Is there a conflict? Two of the properties that will be transferred to the Scottish Government. See that in Jess, but I take your point. Any other issues? I think that that's a very strong point. I'd actually clean forgot about that, but we made quite a point about that. I think that that's a very strong point. I'd actually clean forgot about that, but we made quite a point about that. I think that that's a very strong point. I'd actually clean forgot about that, but we made quite a lot of that in the earlier sessions of the committee. Surely, the memorandum, as Linda rightly says, should have some passing reference to what may become a new Crown Estate or Crown Estate 2 in the future. Andy Wightman, in his response to the draft, makes political points, which I wouldn't read out. He also says that the draft order is riddled with inaccuracies and errors. I don't know whether his submission needs to be looked at or perhaps the lawyers will pick those up anyway, but I don't know what that's referring to. There's certainly one issue in the order that struck me as strange. While it lays out in schedule 1 all of the Scottish assets that they tell us that they currently own it, it doesn't seem to have any catch-all phrasant about some of the things that are going on. I don't know how you phrase that in a technical legal manner. All assets of the Crown Estates in Scotland, in a general sense, in case anything has escaped. I think that that's what Mr Wightman was beginning to refer to. Can I just pick up on a couple of those inconsistencies that may well be picked up? On schedule 1, Scottish assets specifies—this is on page 2—the property rights and interests. On schedule 1, the Scottish assets it says, in the schedule, with the exception of paragraph 17, any reference to property rights and land. I'm just wondering about that inconsistency there, why it wouldn't say interests, because property is part of that. What does that mean? The counties might be worth a second look. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency there, too. I'm not sure that there is a county of Dumfries and Galloway, for example, and why is Stirling not called the county of Stirling? I know that those are probably minor points that will be picked up in due course. Judith is scribbling furiously taking notes of all those particular points. Is there any other question before I ask Judith that she's got an immediate reflection? I'm not expecting to answer all that stuff, but is there anything particularly that you'd like to note of what we've just said? No, I think that the committee's questions are quite clear, and they'll take me away and come back to you. If we're content with that, we'll need to move into private, and I say to the one member of the public who's come to our proceedings, I'm sorry to make us go into private.