 fynd i gynyddu cael notions réal oren mewn costand o Shrewd Zahl Давian. Felly, resouth byddwn yn cyfle i nae Unpreirai Paingyr comennau. Maen nhw'n dychu joffwerd ar gyfer ei manteid hasteuaeth a'i gweithio i wrth yn yr Three Abdul-D thanks, First Minister. yn краwealdig i ni i gael eu只有ll ac yn cirsal, megf 몰� sefatt o ddalol, i wneud inni ddiweddaw ni'n cwrs. Maen nhw'n dychu'n d spreadsheet o datblygr y ddrygiadau sagon, os fawr sites hunigwet, mae fawrig gyngor amwion a prow Żeon o ran g Silcker, a pwbang hefyd Maesafu gan rhaiwyr, gwybodol gen i arrŵwys y maen agor. Rhaiwyr, gallwn nad oes a gweithio sicr digon, rhaiwyr ar gyfer am 50 yma yn gyffredin, os Jugendwr i gael gael ei gweithio agor ac ient i gael ei gael amddangosol o grannau y Llywodraethol a Gweithgrifennu yn gweithio yma yn fod. Mae bod ni'n goll i gael i'ch lleidio cyfaint o'r Gweithgrifennu i'ch lleidio a'r gweithgrifennu i'ch cyfaint, gallan i'ch gael athgrifennu i'ch gael i'ch hectare a'r cyfreithau ymlaen nhw, oes gennymau cyflwyffydd, tynnu a'r cyfrifolwad. Mae yma yn rhan o'r cyfrifolwad, efallai'r Cymru ysgolwysiaeth yn cael dechrau ein portfolaeth digwyddol, wedi ar 37,000 hektarau perneig y rhwyr, i gael i'r Ffoshawdd Cymru, i'r gael i ddechrau bwysig i fod o'r cyflwyffydd i gael i'r cyfrifolwad a'r cyflwysiaeth, ac i'r cyfrifolwad. Aelodd o'r bwysig i ddatblygu a'r cyfrifolwad yw unig, The Scottish Parliament received legislative competence for the management under one of the key recommendations of the Smith commission. At the point of devolution last year, Crown Estates Scotland interim management undertook management of the assets. The bill was introduced in January 2018. As per the Smith commission recommendations, the bill provides opportunities for councils and community organisations to manage assets themselves. There are two mechanisms in the bill for changing who manages a Scottish Crown estate. First, either a transfer of management to a local authority, a community organisation or a Scottish public authority, or a direction of the existing manager to delegate the day-to-day management to a local authority, community organisation or Scottish public authority. Under a delegation, the existing manager may continue to hold ultimate responsibility for managing the asset. Cabinet Secretary's intention would be to use the new powers to enable future devolution of management on a case-by-case basis. That will allow decisions to be taken carefully and with the approval of this Parliament while recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach is simply not suited to such a diverse range of assets. The effective and continuing management of the Scottish Crown estate is important for Scotland as a whole, so we have made provision in case things go wrong at any point in the future. We have specified that the legislation can require community organisations to notify us of changes to their constitution, which would result in the transferee ceasing to be a community organisation. We can also transfer management of an asset from a local manager to Crown Estate Scotland or the Scottish ministers as a holding measure to ensure that tenants aren't affected if a community organisation struggles to fulfil its duties in managing an asset. We have included new duties to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and to obtain market value in a way that is likely to contribute to the promotion or involvement in Scotland of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development. Although buying and selling property is part of the management of the Scottish Crown estate, there is a presumption against sale of the seabed. We have taken powers in the bill to restrict or control the power of a transferee or delegate to sell part of or all of the asset that they manage. In particular, sales of the seabed by any manager would require ministerial consent. We believe that that will maintain the integrity of the Scottish Crown estate and protect. Alex Rowley Will you be aware that many organisations in Scotland believe strongly that the sale of the seabed or foreshore should also require the consent and the decisions that should lie with this Parliament? What is your view on that? Joe FitzPatrick I think that the member makes a good point. I think that the minister has been clear that this Parliament is an important part of all the process going forward. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will carefully consider your point in due course. The financial flows resulting into the Scottish Crown estate are not straightforward, so I will explain what they entail. The Scotland Act places restrictions on how other activities minus the costs of managing the assets is paid to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The UK Government's annual block grant to Scotland has been reduced by the estimated amount of net revenues earned by the Scottish Crown estate assets in 2016-17. That is a reduction of £6.1 million. Whoever manages the assets clearly has to maintain and seek to enhance the value of those assets and the income arising from them, otherwise Scotland is out of pocket. Stuart Stevenson Notwithstanding the financial issues, I am sure that the minister will welcome that it is not now simply a financial issue in the way that the Crown estate is to manage things but also sustainable management is an important part of it. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed. Joe FitzPatrick I think that the member makes a good point. That is a point that the bill specifically makes allowance for that as well as the importance of maintaining and potentially enhancing the assets that we have, which is an asset for Scotland. Outwith the bill, we are committed to distributing the net revenue generated by marine assets out to 12 nautical miles to island and coastal local authorities. That local function will not be hypothecated, but we expect local authorities to be transparent and accountable to their communities on how that money is spent. When management of Scottish Crown estate assets was devolved, we inherited arrangements that allow the manager of the asset to retain 9 per cent of the gross revenue for investment in the estate, for example, for new farm buildings or purchase of new assets. We are keeping the facility and the bill for the manager to be able to retain a proportion of gross revenue for investment in maintaining the estate, but we are taking the power to be able to vary in future the percentage that can be invested. It might be that some assets need more capital investment than others and we want to provide for that. The bill also seeks to ensure that assets can be maintained in future through cross-subsidy. It is important to keep the ability to cross-subsidise when there are several local managers of the Crown estate assets. We are therefore taking powers to direct a manager to transfer money to other managers' accounts. In that way, a community can take over management of a local asset. If there were a good case demonstrating benefits to Scotland, even if the asset does not currently generate enough income to cover costs. To be clear, that money will come from a manager's Scottish Crown estate accounts and not from the manager's other accounts. The bill requires a strict separation between a manager's Scottish Crown estate accounts and any other accounts held by the manager. We are clear that our robust governance framework is required to provide this Parliament and the citizens of Scotland with assurances and transparency concerning the management of the Scottish Crown estate. The bill sets out a national governance framework specifying accounting and reporting procedures to ensure sufficient openness about the management of the assets, whether local or national. The national governance framework also comprises a national strategic management plan, managers' own management plans, annual reports from managers and measures to promote consistency in reporting and accounting. The strategic management plan and annual reports will be laid in Parliament so members can oversee management of the Scottish Crown estate. The bill provides for members to approve transfer of the management of assets and accounts will be audited by the Auditor General. All that provides a robust but proportionate framework for the governance and oversight of a valuable portfolio of assets over which the Parliament now has stewardship. In closing, it has set out the purpose of the bill. It enables the Scottish Crown estate to be used for the economic, social and environmental benefit of Scotland and its people. I appreciate that it is a highly technical piece of legislation. I thank the members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for the careful and constructive way that they have dealt with the various issues. I therefore move the motion that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Crown estate bill. In our column, Graham Dates, we can, on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, for up to eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I very much welcome the opportunity to highlight our views on the Crown estate bill as contained within our stage 1 report, albeit time constraints will curtail the detail that I am able to go into on our views. The committee welcomes the devolution of the Crown estate as a significant recommendation of the Smith commission report, having previously supported the interim arrangements for the management of the estate, which we put in place in April 2017. The committee welcomes the Scottish Crown estate bill and the provision for the longer-term management of Scottish Crown estate assets, including the 37,000 hectares of land, seabed, mineral fishing rights, coastlines and rural estates. The bill provides a clear focus on ensuring that the estate assets are managed sustainably by those who are best placed to do so, whether that be the Crown Estate Scotland, a local authority or a community group. The committee supports the intention of the bill, which seeks to move beyond the focus on profitability to encompass other factors such as regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development when deciding how an asset should best be managed. That is the right approach, one that seeks to recognise a different ethos in Scotland. However, we believe that there is scope to go even further. The committee therefore welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment in its response to our stage 1 report to consider guidance to ensure that not only are those wider environmental factors taken into account, but that their consideration can be clearly evidenced. As part of the committee's consideration of the bill at stage 1, we heard from a range of stakeholders, including those representing the estates for rural estates, those representing the estates' non-agricultural assets and those involved in the strategic direction and governance of Crown Estate Scotland. The committee also carried out a confidential survey of existing Crown Estate Scotland interim management staff to ensure that their views or concerns were captured in our work. The committee wants to place on record its thanks for the evidence provided by all and for the constructive engagement that we enjoyed. The committee was pleased to note that many of the Crown Estates tenants had already noticed significant improvements since the management of the estate had been devolved to Scotland. That includes the creation of a tenants group on the four rural estates leading to improved communication between the tenants and factors. The committee is hopeful that the bill offers an opportunity for further progress to be made. Although the committee is broadly supportive of the general principles of the bill, we have made a number of recommendations in relation to what is included in it and what is left to further regulation and guidance. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee also made a number of recommendations with which the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee agrees. Broadly, those recommendations seek to ensure that where significant decisions are being taken about the future of the Crown Estate, there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of each decision. The committee is conscious, however, of the need to strike an appropriate balance between matters that are operational decisions for Crown Estate Scotland and those that require further scrutiny. The bill offers opportunities to local authorities and community organisations to take on the management of Scottish Crown Estate assets. The committee believes that the seabed as a national asset should continue to be managed nationally and the bill should be amended to ensure that it cannot be sold under any circumstances. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government outlines clearly which Crown Estate Scotland assets it anticipates will continue to be managed on a national basis and which can be devolved to a local level. The extent to which the Crown Estate Scotland is likely to become fragmented as a result of the bill was a concern of some stakeholders. The committee also considered the issue of cross-subsidisation, which is where the income from one asset subsidises an asset that is less profitable. The process currently works well on a national basis but may prove more problematic in future. The committee has therefore recommended that Crown Estate Scotland establishes it and maintains a list of assets, outlining which are currently profit or loss making and clearly setting out any associated liabilities. The committee was also of the view that the process to manage the cross-subsidisation of assets should be subject to the affirmative procedure and a definition of what constitutes significance or significant value in relation to an asset should be clearly set out on the face of the bill. Managers of the Crown Estate Scotland assets can currently retain 9 per cent of gross revenue for reinvestment in an asset. The committee is keen to ensure that the definition of community extends to communities of interest to allow for broader interest groups to be able to take on the management of assets and for those groups to be appropriately supported in doing so. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government's undertaking to consider this matter further in advance of stage 2. The committee sees clear benefits in retaining national oversight of the estates, rural estates, offshore renewables, energy-related assets and other cables and pipelines, albeit acknowledging that it may, on occasion, be beneficial for an asset to be managed at a local level, and we therefore recognise the need to retain provision for that. The committee is content that local authorities should be able to manage smaller-scale tidal and wind projects within 12 nautical miles of shore, where they can demonstrate appropriate expertise. The committee therefore welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to include this process and criteria and guidance for this to be available by the time that sections on transfer and delegation come into force, and for there to be further consideration of the inclusion of a definition of good management in guidance. Crown estate Scotland tenants are generally happy with the way in which Crown Estate Scotland interim management is being run. Tenants feel that devolution has brought an increased feeling of connectivity with the estate and improved communication and more involvement in decision making processes. Tenants regard Crown Estate Scotland as a good landlord and feel that the Scottish Crown Estate Bill offers the opportunity to make further improvements to how the estate is run. The committee seeks further clarification from the Scottish Government as to the rationale for setting the figure for retention at 9 per cent, why there are no plans to alter this at present and what arrangements it will put in place to ensure that 100 per cent of net revenues generated out to 12 nautical miles will be used for the betterment of coastal communities. The bill contains a number of useful mechanisms designed to improve transparency and accountability. The concept of good management, however, remains undefined. The committee suggests that the Scottish Government should consider, including such a definition, either on the face of the bill or in guidance and that the process and criteria for deciding the suitability of a potential manager should be clearly set out in guidance. The committee agrees that the bill will bring benefits not just to the estate but to Scotland as a whole by ensuring that community empowerment and sustainability are at the heart of Crown Estate Scotland's future. I am therefore pleased on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee to commend the general principles of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill to the Parliament and to recommend that those be agreed. John Scott, for up to seven minutes, please. I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and refer members to my register of interest for other interests. I welcome the stage 1 debate today on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill and say at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting this bill at decision time tonight. It is worth noting at this stage that the income from the Crown Estate Scotland, which previously went to the UK Treasury, will now accrue to the Scottish Government. How the Scottish Government will manage those assets in future will determine the level of income that the Scottish Government will receive from those assets. In future, under the proposed legislation, Crown Estate Managers, as well as delivering an income to the Scottish Government may also be expected to deliver additional benefits, including contributing to sustainable development, delivering on economic regeneration, as well as delivering on social and environmental wellbeing. It is also important to note that the bill will also allow for management of assets to be devolved to local authorities and other community groups and bodies, and Scottish Conservatives welcome the further devolution of the management and transfer of assets. All was provided that those potential new managers and owners have a full understanding of the obligations and responsibilities such transfers require. However, landlock local authorities must not lose out on the benefits of the seas simply because they do not have a coastline local authorities such as South and North Lanarkshire and East Renfrewshire. However, in addition, ambition alone will not be sufficient for such transfers to local authorities and communities, and any application to either manage or own assets currently under the care of Crown Estate Scotland must be subject to a strong business case being presented and must be subject to due diligence being carried out by Scottish ministers. In addition, any such proposal must also be subject to Scottish ministers assuring themselves that those who wish to embark on managing or owning Crown Estate assets have a full understanding of the actual and potential risks and liabilities attached to their proposals. In that regard, Scottish Conservatives also have concerns that the transfer of assets and that the transfer of the management of assets from the Crown Estate Scotland could lead to fragmentation of the Crown Estate Scotland and the loss of expertise within the Crown Estate itself. Self-evidently, the more assets that are transferred from the Crown Estate, the harder it will be for the Crown Estate Scotland to provide income to the Scottish Government and a balance will need to be struck and understanding reached between the Scottish Government, Crown Estate managers and interested third parties on the cost to the Scottish Government of transferring assets out of the current management structure. Further, the more assets that are transferred from the Crown Estate Scotland, the harder it will be for cross-subsidisation between different parts of the estate if the size of the portfolio of the whole estate is reducing year on year. In addition, if the portfolio of assets are reduced on a regular basis, not only will the income due to the Scottish Government reduce, but the 9 per cent investment income will reduce too. Turning now to land management issues specifically, Scottish Conservatives fully support the view of the STFA, NFUS and the tenants themselves that the national management of the four rural estates should be continued through Crown Estate Scotland. In principle, of course, this should not be subject to ministerial micromanagement and interference, and that is why it is important to be clear from the outset in terms of what is on the face of the bill and in terms of the guidance issued what the remit of the Crown Estate Scotland will be in this regard. In practice, however, the temptation for ministers to interfere and the pressure on them to intervene in the day-to-day running of the Crown Estate Scotland will be huge, and a perfect illustration of that is the proposed sale of Aachenhallrig farm, part of the Fockeber's estate by Crown Estate Scotland. Clearly, the proposed sale of Aachenhallrig by Crown Estate Scotland is, in their view, for sound business reasons and for the benefit of the estates as a whole, yet the STFA is seeking to stop the sale as it will further reduce the dwindling amount of tenanted land available to incoming tenants across Scotland. Although that is just an early example of the difficulties that Scottish Government ministers will be under pressure to intervene on, the proposed new criteria that Crown Estate land managers will have to work under will only make the pressure for ministerial intervention even greater as we move away from the delivery of revenue to the treasury as the sole measure of success of Crown Estate Scotland and towards the delivery of sustainability, social and mental wellbeing and economic regeneration. A whole new lobbying industry is probably about to be born that will seek to spend the revenues that the Government had hoped to receive from Crown Estate Scotland and the need for clear direction on the face of the bill and guidance in place from day one could not be more important to the managers of the Crown Estate Scotland. In one second, if they are to provide a reasonable yield on their assets to the Scottish Government in the face of the much greater expectations to be placed on them, very briefly please. I appreciate that there may be a new lobbying industry, but do you think that there is an opportunity for tenants themselves to have a greater say? Always through the chair, please, Mr Rowley. Yes, I do. I think that it is working well at the moment and I am pleased with the recent improvements in that regard in the tenants forum that has been set up. Turning now to other assets of the Crown Estate Scotland, Scottish Conservatives share the view of the committee that the seabed should not be sold off, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances—that is just my own view—and we would urge the Government to address that at stage 2. We would also recommend the retention within Crown Estate Scotland of the expertise to deal with offshore wind applications, particularly offshore energy and renewable energy applications generally. Scottish Conservatives believe that there is a significant and valuable body of knowledge within the Crown Estate staff that is at risk of being dispersed if too many assets are transferred from Crown Estates to local authorities and community groups, and the loss of such expert knowledge could reduce the critical mass of the management team that is vital for good decision making. Turning now to communities that— No, you will have to close very quickly, please, Mr Rowley. I will conclude by welcoming the bill, which we will support at decision time and seek to improve on it at stage 2. Paul Claudia Beamish, for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour supports the principle of the Crown Estates bill today. However, there are some aspects of the bill that we would like to highlight some concerns about as we proceed to stage 2. I also intend to reflect the recommendations of my committee, the Eclair committee, on building on the comments of our convener Graham Day. The Law Society of Scotland, in its briefing, rightly highlights the need for full transparency and accountability in relation to the management of the estate, and the RSPB briefing stresses this as a step change. While both might seem obvious comments, they are at the core of the future of the devolved Crown Estates, a move that Scottish Labour heartily welcomes. I have long argued, along with others, for the mission of the Crown Estates to have a social remit and, indeed, an environmental one, setting sustainable development at its heart. Now, as a Parliament through this bill, devolving the powers and setting out the governance arrangements, we have the opportunity to enshrine this inclusive and empowering way forward in statute. The bill seeks to enshrine the principles of good management for the Crown Estate. Today, I ask the question of the cabinet secretary—indeed, I wish the actual cabinet secretary, not the actual cabinet secretary, but the cabinet secretary for environment well, but perhaps she could reply to that when better. What are the criteria for good management of a public asset in the 21st century? Scottish Labour is pushing to strengthen the principles, looking to place an obligation on managers to take account of enhancing regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development, in parallel with the obligations for financial returns. Thus, managers could be required to consider and report on how they take into account issues beyond financial ones. In my view, the most straightforward way to do this would be to change may to must in clause 7b, but then I am not a lawyer. The Eclair Committee also felt that the Scottish Government should consider rewording the duty in this clause, in this section, for decision makers when deciding how an asset should be managed. Further, we believe that it should be the case that, even if such consideration leads to the conclusion that the factor may not be relevant, it should still be taken into account. The cabinet secretary has recognised that concern and I am pleased that she will consider it carefully. While Scottish Labour recognises the national significance of the Crown of States of Scotland, that should in no way prevent further devolution taking place. Two local authorities, particularly island authorities, are not exclusively as highlighted by the Smith commission. There must be a process for this, whether it be Highland Council, Orkney Island Council or any other council, but we wish them well in that process, if and when the bill passes. Coslow's Economy and Environment councillor Stephen Heddle states that paragraph 8 is at the start of the section entitled Local vs National Management. It is worth stating, he goes on, that we do not view the future of the Crown of States in such binary terms, much like Scottish devolution. We view the devolution of the Crown of States as an evolving process that can change over time. I, like other members who have spoken, now turn to the national asset of the seabed and the ownership of the Crown of States. It is indeed a challenge and our committee, the Eclare committee, has said that there should be only in very rare circumstances any sail of the seabed. The Scottish Government will consider our recommendations for amendments to ensure that it cannot be sold. I think that there should be more consideration of this, just a little bit more consideration before stage 2. Edward Mountain. I would like to thank the member for taking intervention. I take the point about the sail of seabed, but there is also a concern of very long leases on the seabed, which may not have brake clauses in them. Does the member share my concerns on that issue? It is not something that I have considered before now in terms of brake clauses, but if there are long leases, there should be very clear criteria as to appropriate management, as with all the rest of the arrangements for devolution of management. I would like to turn to the issue of community managers and the argument that was put forward by our committee and which Scottish Labour supports that community managers should have support where necessary. Although let us not assume simply that they are community organisations, they will need more or less management than any other managers. We concur with the committee in Scottish Labour, which I quote believes that the current definition of community organisation in the bill is based around geographical factors alone, and it does not encompass communities of interest. This is a concern in relation to the bill. The committee is asking and saying that it would find it helpful if it could be in line with the similar provisions in the Community Empowerment Act 2015. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government reconsider its definition of community ahead of stage 2, and I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary on that after his or indeed her reflection. Community ownership consideration in the bill is a significant issue in terms of Scottish Labour's view. In view of the unjust patterns of ownership that still continue intractably today in Scotland and enabling communities to have ownership of some particular assets that allow them the autonomy and democratic process when they are community landowners to shape how these assets are used in practice should not be ruled out. I do grasp the need to avoid fragmentation of the Crown Estates. My colleague, Colin Smyth, will go into some detail about tenant farmers who, indeed, also need protected. As I said, we support the principles of the bill. A historic moment is Parliament debates legislation on the Crown Estate. For the best part of 40 years, there has been an active campaign to eliminate the malign influence of the Crown Estate commissioners by, for example, the West Highland Free Press and politicians such as Brian Wilson and Michael Foxley. I particularly like to commend the Crown Estate Review Working Group, who reported in 2006 a report from seven local authorities in COSLA, which brought this issue to public attention. The estate comprises a range of Crown property rights and they are an intrinsic part of Scotland's system of the land tenure, as well as other conventional modern property acquisitions. Historically, those rights were always administered in Scotland until the 1830s, when control went south, leaving only Bonavocantia, Ultima Ares and Treasure Trove, which, to this day, are administered by the Crown Office, with revenues paid to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. It is important— Is it parliamentary language to use the word malign in the description of Crown Estate officers who have been only and absolutely properly discharging their duties entirely within the law and the remit and doing that job extremely well? Is the use of the word malign parliamentary language unreasonable? I have to say to you, Mr Scott, that I will make sure that we look carefully at the official report, although it is the responsibility of members what they say in the chamber. I didn't hear the phrase very clearly. No offence to Mr Wightman. I wasn't listening closely at that point, but I will consider that and come back to you on it. Please continue, Mr Wightman. Thank you. It is important to note two substantive things. Firstly, crown property rights and interests in Scotland have, for centuries, been defined by Scots law and they remain so. Secondly, for most of their history, they have been administered here in Scotland and the revenues flowed to the Scottish Exchequer, with only a short hiatus between 1830 and 2017. They never, for example, formed part of the civil list when England's crowned revenues were surrendered in 1760. In other words, that is a distinctive historic set of rights that belong to Scotland. Attempts to devolve the powers in 1998 were blocked by the Treasury and the Palace, with only the crown's property rights and the crown prerogative included in the Scotland Act 2014. In 2014, the Smith commission recommended that management and revenues be devolved. Despite UK guarantees that Smith would be implemented in full, legislative competence for the revenues of the Crown Estate was never devolved, as it should have been. The bill proceeds on the assumption that the Crown Estate is a coherent suite of assets, which by law must be maintained as an estate in land on behalf of the Crown. Greens reject that assumption. The Crown Estate is a feudal relic. It is an ad hoc assembly of rights, including everything from gold and silver, a lock-up garage in the new town and the island of Rockall. Our goal should be to sweep away this anachronism and not to perpetuate it within the framework of complicated management and delegation powers. Put simply Scotland's ancient crown property, the regalia mayora and menorah, should be abolished, and the rights converted or transferred as appropriate to other legal bodies. For example, despite the transfer of administration in 2014, there is no good reason why the medieval right of Scottish crown to naturally occurring mussels and oysters is at any place in a modern statute book, and the bill should abolish this right, confirming the species as fairy naturi wild animals. More substantially, the Crown's right to the foreshore should be abolished. As the Scottish Law Commission notes in its 2001 discussion paper on the foreshore and the seabed, the Crown's right to the foreshore are a patrimonial right derived from the Crown prerogative, though even that is, in the words of the commission merely, and I quote, the predominant modern theory. The bill provides the opportunity to modernise the legal basis for the ownership of the foreshore, to abolish the Crown's rights and to vest title in Scotland's local authorities rather than through a complicated scheme of delegated management. Similarly for the seabed, where the Crown's ownership has no statutory basis, the bill could vest it in the name of Scottish ministers and create an equivalent to the national forest land scheme to enable transfers of title to Scotland's 248 local authority harbours and 46 trust supports, ending decades of legal disputes and conflict. Finally, the Smith commission recommended that the responsibility of management of Crown property be further devolved to local authorities. The bill makes provision for regulations to enable this but contains no statutory right. We will table amendments to make it clear that the transfer is a statutory right subject only to due process. Greens were elected to bring bold and transformative ideas to Holyrood. The Crown's state is a perfect example of where this is needed. Thank you, Mr Wightman. I will now call Tavish Scott for up to five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a good step that this Parliament has taken the powers of the Crown estate. I am with Andy Wightman. I am for a much more radical approach to this organisation. I will give two further examples to John Scott as to why we should do an awful lot more—an awful lot more—than just go to have complicated—and the minister was right—an incredibly complicated and highly technical approach to sorting out these issues. A trust port decides to extend a key or deepen a navigation channel across in any of the ports around Scotland. What does the Crown estate do for that? It charges for it. It owns the asset. Does it invest it? No, it does not. Does the trust port invest it? Yes, it does. It deepens the navigation channel because it is a bigger shipping or it reclaimed land in order to improve the key space. It then pays for the privilege of improving the asset that is owned by the Crown estate. One further example, Mr Scott, if you doubt the need for radical reform in this area, when I was handling a previous job back in Shetland, the Crown estate passed to councils the job of handling applications for licences for agriculture developments. They then took the rental income, so we did the work and they took the rental income. The need for reform here is very considerable indeed. I want to speak to the sea bed in particular. I take the points that other members may mention this afternoon in terms of farm tenants and others in terms of the Crown estate assets on land. In terms of the sea bed inside 12 miles, and there is an argument for water outside 12 miles as well, there is a need for a much stronger devolved approach to that, a different approach for Scotland, based on the assets that are there. Here is why. It is in Stephen Heddle's letter that was set out by Claudia Beamish earlier, set out a coherent case why island authorities and others, if they so wish it, should take those responsibilities. It is between that local versus national management. The logic of the argument that says that it must all be done nationally is that Shuttlein's council could never have run the Sulunvo oil terminal. Forty years of running the Sulunvo oil terminal, what did we deal with? The Esau bonusia. When in 1978 that particular tanker spilled oil in the confines of the Sulunvo we had to put in place pollution prevention measures and what became a gold standard in terms of dealing with oil spills. I do not remember anyone at that stage saying that we should sweep these powers away and have them all run by a quango down. If Edward Mountain wants to intervene, he is welcome to, but stop just telling me that I am wrong from where I am sitting. Edward Mountain. I am not telling you that you are wrong. Through the chair, please, Mr Mountain. Sorry, Presiding Officer. I would not tell the member that he is wrong. I just wondered if it is exactly the same law on the islands regarding in Shetland and Orkney as it is in the rest of Scotland regarding the seabed and the coastline. Perhaps the member could clarify that for me and other members. It might be helpful. I am not going to get into a util law, so Andy Wightman, Stuart Steams and I might have a debate about that, but not here and in this day. Although there is an interesting question that does need to be teased out by our learned friends in the venture. So if that is the point that Mr Mountain was making, he will forgive me for not mentioning that specific point here today. My point is about local versus national management. Shetland's council and other local authorities who have particular marine responsibilities have been doing what we now call marine spatial planning, what government now calls the marine act, for a lot longer than ever that this place was thinking about marine acts. The central contention that local government cannot be innovative and cannot come up with the right solutions to take these paths and move them on and enable them to drive forward sustainable economic development in island and coastal communities. I do not accept and I think that that is why we need a much stronger approach to this, which is the epitome of what the Smith commission discussed. In that week that was a week, I will never get back in my life when we discussed everything about the devolved powers of this place. One of the few areas where there was absolute agreement across all the political parties was in the need for real change on this, for the powers of the crown to be estate to be devolved to this parliament and then for us to make decisions, but we must get that right. On the specific point that was mentioned about never selling anything, I could not disagree more. Here is why trust ports have been able to do that in terms of small parcels for many, many a year. If some members in here think that that is something that you should take away from trust ports, you are reinstating the worst kind of management that we dealt with from London for decades after decades after decades. Go and ask any trust port all around the coast of Scotland that is not the right approach and it is not right that we replicate the management that we did not care for from London with a management in Edinburgh that would do exactly the same thing. I hope that the committee members who took, I do not know what evidence they took on that, but what they need to do is reflect on a measure that is about the sustainable development of trust ports across Scotland and that included a sensible ability to purchase small areas of seabed under a pier after they had invested the money in order to do that. So there is much that needs to be done here, there is much goodness bill, but we shouldn't get bogged down, I think that the minister made a fair point, we shouldn't get bogged down in highly difficult technical details and constructions of systems. We should do some of the radical things that we should do to shake this right up. We now move to the open debate. Time is quite tight so speeches of no more than five minutes please. Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you Presiding Officer and I draw members' attention to my small registered agricultural holding and just in response to a little thing that's just been said by Tavish Scott, I can't find it in the bill but I know it's there that it is possible to sell assets provided the proceeds are then used to purchase another heritable asset but that may not be a complete answer to the point that he made. I'm just going to respond to the invitation that this is a technical bill but I may hear a few technical points that are beyond what the committee's looked at. In particular at section 6 2A which requires that a body that takes over the management has to have no fewer than 20 members. I just invite the Government to have a wee think about that and build some flexibility and I'm just thinking in particular of the recent buyout at Alfa where the consent was required by a large number of people who were not on Alfa because of the way the community was defined and it might be that there are similar circumstances in future. I'm going to make progress if you don't mind. The other thing, I just want to make a few points about finance. One of the things is that managers of assets to whom it's been devolved acting on local communities are allowed of course to have other interests. They have to keep the accounts separate for the Crown Estate asset from any other assets that they may have and that's perfectly proper provision. However, it may well be that the aggregation of an asset that comes from the Crown Estate with one that does not come from the state adds additional value to the value of the two assets. I think that there's an unresolved question in the bill as it's currently drafted as to how you then divide the income and liability and, speaking of which, if we go to section 34A, which relates to a transferie ceasing to exist, the function in any rights or liabilities transferred to the transferie. There's a wee bit of an awkward construct in relation to liabilities when a community organisation might become insolvent. They will be very likely to be registered under the companies acts and therefore there will be provision for insolvency. It would be very unusual for the liabilities not to be extinguished at the point of insolvency rather than for us to legislate that they'd be transferred to someone else. I think that there's a degree of irresponsibility could, in some very unlikely circumstances, come in where actually liabilities never rest upon the shoulders of those for whom who have been responsible for them. I invite ministers to have a wee think about that. Looking at section 14, which limits the granting of a lease to a period of 150 years, slightly odd choice of 150 years, the long leases act of 2012 has 175 years. Mr Whiteman in particular will remember as minister I worked with him on that subject. Of course I heard Edward Mountain refer to long leases of the sea bed. If they are over 175 years, then of course the long leases act converted them to ownership rather than being a lease. I just post that as a little interesting because I don't know if that is the case in any cases. Primarily, I want to see devolution in relation to Crown and State assets work to the maximum degree that it can. I'm less interested in local authorities taking responsibility, although clearly there are areas where that is the appropriate thing. I think that the success of what we're doing here will depend on our getting good effective devolution down to quite small communities for whom the devolution may make a very substantial difference. The bill is silent on the relatively silent issue of community. I think that there is some advantage in that, because the overbuy illustrates that, while we were able to make it work, the land reform provision for community buyouts kind of worked in a very odd way, because only a tiny minority of those who had to give permission were actually in over. I think that it's worth looking at that. Finally, I look at recommendation 342, which is about up-to-date assessments of the condition of Crown and State assets in Scotland and the absence of that, which the committee draws attention to. I welcome the fact that that is now being remedied because the lack of knowledge of your assets is the road to economic and financial perdition. I wish this bill every success, Presiding Officer. I thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will firstly declare an interest as a partner in the farming business as well. I am pleased to be involved in this debate today on what is an important piece of legislation. The legislation follows from the Smith commission recommendations in the Scotland Act 2016. The act was delivered by a Conservative Government, which allows the devolution of the management of the Crown and State to the Scottish Parliament. I thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the member agree that, contrary to what the Smith commission recommended in devolving the management and the revenues, the revenues under schedule 5 section 233A remain reserved? I've got about the members' superior knowledge. I can't comment because I really don't know what to be honest. We are broadly in support of the Claire committee recommendations in this report. The Crown and State in Scotland comprises a wide range of assets. This includes rural estates, rights to fish, wild salmon and sea trout in river and coastal areas, rights to naturally occurring gold and silver across most of Scotland, some moorings, ports and harbours, the sea bed out of 12 nautical miles, the rights to offshore renewable energy and gas out of 200 nautical miles and business property in Edinburgh. The bill allows for further devolving of management of powers to local authorities, public bodies and community organisations. The Claire committee is of the opinion that although powers may be further devolved, some assets should remain under national management. The Scottish Government, I believe, needs to make clear which assets must be retained under national control and those that may be devolved to a local level. My concern is that the devolvement process may lead to the wholesale fragmentation of the estate. I believe that if that were to happen, that would be a mistake. Crown and State Scotland tenants are generally happy with how the Crown and State is being run during this transition phase. Tenants report that devolution has brought significant benefits, including connectivity with the estate, improved communications and more involvement in decision making. The bill also provides for a number of mechanisms that are designed to provide transparency and accountability in the management of assets. However, I think that more needs to be done within the bill to provide clarity on how suitable, able and knowledgeable those who are applying to manage assets are. A further issue is that, although the policy of operating subsidies across different assets works well at present, there is the potential for that to become more complex once assets are devolved to a local level. I endorse that the Claire committee is concerned about the lack of financial flexibility contained within the bill. I agree that there are significant benefits in Crown and State Scotland having the ability to hold capital reserves for strategic investment and to retain revenue to service capital expenditure. The historic figure of 9 per cent of gross revenue that can be retained needs to be reassessed. Agricultural tenancies should remain centrally managed, reflecting the wishes of the tenant farmers. Tenants are concerned that local authorities may take control of the agricultural holdings of the Crown and State. We are also concerned with that view and recognise that the Crown and State is seen as an excellent example of a landlord that works well with its tenants and is prepared to offer long-term stable tenancies and invest in its farms for the long-term good of the estate. I do not think that I have time. There is also the possibility that new young entrants into farming might be offered subsidised rents for an initial period to allow them a start. National management is therefore vitally important. That is what the tenants wish to see happen and I think that it must be what happens in the long term. The bill is also clear that asset must be managed in a way that leads to sustainable development. That means that factors such as social and environmental wellbeing, as well as profitability, must be taken into account in all management decisions. We on this side of the chamber recommend a measured approach to how island communities and island local authorities are dealt with in the process of devolving management powers. The island bill, just passed by this Parliament, has raised the expectation and island authorities may be well placed to take on the management of assets around their coasts. I believe that pilot schemes should be put in place as soon as possible to allow that to happen. We are broadly supportive of the bill at stage 1, and I look forward to the opportunity to strengthen and fine tune it as it makes its way through the process. Thank you very much. I call Richard Lochhead to be followed by Colin Smith. I welcome the debate and thank the committee for their stage 1 report as well on all the effort that is put into the Scottish Government and all the campaigners down the years to achieve the devolution of the Crown Estate. According to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre's briefing, this has been a long journey. It has taken us 952 years to get here, so I understand the impatience of those who want to get everything right in the first day of devolution, but according to the briefing notes, the Crown Estate's hold dates back to 1066 and since 1760, the net income of the Crown Estate has been transferred to Exchequer under successive civil list acts. It has been indeed a long journey to get here. We should celebrate that we are here, but we are now 19 years into devolution, so again, it has been a lot longer than many of us expected, especially those of us who have been involved in this debate for many, many years. I recall a few years ago when we finally managed to persuade the Crown Estate to come to committees in the Parliament, where it gave some bare outline financial figures, but there was not a lot of transparency. At that time, a few years ago, that was a breakthrough, because for so many years, literally the 952 years, there has been no transparency. Of course, the debate has been around the fact that our natural assets should be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland, particularly the communities closest to them, and that we should not have our tenant farmers working their socks off or other assets, in terms of more tangible assets being used to generate net revenues to go to the UK Exchequer in London. We are now much further forward, and there is now huge potential to make sure that our natural assets work for the benefit of our local communities in the Scottish national interest. In my constituency, of course, of Murray, I have a long-standing interest because I have the Focubars in Glenlivet States, I also have the coastline with the Murray Firth, I have fishing rights in the rivers and so on. I have other assets such as the Harbour, which is on the Crown Estate in Port Gordon. Our local communities for a long time in Murray have been calling for change with the Crown Estate, and they very much welcome the devolution of the Crown Estate. The key now, of course, is to show that things are different. It is fantastic that we now have a new remit for the Scottish Crown Estate and the Bill of Economic Development, Regeneration, Social Wellbeing, Environmental Wellbeing and Sustainable Development as well. Although we have to address that balance between continuity and change, because we want to show that things are different, we need some element of continuity. In the case of the tenant farmers, for instance, in the farmer states in my constituency, they very much want to ensure that we get the benefits of devolution, but that the Crown Estate as a whole continues to benefit the ability to invest in the many tenant farms in Murray and the Crown Estate throughout the whole of Scotland. We have to strike that very careful balance. I am pleased that the committee report recognises that in terms of the division between what should be managed nationally and what should be managed locally. There are many issues that should be managed locally. I met the Fintorn village conservation company, which has now taken over land through an award from the land fund in Fintorn, and they were reminding me yesterday when I met them that Fintorn Bay has mooring fees that go to the Crown Estate, but they would like those mooring fees to come to help to support the local community in Fintorn. There is a strong case for the further devolution of management of the assets in some areas, but for other assets such as the tenant farms and the farm estates to be managed nationally. I know that my local tenant farmers are loath at the idea that the Murray Council or a more local body should take control, because that raises all kinds of issues for the viability of those estates in the years ahead. That takes us into another key tension, which is how we have cross-substitiation at the same time as the ability to allow local communities to take control of some assets that generate revenues for the overall Crown Estate. Of course, if there was a fragmentation of those assets, that would make that very difficult in the years ahead. I agree with the Scottish Government to take a rather cautious approach as we move forward with some of those tensions and debates, because if we saw the fragmentation of the Crown Estate assets, then there would not be able to be that cross-substitiation. That would lead to some financial issues and viability issues for the tenant farms, in particular, about other assets. However, we have to have that balance. People want to know that things are different, and we want to know that the Crown Estate is going to be much more responsive to local needs and to work with local needs. I would like to see the Scottish Crown Estate given the ability to have joint ventures and more commercial operations, and I am pleased that the stage 1 report addresses that as well. I also want to address the fact that I remember during the debate over the devolution of the Crown Estate, that we could not persuade the UK Government to give the forkernared assets to Scotland under devolution. I also note that, just last week, it has been reported in the media that the Crown Estate—this is not the Scottish Crown Estate, this is the Crown Estate as in the rest of the UK—refused to devolve the asset, despite the fact that it is in Scotland, which was an absolute scandal, has been sold for £167.3 million to MNG real estate. So now we know why the UK would not devolve that to Scotland— I am afraid that you must conclude. … because it won £167 million, but I wish the Government well and consults with the communities moving forward. Colin Smyth, Oliver Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in today's debate, which paves the way for another of the Smith Commission recommendations to be delivered. I would like to commend the work of members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in scrutinising the bill. There is a great deal to welcome here, and I am happy to support the general principles of the bill. One of the important themes to come from the Smith Commission was that the view that devolution cannot just be about powers transferring from one Parliament to another, it must also be about devolving powers to our local councils and communities. That bill is an opportunity to hope the centralised interests that we have seen in Scotland in recent years. To enact the view of the Smith Commission that the management of the Crown Estate assets in Scotland should be devolved as far as possible to our local communities. As the clear committee's report notes, local communities have unique local knowledge and are motivated to ensure the continued success of an asset and are likely to have imaginative ideas about how to develop that asset further in the future. That bill makes that the welcome provision for both local authorities and community organisations to be managers. However, there remains a lack of clarity on what that means in practice. I therefore support the committee's view that the Scottish Government should clearly outline which assets it anticipates will continue to be managed on a national basis and which can be devolved to a local level. In the submission to the committee, the Orkney Islands Council rightly stated that the bill is currently drafted and does not sufficiently deliver on the recommendations of the Smith Commission and should go further. The Scottish Government must listen to those local authorities and communities and respond to those concerns. It is not enough to simply give groups the legal capability to manage assets that must be equipped with the support and guidance that is needed to be able to do so in practice. In its submission to the committee, the Law Society of Scotland emphasised that community organisations will require access to professional advice and planning in order to properly manage assets. Likewise, the clear committee's report recognised that on-going advice and guidance will be vital in ensuring that smaller community groups are able to successfully manage assets. Similarly, there must be safeguards added to ensure that tenant farmers are not put at a disadvantage and that steps are taken to improve the standard and consistency of support that they receive. I agree with the committee's recommendation that priorities should be given to repairs to accommodation for tenant farmers and to their families. That must be funded sustainably, however. In recent weeks, we have seen the Crown Estate selling off tenant farms to fund investment while other public agencies are looking for land to help young people to make a start on farming. I appreciate that there are financial challenges facing Crown Estate Scotland, but selling off tenant farms to fund other investment is a short-term, unsustainable fix. As well as looking at who is managing assets, we must consider how they are run. I am glad that the bill seeks to expand the objectives of those managing the estate to include other considerations, namely economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development. That broadened remit is a welcome improvement. However, that provision needs to be strengthened. Under the current wording of the bill, managers must seek to enhance the value and profitability of assets but may do so in a way that promotes those other objectives, meaning that there is no real requirement for those aims to be given any consideration. There is submission to the committee, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, expressed concerns that the current wording may make it very difficult, if not impossible, for managers to take account of the wider benefits. Similarly, Professor Ross and Reed of Dundee University stated that the provision gives undue preeminence to pursue an economic interest over other concerns. The reality is that other considerations will be consistently overlooked in favour of profitability if that provision is not strengthened. I am pleased that the Government recognises in its response to the clear committee's report. Related to that is the need to more clearly define what constitutes good management of crowning state assets. I support the clear committee's recommendation that a definition reflecting the wider public objectives, including socio-economic, environmental and sustainable development considerations, should be set out. I am disappointed that the Government has indicated that it does not plan to include such a definition in the bill. I hope that, at the very least, it will commit to including one in the guidance. The transitionary period will create uncertainty for existing crowning state Scotland staff. I echo the clear committee's recommendation that staff should be provided with a realistic indication of how their role might change or not as a result of the bill and be meaningfully consulted and engaged in planning processes both now and following the passage of the bill. I am pleased to see that the Government provides a positive response to those recommendations in its reply. I hope that that means full and proper discussions with the relevant trade unions. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill today. I hope that the points raised by the two committees and by members across the chamber today will be taken on board by the Government. I look forward to seeing more detail and amendments on the plans as the bill moves forward. Presiding Officer, as a member of the committee, I am pleased to be speaking in today's stage 1 debate, not least because the bill is a welcome step forward with regard to previous work that the Parliament has done on community empowerment. However, before I go on to speak about the report itself, I would like to place on record my disappointment and frustration along with my colleague Richard Lochhead, that Edinburgh's Fort Canary retail park, which the Crown East State has or had a 50 per cent stake-in, was not included in the transfer to Crown East State Scotland despite calls from the Scottish Government in 2015 to the UK Government calling on the retail park to be devolved. Of course, we know that the UK Government signalled that it had no intention to do so and two weeks ago on 7 June we found out exactly why that was the case when it was announced that M&G Rary State had acquired the Crown East State's 50 per cent stake-in Fort Canary in a £167 million deal. I cannot help feeling a tad bitter about that, not least because, as I understand it, that £167 million could have been used as cross-subsidisation of other CES assets, such as the Glen Livett, Foghaber's, Appleger's and Whitehill's states. I am sure that the tenant farmers on those four estates would have welcomed capital investment to improve their farm buildings and, indeed, their farm houses to ensure that the farming units are fit for purpose to meet tenants' needs. As it stands, Crown East State Scotland will see none of that £167 million, another prime example, along with the convergence uplift money, which has not come to Scotland, as it should have, of Scotland being shortchanged yet again. Perhaps, if that had not been the case, there would have been no need for Crown East State Scotland to consider selling off Ochanhalryg farm on the Foghaber's estate with an asking price of more than £1.6 million. Removing land from the tenanted sector, which the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association has described, as a grave error considering the scarcity of available land to let. I understand that the STFA has written to the cabinet secretary to that effect. I will go back to my original point. If one of the reasons for putting Ochanhalryg on the market is to raise the investment that is required to bring the buildings and fixed equipment up to tenantable condition, had the £167 million being available from the Fort Canaird sale, it could have helped to avoid the sale of much-needed tenanted land. However, we are where we are, and I am sure that members can understand the frustration that I feel that Crown East State Scotland has been forced to sell off tenanted land when that could have been avoided if the UK Government had agreed to the transfer of the Fort Canaird stake. Turning to the report itself, the sale of Ochanhalryg farm to cross-subsidise other assets highlights the need for an audit of existing Crown East State assets. The committee was surprised to hear that there is no current up-to-date assessment of Crown East State assets in Scotland. It is clear that understanding the current state of assets and the cost involved in addressing any issues is vital to determining the value of the assets, associated liabilities and is a necessary starting point for identifying a future programme of work and investment. The committee has therefore recommended that the bill makes specific provision for the creation of a record of condition of Scottish Crown East State assets that identifies the cost to address issues and places a requirement on the Scottish Crown East State to ensure that the assets are properly maintained. Such an audit was warmly welcomed by tenants, however, it was clear that the audit should be co-produced with them, including the design of the audit and not to be a top-down exercise with no input from tenants. That would help to address a perception, and it would seem a valid one, that problems—some of them very long-standing—are often only picked up when reported by tenants and only then are they budgeted for. They suggested that planning proactively now will help budget for better maintenance in the future, which clearly makes sense to me. The committee also recommends that the record of condition should be reviewed on a regular basis, as well as recommending that tenants must be involved in a greener schedule of works for repairs and that priority should be given to repairs to accommodation for tenant farmers and their families and that agreed repairs should be carried out without unreasonable delay. The condition of tenant farmers accommodation was an issue that came to light in the previous session of Parliament when the former Racky committee was taking evidence for the land reform bill. It would clearly be good if Crown East State Scotland could lead by example in this regard, ensuring that dilapidated outbuildings and accommodation were made fit for purpose. The committee looks forward to amendments to address the issues that are coming forward at stage 2. I had hope to touch on devolving the management of some Crown East State Scotland assets to local authorities and community organisations, particularly given that it was a significant recommendation of the Smith commission, but suffice to say that the inclusion of that in the bill is very welcome. Given that time constraints are on us, I will leave it at that. Thank you very much, Mr MacDonald. I call Edward Mountain to be called by Richard Lyle, Mr Lyle will be the last speaker in the open debate. I welcome today's stage 2, one debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill and joined with my colleagues on these benches in supporting the legislation and principle. In our islands and our future, probably having said that, I should declare an interest that I am a member of a farming partnership for anyone who corrects me, so I have declared that. I will move straight on to say that, in our islands and our future campaign, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles made a case for more local control of the Crown Estate. That was evidenced to me as a member of the Wreck Committee when I went to visit the islands. When the committee visited Orkney, the Western Isles, there was a general appetite for double devolution. Expectations on the islands are indeed high, with many islanders believing that the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, along with the islands bill, will empower island communities to allow them to assume control over the Crown Estate assets. However, I would caution the Scottish Government to think very carefully how it will enable double devolution to the islands without compromising the big picture. In particular, I believe that it needs to consider how and why the devolwment of the seabed to the three islands councils can be done without comprehensive guidance, and unless that guidance is in there, it might not result in the best outcome. After all, the seabed is an asset that benefits all users, not just the islands. The Scottish Conservatives support double devolution to the islands in principle, but we are concerned about the dangers of fragmentation. There is to be more local control—there must be accompanied with an overarching national policy that safeguards the assets that we believe are there. The last thing that I would like to see is the complete break-up of the Scottish Crown Estate, with assets being either sold off or put out to long and irrevocable leases that we have no control over. Turning to the tenant farmers, it is clear to me that the tenant farmers on Glenliver, Focobos, Applegarth and Whitehill are satisfied with the current arrangements established by the interim Crown Estate. The setting up of rural working groups has proved popular, with tenants feeling that the Crown Estate is now more accessible and responsive to local issues than it has ever been before. Tenants do want further devolution, so I will take an intervention. I thank the member. Does the member agree with me that it is very important that there is an equal opportunity for each of the four tenants on those farms to have the same amount of repairs and maintenance and that we should not see what some would call the jewel in the crown of the Crown Estate, Glenliver, as the one that gets more? Edward Mountain. I thank Claudia Beamish for that. I know many of the tenant farmers on Glenliver to Focobos, and I know that the standard of their fixed equipment is extremely high, and sometimes I look at it with a green eye. I do not know the state of the buildings on the other farms, but it is important that it is kept up to the required standard as laid down in the leases, and it is important that the Government ensures that. I think that bearing in mind that that has taken up a bit of my time, I would just want to mention my concern that double devolution could lead to more managers, more costs and less cohesion, and I am really concerned about that. I would like to welcome the fact that the minister makes regarding devolution max, and it is not just one size that fits all solution. The fact that tenant farmers have found a solution that works for them, namely in a consultative approach with the Crown Estate Scotland, should be welcomed. I just want to mention briefly, if I may, the selling of Ockon hull rig farm, which has been mentioned by John Scott. That removes an opportunity rather than creating one for young tenant farmers. There are young farmers across Scotland that are desperate for more tenancies to be made available, and the Scottish Government, in my mind, needs to reconsider whether it is appropriate to sell off the assets. I would cautiously like to welcome the Scottish Crown Estates Bill at stage 1. The real test of this bill will be to see how it turns out the recommendation of the Smith Commission into reality. I urge the Government to think very carefully how it might deliver devolution of the Crown Estate to the Three Islands Council. I would also urge the Scottish Government not to sell the family silver, thus losing the assets that could work for the benefit of Scotland and the people within Scotland. Last week, in the open debate, we moved to closing speeches after that, Mr Lyle. The bill provides for the devolution of the Scottish Crown Estate assets, including, but not limited to, rural estate, mineral, fishing rights, urban assets, the seabed and foreshore. I believe that the bill could be life-changing for many of our communities and should be supported. It will bring opportunities to communities and to local authorities. It will put local decision making at the heart of the bill. That will ensure that many items that local communities felt were not being addressed will be. The bill will provide for other factors such as regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development when considering how an asset should be managed. As a former councillor for many years, I see in the bill the opportunity for local authorities, wherever possible, to participate in decision making, re-management of assets in order to possibly increase revenues to Crown Estates and to deliver better outcomes for local people and their authority. I am sure that the bill will be welcomed by all it affects. Many local councils that will be affected by the bill are better places to discuss and support local communities groups who wish to be involved in the future management of Crown Estates. I am not suggesting for one moment that we cut up Crown Estates in order to satisfy certain groups, but together local groups, local authorities and present managers look at the required future development in order to enhance assets. That, to me, is the opt of word, enhance assets. That bill should be seen as a way to increase local development and to enhance asset base. The Aclaire Committee has made various recommendations in this regard, and to my knowledge it was supported by all committee members at that committee. I am sure that the Government will take on board the committee's primary object, that the process for deciding which assets should be managed on a national basis and which can be devolved to a local level. I now turn to the question of cross-subsidy of assets. Under the present arrangement, some assets are more profitable than others. Therefore, it is the usual practice that some assets subsidise others. The bill provides for transfer of assets from one manager to another, but we have to be mindful that there could be concern over overly fragmentation if that became the case. The ability of one part to cross-subsidise another would be lost. I am sure that the matter will receive the attention that it deserves as the bill moves through its various stages. In fact, the committee made various recommendations regarding that, including a recommendation that Crown Estates establish and maintain a list of Crown Estate assets and liabilities that attach to those facts. During the evidence sessions, I was struck by the way that the tenants are generally happy with the way that the Crown Estates is now being run. Tenants felt that devolution has brought significant benefits to them, including increased feeling of connectivity with the estate-improved communication and more involvement in decision making processes. However, they did suggest that more work could be done on regular contact with factors, and many buildings in some estates require urgent maintenance. Tenants' farmers feel that there are specific problems around the maintenance of rural buildings and that issues related to upkeep are not picked up early enough. That matter should be resolved. Buildings that are in the state of dilapidation, including outbuildings, and accommodation for families should be programmed for upgrading on an on-going maintenance programme. My opinion, tenants should be involved more locally whether an asset is controlled or run by Crown Estates local council or local community groups. Each has to play their part in local development of assets in order to improve for the benefit of all. Turning to the fact that of offshore renewables related assets, I know that the Scottish Renewables was clear that some assets were required to be mined on a national basis, particularly with large commercial offshore wind farms. I am sure that the fact will be taken into consideration. In the report, the committee was a view that the seabed is a national asset and should be mined nationally, and the seabed should not be sold. It was also discussed regarding the role of ports and hardware authorities in the concept of the bill. In particular, Lerwick port authority suggested that there is a need to ensure that the bill does not encroach or permit to encroach on the jurisdiction that is established by the legislation of trust sports for the statutory harbours for which it is responsible. I know that the committee was mindful of the potential of the conflicts of interest to her eyes, and I am sure that the fact will take into consideration. In closing, I believe that the bill will be an opportunity to improve the evolution to local communities, and I welcome it. Thank you, Mr Lyle. I move to closing speeches. I am disappointed that Mr Stevenson has not grazed us with his presence for the closing speeches. I call on Mark Ruskell, three minutes, please. Andy Wightman was right when he described the Crown Estate as a feudal relic. It is the most surreal of monopoly boards involving gold, mussels and seabed, and even the missing shopping centre, which has now been sold off by the Westminster Government. It is important that we go back to the origins of the bill, the purpose of the bill. I think that Tavish Scott spoke very passionately and from the experience of the communities that he represents in Shetland, about the need for local democratic control of the public assets, which have to be run in the public interest in an accountable way. Councillor Heddle has been quoted by a number of members in this debate this afternoon, and I will quote from his letter where he says that, like the original Scotland act, to be a success, the bill will require a deliberate decision by legislators to devolve as much as possible and also to leave the door open to future devolution where circumstances change. It is important that we are deliberate in ensuring that local authorities and communities get the best chance to move towards a new management going forward, which is in that public interest. In that regard, I believe that it is important that there is a presumption in favour of communities and councils managing those Crown estate assets, and that that will need to be looked at again at stage 2. A number of members have mentioned sustainable development. Claudia Beamish, in particular, asked the question, what are the criteria for good management? That is absolutely about sustainable development. It is absolutely about ensuring that the livelihoods of future generations are protected because we are protecting the environment that that economy is based on. We should be looking for win-wins growing the economy while protecting the environmental asset that sustains that economy and sustains the communities that need those livelihoods. I am not sure at this point whether the guidance that Graham Day mentioned that the Scottish Government is now committed to bringing forward at stage 2 on sustainable development will be adequate enough. We need to look carefully at that. It must be a duty to consider and deliver sustainable development through this bill. In closing, I would reflect on what the minister said at the beginning of the debate, where he said that there will be a need to maintain and seek to enhance the value of those important assets. Clearly, we are going to need some flexibility in that regard. We have a historic 9 per cent reinvestment figure that allows revenue to be reinvested back in assets. Clearly, if we are to invest in those assets for the future to give the chance of future generations to grow their livelihoods, we need to revisit that. There may be a need to set a much higher level of reinvestment so that we can ensure that those assets are there for the long term and they can sustain communities. I call Alex Rowley to close for Labour. I welcome the debate today. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the committee clerks and all those who gave up their time to give evidence to the committee. It was interesting when taking evidence from tenant farmers that they also expressed the view that it was good to come to Parliament and have their voices heard—something that we should do more of in a point that was made by Richard Lochhead. Richard Lyle said that there were issues for some tenant farmers and I do hope that those can be addressed and indeed that the key stakeholders such as tenants can feel empowered moving forward. As Claudia Beamish and others made clear, when we speak about assets within the Crown Estate, we are speaking about many irreplaceable national assets and, as such, we must ensure that they are protected, well managed and provide social, economic and environmental benefits for all of Scotland. The resources themselves are extensive and, as a result, their management is of vital concern to the future of both our natural environment and our rural economy. However, our energy needs as a country are moving forward in the 21st century. Like Graham Day and other members of the committee, I welcome the Smith commission's recommendations to devolve the Crown Estate. However, as Colin Smyth said, devolution is simply not about shuffling powers from one centralised Parliament to another. I strongly believe that where it is appropriate and where there is good reason to do so, we must be willing to devolve powers down from Holyrood to local government and indeed into local communities. When we devolve powers, those powers must be devolved for a purpose. With regard to the devolution of the Crown Estate, as Jo Fitzpatrick said, we have an opportunity to strengthen the management of the asset by creating a balance between local and central decision making. In particular, the Smith commission was clear in seeking full devolution to the three Scottish island local authorities, and I would urge the Scottish Government to uphold that recommendation. The sentiment is echoed by the national trust for Scotland, who has stated that emphasis should be put on ensuring that management is devolved as far as is practically possible. As John Scott said, good management is central to the successful future of the Crown Estate assets, but for me, the key to that is local communities having a say over the land around them. The Parliament must also have an on-going ability to hold ministers to account for the Crown Estate. I note the strongly held views being expressed by a number of organisations that the seabed and the foreshore should not, in any way, be able to be sold off without the agreement of this Parliament. The committee said that it should not be sold off full stop. I note the point that Tavik Scott makes about the islands. I think that it is a welcome development in the bill to attempt to widen the focus of the Crown Estate management beyond the duty of securing a commercial return. The wider objectives within section 7 of the bill now include economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and sustainable development. As RSPB has stated, Scottish Crown Estate assets must be managed in accordance with the guiding principles of sustainable development to create and maintain a strong, healthy and just society capable of living within the environmental limits. There must be a duty to strike a balance and achieve parity between the financial obligations and the wider sustainable development of the assets. Devolution of the Crown Estate can create opportunities for community land ownership, and that should be pursued by the Scottish Government as well as new opportunities for new partnership working that should be exploited to the full. The bill is a step in the right direction, and what we now have is an opportunity as a Parliament to come together to strengthen the bill so that it delivers for the people of Scotland first and foremost. Those assets belong to all of us, and commercial profits should never be at the forefront of managing our land. Thank you, and I call it being the cast of close to the Conservatives five minutes. I start by declaring an interest as a member of the NFUS and refer members to my register of interest. I am pleased to have this opportunity to sum up for the Scottish Conservatives stage one of this important piece of legislation. I want to reiterate my support and that of my colleagues for this bill and principle. However, as it goes through the parliamentary process, we want to ensure that the bill is strengthened at stage two and three to ensure that it delivers what it is intended and that the objectives with the Smith commission and Crown Estate are met. The bill has been laid as part of the Smith commission's recommendation, very refreshing, particularly on a day when we have heard yet more nonsense about power grabs and the Scottish Government's voice not being heard. Here we have a perfect example of extra powers and devolution in action. I anticipate that the bill will offer benefits to local authorities, public bodies and community organisations right across Scotland by encouraging community empowerment, while ensuring that sustainability and its broadest sense, as is mentioned by Stuart Stevenson and others, are at the heart of the Crown Estate's future. Graham Day and Edward Mountain, as I do, have concerns about fragmentation and the possible consequential impact on the financial stability of marginal operations if the well-performing parts of the estate are sold off. We need an audit and clear indication of the current and on-going assets of the estates, assets and liabilities. With regard to the agricultural estates, I am very concerned and surprised with the position that I understand that the Greens are to take with suggested amendments, with the presumption of devolution to local authorities. That is despite Mark Ruskell hearing the concerns of the tenants and others and could ultimately remove the ability of fully devolved community empowerment on that point. I wonder if the member, such as I, wonders why Mr Wightman failed to bring forward his proposals during the stage 1 consideration of the bill when the committee could have examined those proposals and the stakeholders could have had their views heard. I wonder if he agrees with me that that would be more respectful of the parliamentary process and, most importantly of all, allow the stakeholders to have their voice heard on them. I think that it is very useful and I agree with everything that the member says. With due respect to the likes of Dumfries and Galloway council as a local authority, I do not believe that they currently have the expertise or experience or the desire to be responsible for the upkeep of the resources at the Appleguth estate, for example, whereas I do have the confidence that a group of existing tenants have exactly the skills required. That is why, when we need policies enabling more control being handed down at local level, but they must be accompanied with robust guidance and careful consideration, and transparently, in conjunction with stakeholders, not least the tenants. Decentralisation should not and cannot be railroaded through against the wishes of those who ultimately matter the most, and in this case, that is crowned estate tenants. Mark Ruskell, believe it or not, was in the committee when he heard that the tenant Farmers Association are firmly of the view that the forest states have been more appropriate for the rural estates to be managed directly by the Scottish Government. In addition, Jim Innes of the Glen Livett estate references the example of Moray council. He says, and I quote, that we do not really want things to be devolved down to councils because Moray council, for example, has a big enough job running its own show. I am sorry, I do not have time. The NFUS has also rightly stated that the long-term stability and wellbeing of the rural estates and rural communities is paramount, and that it also shares concerns over the devolving of assets to local authorities. The NFUS believes that local authorities simply do not have, nor will they be able to obtain the necessary skillsets to manage agricultural units. We share that opinion. The Crown Estate Management team at national level has a structure that is far more towards the interests of the tenants than local authorities could ever be. That is why the Scottish Conservatives agree that the unanimous Eichlear recommendation, which the Greens supported, that the national management of the Crown estates for rural estates should be continued. Along with Richard Lyle, I am pleased to hear that the Crown estate tenants have been generally happy with how the interim management has been run, feeling a greater connectivity with the estate, improved communications and more involvement. I believe that the expertise and experience that is currently in place is the best solution for the upkeep of the resources at Applegirth and other rural estates, which is why it is important to retain something akin to the status quo. I am sorry, I do not have time. The Crown Estate Bill represents another important juncture in the history of Scottish Parliament. Those powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament as a result of cross-party work during the Smith commission are devolution and its best form, but we must make sure that the Crown Estate Bill meets the needs of stakeholders and that the most appropriate management structures are identified in each individual case. I look forward to supporting the bill in principle in a few moments and progressing the Crown Estate Bill further as the summer break. Thank you very much. I now call on Jovis Patrick to wind up the debate. This has been an excellent debate and the speeches across the chamber will, I am sure, give the cabinet secretary and officials lots to reflect on. Cabinet secretary, of course, will take that time to reflect on a number of the issues that have been raised, but with the help of the bill team, I have been passing me lots of notes. I will do my best to cover as many of the points that have been raised in the debate. In the point of reflection, a number of members have raised the issue of Oconhalryg farm in the Focabur's estate in my constituency, and that is also raised by many of my constituents. Will the minister urge the cabinet secretary to reflect on the concerns that have been expressed with the potential for perhaps intervening if that is appropriate? If the Crown Estate is looking to raise funds, will the Scottish Government make representations to the UK Government to get £167 million back from the Fort Canard share that was declared a UK asset and not a Scottish asset when it came to devolution of the Crown Estate assets? That is Scottish money, and they should be calling us out of it. Jovis Patrick. Members make two strong points, which I am sure are now on the record, and the cabinet secretary will, of course, look at both of them. In the course of the debate, Graham Day and Claudia Beamish made some points about the concept of good management. In the bill, there is a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the Crown Estate assets, and the manager may do so in a way that is likely to promote socio-economic and environmental matters. The duty is instead of a specific reference to good management, so although it is not there in the words of good management, it is, we think, encapsulated. Graham Day also made a point about the scope and whether there should be wider environmental factors that should be taken into account. The duty to maintain and enhance the value is required, but managers may meet that duty in a way that contributes not just to economic value, but also to sustainable development, economic development and social wellbeing. Graham Day, Mark Ruskell and Peter Chapman all made points in relation to the attention of 9 per cent of revenues by the manager and questioning whether that was the correct figure, questioning whether we should examine that. While we have kept the existing figure of 9 per cent under interim arrangements, the bill provides flexibility to vary that, and we will keep the 9 per cent under review. Tavish Scott made a specific point in relation to trust ports in relation to the need to pay to the Crown Estates, and new powers in the bill to weigh up the profit to the state with the wider benefit. That is something that is new that does not exist just now, so I hope that that will be helpful in relation to the specific point that Tavish Scott made. Tavish Scott and Mr Wightman both made similar points, looking for a stronger and simpler approach, but we need to bear in mind that management, not ownership, is what has been devolved here. The bill will enable local management of assets, and no legal powers exist to do that. Andy Wightman I accept that schedule 5, section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998, devolves, and I quote, property belonging to Her Majesty's right to the Crown. This Parliament has always had, as the Scottish Law Commission has confirmed, the rights to legislate over Crown property rights. The specific bill relates to the devolution of the powers in relation to management. A number of members raised John Scott, Claudia Beamish, Richard Lyle, Graham Day, Alex Rowley and others, all raised points about the seabed. I am arguing that seabed should never be sold off. There are some variations of that, but the bill does make it a requirement that a manager obtains consent of Scottish ministers before seabed can be sold. That is a new requirement, so it goes further than ever before. The point is that there are some circumstances in which we would be able to see that it might be the right thing to do and it might be something that requires some instances such as, for instance, under the footfall of the Queensbury crossing. I think that we all agree that there are exceptions to that. The power should remain there, but there is a requirement for that to come back to Scottish ministers and therefore that parliamentary oversight to the whole thing. Andy Wightman and John Scott made points in relation to staff. The Scottish Government officials are working with Crown Estate Scotland. Sorry, time is disappearing. Claudia Beamish and Richard Lochhead made points around transparency and the bill provides for that. The management plans will be published and accounts laid in Parliament, so that is all things that are new, which increases the transparency of the bill. I see the clock ticking. If I go back to my very start, Cabinet Secretary will be paying close attention to everything that was said in the debate today. If members have particular points that they might want to take up with her or her officials, I am sure that she will be very pleased to do that prior to the stage 2. That concludes our stage 1 debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 11939, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. We come now to decision time. There are two questions today. The first question is that motion 12846, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 11939, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move on now to members' business. It is in the name of Gillian Martin, on a welcoming women's engineering day. We will just take a few moments to change seats and I will suspend Parliament for a few moments to allow members to change in the gallery or new guests to arrive.