 Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the further devolution committee. We are another one of our proceedings, welcome to our witnesses this morning and also welcome to the people who are joining us as observers at the back of the hall. I'm very grateful for you all being here. The first thing we're going to do is make a decision about taking items in private ac mae gymryd ddych chi'n ei wneud nhw gan y gwaith yma mae'r F4 mae'n ffrifwyr i beth. Fy fawr yma flitwyr F2 yw y gallu roi gydag blynyddu â'r eu cyflwyffydd i gyfnod ystafell a tych nesaf, drwy werth pernill. Fyngfaen gwrthos bobl yn gwaith ddysglu drathau o'r cyflwyffydd i gyflyg yng nghymru. Rathoswch ar gyfer y gweithlwynt, Felly Arddir Whiteman,armsôn, AMD's Writer of Researcher on Land Rights, Walter Spears, MacKern Musles, former director of the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre, Dan Finch, chief executive of moir eight offshore renewables, Angus Campbell as the leader of Coral Nani Alanshire, Steve Barron as chief executive of Highland Council. I thank you very much for coming along this morning to help us with our deliberations on the Crown of State. Maybe I could open with a very general question to begin with, gentlemen, if you don't mind. The Smith commission recommended that responsibility for the management of the Crown of State's economic assets in Scotland and the revenue generated from those assets will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Do you consider that the draft clauses achieve the aim and, furthermore, how do you see your relationship developing with the Crown of State in the future and the new environment, obviously, will be getting into? I don't know who would like to kick off on that rather wide-ranging question, but please feel free, Andy. Yes, thank you, chair. I welcome the Smith commission recommendations, but I do not think that as currently drafted, the command paper does in fact implement the intent of the Smith commission, or at least it has the potential, given the way it appears to be very complex. It has the potential of frustrating the fairly simple task, in my view, of devolving the administration and management of those rights, which should be a fairly straightforward legislative matter, but in the way that it's been drafted, this complex scheme could end up in a quagmire. The simple point is that Crown property rights are already devolved. They were devolved in the 1998 act. A number of Crown rights are already managed in Scotland by the Crown Office, so what we're talking about is a bundle of property rights that are currently administered and have been administered by the Crown and State commissioners and the predecessors down south since 1832, and we're talking about returning to Scotland the power to administer those rights. That, in my view, in my written paper, should be a relatively straightforward matter of repealing a couple of sections in the Scotland act, which effectively reserves the management of the Crown estate, repealing the revelant section in the 2012 Cullman commission, the 2012 Scotland act, repealing a bit of the Crown estate act and amending the Crown estate act to the effect that doesn't apply in Scotland. That is the main legislative proposals. Beyond that, one needs some kind of memorand of understanding or whatever to make sure that the on-going liabilities and contractual obligations that the Crown estate commissioners have entered into in Scotland are smoothly and capably carried forward once it's devolved. Dan, do you want to? Just briefly introduce myself, really, and just to explain to the committee. I'm the CEO of a company called EDPR. We are one of the offshore wind developers, and I would say that I will try and speak sort of generally rather than just for my own company, but we are one of the largest wind developers in the world, with the third largest wind developer in the world, and we chose to come to the UK to develop offshore wind because of the scale of the market, and because of the way the whole process was governed and managed within the UK and UK infrastructure. So, a couple of the benefits that we saw immediately was that there was a fairly straightforward system of land ownership or land control, if you like, or seabed control, which, believe me, is very complex in some of the regions in which we operate. So, we broadly welcome the role of the Crown estate in actually developing and setting up a process that enabled us and many other major, major companies to invest in the UK and Scotland in particular. Secondly, we chose to move and set up our base in Scotland because of the support of the Scottish Government in particular for renewable power, and we still think that that's a key factor in why we are here and why we will set up our entire world and European and world operations based here in Edinburgh. One of the problems that we have is, although we broadly agree with the provisions of this proposal, there are also powers that are retained within the UK Government, which actually do not facilitate the development of wind in Scotland in particular because they are not devolved. Whether those are devolved or not is entirely up to yourselves and the UK Government, but what we need is access to the market as a whole around the UK. The energy market is still a fully integrated market. We welcome the assistance that the Crown estate has given us so far in developing offshore wind and attempting to meet UK Government policy, but we would propose to yourselves that the Scottish Government takes control of that as much as it can within Scottish waters so that you have the whole package. You are able to manage not only the role of the land ownership and the appropriate contracts with major developers, including ourselves, but we are then able to deliver energy in the future, which at the moment is not the case. I have been a tenant of the Crown estate for 30 years as a shellfish farmer. On behalf of the agriculture industry, the last thing that we need is another period of uncertainty about who our landlord and stroke regulator is. The last time that we had a shift was when the planning controls were taken from the Crown estate and handed over to local authorities in 1999, which took 10 years to be settled, and that was a period in which the agriculture industry stagnated. The problems that were caused by that 10-year period of indecision still rumble on with the on-going audit and review process about leases that were granted at that time. I agree that what has been proposed by the Smith commission is correct in one sense, but it is hugely complex. For me, there is a very simple solution. If there is a management job to be done of those states, that at the moment is done very well by the Crown estate, in my opinion. The revenues seem to be the thing that is in question, and I do not see any reason why those revenues cannot be channeled to whatever you decide to put them through the existing management structure, which should mean that existing tenants would not have a period of uncertainty and the probability of different regimes happening in different areas of Scotland. The other thing, referring back to 1999, when the reason that the planning controls were sought by the local authorities to be taken from the Crown estate is that it was deemed to be a conflict that the Crown estate was both regulator and landlord. If the powers are given over to local authorities again, they will be in the same position that the Crown estate was in in 1999, which they very much spoke against. I feel that the best way forward would be the simplest way, and that would be to leave the existing management managing the estates with revenue being given to local authorities or whoever the Scottish Government decided to channel them towards. Angus, I am sure that you have a view on that. I do have a view on that. I will maybe start off by saying that our answer to our future campaign was all about getting control of the seabed and the revenues devolved down to the islands. We are very much welcomed, the commitment by both Governments to see that happen. We are also very much welcome what the Smith commission explicitly said. The only three local authorities that were mentioned in it were Orfney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and we are very keen to see that that sentiment is taken through in the legislation that comes through. We are not seen at the moment, I do not think the clarity that is going to happen. One of the main issues that we are looking at is to get absolute clarity on what happens with economic activity in the islands. Although I hear what my friend here is saying, I cannot agree with him. I think that what you would do is to get a position where the whole system is much more open and much more clear. The example that I will give is that at the moment we have had a 40 megawatt development off the west coast of Lewis leased out by the Crown East state without any involvement of people living in these islands or the local authority. We need more clarity. I also think that it will give much more to the fore the need of economic development for the people who live in these islands because the priorities will be serving that cause, not serving an individual organisation. Can I point out that we have experienced particularly in Orfney and Shetland of dealing with things up to 12 miles for the last 30 years? I would suggest that the experience, if you look at that track record there, I think it has been done very well. Equally within local authorities, I do believe with the ability to do that. We deal with many other planning issues, very large planning issues, and we do it in a way that is transparent and open. We have the experience and believe that we can do it. It is a simple process, that is not complicated. I believe that the council's position is well aligned with that of the island authorities. The council wishes to see crime estate revenues directed to local coastal communities and the management of the crime estate transferred from the commissioners to the Scottish Parliament and to local communities as appropriate. The council has had a consistent position on that since 2007 when it convened a working group involving partners including the island authorities. It produced a report entitled, sorry, Noting the Opportunities of the Evolution of the Crime Estate, the Crime Estate in Scotland, New Opportunities for Public Benefits. The Smith commission report mentions the island specifically. It does not mention Highland Council and that is of concern to us, given the lead role that we have played in establishing and leading the working group, and the high relative value of the highlands in terms of the crime estate income. We are concerned that Highland Murray and Argyllun Bute are omitted from mention within the report. All of the interested local authorities with crime estate assets within their area should be provided the opportunity to manage them. The Highland Council believes that that is well aligned with other policy directions at present, particularly the Commission for Strengthening Local Democracy and the Community Empowerment Bill. It is really important to support fragile communities and to drive social cohesion by giving them both the powers and the responsibilities that derive from crime estate revenues. You all laid out your pitch pretty well as a beginner. I think that we will try to get into something in that degree. It is quite a big panel, so we have to try to be as succinct as we can, both in the questions that we ask and the answers that we get. Tavish, is it okay if we start with you? Thank you so much, convener. I wonder if, Mr Barn, since you were the last one, I could just clarify Highland Council's ability to take on these responsibilities, because, as we have heard from one of the panellists, there is some doubt as to whether there is a conflict of interest or that kind of thing. Mr Campbell will answer that question. Would you like to give your council's perspective on the very issue that Mr Spears raised in his opening evidence? I think that the council is well able to take on those responsibilities, and it has that at these areas of expertise in house. We are already working with harbours, we are dealing with marine planning, we are dealing with aquaculture issues perfectly professionally, and taking on those powers and responsibilities would be an enhancement of what we do rather than an addition to what we do. Do you not see the issues being raised as a showstopper? No, indeed. I believe that the connection to local communities and the local democratic link, which would be evident within those actions, would make things stronger. I wanted to ask about it. The Smith agreement actually says in respect of Highland Council or, indeed, any other local authority area with marine areas, and I quote, or other areas that seek such responsibilities. Obviously, by definition, Highland Council would seek that. Are you aware of Argyll and Bute wishing again to have the devolution of both the management and the revenues to their areas as well? I cannot speak for other councils. Informal discussions would lead me to believe that they are in a similar position with similar views, but I cannot speak for Argyll and Bute. Indeed, that is very fair. I wonder if I could just ask Mr Campbell. You made the pitch I would expect you to for this one, which I am pretty familiar with, but I want to just be very clear. It is management and revenue, is it not? We are not just talking revenue, it is management and revenue. It is management and revenue. I think that the recycling of that revenue back in the Highland communities can be a step change in the economies for the future. Thank you. Can I just go one more? That is all right, Mr Crawford. Mr Spears, you make a recent argument. I understand that I was around in 1999. I will remember all the arguments about the agriculture industry, but I presume that you would accept that, particularly in Auckland Shetland, we have marine spatial planning, and we have been doing it for a long, long time. Those issues can be resolved. I appreciate that you may be given where your business is based, you may be talking about another part of Scotland. I would hope that you would accept that those issues could be resolved. There is an onus on us to resolve them, but they are not insurmountable. Would you accept that? I think that putting the revenues to one side is about ownership. There is no argument with the revenues. If the councils to my recollection both fought hard for using the argument that the crowning estate should not be both regulator and beneficiary, if the ownership, if you want to call it that, is given to the councils, then they will be in exactly the position that they fought so much against back in 1999. So that is history. The revenue side is correct. Just one point about the revenue. I think that one thing that is very important about the current coastal communities fund is that it is deemed to be private money, which is extremely valuable to local projects, because it is not public money and does not come into the end state aid. I am not sure how that flow of money to coastal communities would continue, given that it would be managed perhaps differently. That is a good point, yes. Thank you for asking the question so succinctly, and thank you for asking so succinctly back, so let's see if we can keep that going. Rob. Welcome, panel. Convener, there are five points here. There is the regulating of what the crown estate is in charge of. There is licensing, there is planning, there is revenue raising and there is revenue spending. What I have heard from the councils so far is that they want the planning, the revenue raising and the revenue spending, but we have at the present time the skills and the Crown Estate Commission itself in laying out many of the projects that are beginning to show some revenue. How do you see the use of those skills being deployed? Would it be centrally, say, in Marine Scotland and the Government, or would some of those powers, some of those people, come to local authorities? Angus, do you want to kick at that? I think that we see very clearly that the work done by the Crown Estate on the ground can very easily be taken into local authority. We have the ability of doing these things already, I think that it would be an expansion of that. There is a strategic element of this that I think should, we should remember that whenever we deal with, for instance, planning issues, we deal with in the context of a national framework. I think that there is still a strategic position for the national framework to be set by Scottish Government. We are well used to feeding into that system by taking that on board and working that through. One example that I will give is the 50 megawatt split for renewables, for instance, where you get a level of decision making or setting the tone by Scottish Government and then we work into that. However, it does give us the opportunity to feed in local priorities, to feed in the economic benefits for our area. If I can just take the example of it, it might not always be the local authority that is benefiting directly from all these things. There are other levels of taking it closer to communities. We have examples of that already and that is how we envisage it would happen. One of the areas of concern that we would have is that the current estate has a degree of commercial awareness and the ability to support some extremely large projects to make commercial decisions and to have some flexibility. I can give you an example of that. One of the major projects that we were involved in on the east coast of Angus, the company that I worked for at the time, a small Scottish developer, got into some difficulty with regard to our major European partner. The current estate was able to work as a partner along with that developer development in order to support it until there was a new buyer who came into that process, so they supported us with funds and with practical support from staff. That enabled the project to survive and then to continue, and that project has gone on to be consented, so there is the commercial allowance and the commercial ability to do that. We completely understand the wishes and requirements of the local communities and through their councils, but we have to be really aware of the fact that we are competing on a national, if not international, basis with other projects. The involvement of Scottish Government in particular is absolutely crucial in the decision of the size of infrastructure. The projects that we are talking about in my case or in the case of my fellow developers require investments in billions of euros, so if we have other layers or other hurdles to clear in order to get through and to develop these projects, that makes it more and more unlikely that we would actually be able to do so. One of the benefits of us being in Scotland is the fact that the consenting process is controlled within Scotland. We have recognised this. We have worked alongside Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government to develop the projects. It has not been very easy, I can tell you that, but one of the downsides is the fact that energy policy and energy and control of contracts, CFDs, as they are known, still remains within the UK Government. To have another layer or another authority, if you like, that we would be answerable to and potentially have conflicts with other competing projects in the UK and in Europe would just make it far much more complicated for us. Can I just follow that one up? I understand that only a quarter of the consented offshore wind has got contract for difference support. Possibly if the Crown Estate is devolved, unless there is some relationship between the energy policy, which provides the certainty for the development of those, it could be that the local communities can miss out hugely on the revenues that could flow from that, so that, indeed, with the cost of transmission charges being higher, it might well be that contracts for difference are not granted by the UK Government to energy policy in our area. That is absolutely the case, Mr Gibson. We are in a process where we have to spend tens of millions to get through a consenting regime, with no certainty whatsoever. Even having gained consent, the projects will then be buildable. I can assure the committee that, at the recent CFD round, the projects in Scotland were as economic, if not more economic than others. Our project in particular was highly competitive and very close to the winning bids. What we lack is the certainty of the CFD process on this auction. We operate in 13 or 14 different countries around the world. We are very, very used to auction processes. We are very, very used to strong competition. We have no problem with that whatsoever, but what we do need is a strong Government and strong regulation and control of the consenting and policy. It has to be a cohesive policy and delivery group to have different policy groups, different delivery groups, one Government responsible for one thing, one for another, and then local autonomy responsible for a third stream that makes it extremely complicated and almost impossible to get those projects through. We have a fantastic resource here in Scotland. We have an absolutely fantastic resource, but we are in danger of getting through a huge amount of expenditure, both by ourselves and by the public sector, because the Scottish Government has put a lot of effort, time and money into this, but we are still in danger of not delivering those projects. I have a lot of people here who want to ask questions, so I will have to rattle through this as fast as we can, because otherwise I will not get through the other wide range of issues. I think that Duncan and Lewis both wanted to have a quick supplementary here. Very quickly, I have found a session already very interesting in the divergence of views about how we should proceed and references to the Scottish Government on a couple of occasions. There is a slight contradiction about what you believe that the Scottish Government offers to the islands and some of them are named specifically, and the need to have a national focus on some of the development of those assets. Have you any certainty that the Scottish Government and its officials at this point in discussions with the UK Government are shaping the Smith commission's recommendations to a subsequent bill that takes account of your view? Have you handed any of those discussions, assurances from ministers or officials that what you believe is the Scottish Government's objective? Are they working alongside you? Have you had any of those discussions? What assurances have you had that they are proceeding on a line that would support your view? Angus is probably the person who picked this up, because I know that he is involved in the island group. I think that the island ministerial working group has met just recently with the minister, the new minister for the islands, which we are very much welcome. We challenged just on exactly that point. We have had an assurance that we will now start a piece of work where we shape the legislation that allows that to be delivered, and that is very much the expectation of the movement of our islands and our future that that happens. Were you reassured from that discussion that all revenues and assets would devolve to the islands or local government? I remain a sceptic to see and be assured when I see it in black and white, but can I say that the work that we have done in terms of the ministerial working group has been 100% followed through until now, so I would be very, very optimistic that that will follow through? I come back to some of the energy issues. I hear what Dan Finch says about energy policy, but he will appreciate that the Smith commission does not recommend evolution of control over energy policy. My question really is given that context and given the clauses that are in front of us in relation to Crown Estate, and this would be a question, I think, for Angus as well and perhaps for others, what would be the optimum way in which this goes forward to support renewable energy? In other words, we have heard discussion around devolution further to local government, we have heard discussion around expertise within Crown Estates in terms of management and the importance of simplicity. Given the arrangement that is here, do those clauses offer the right way forward for developers to be able to deal effectively with the Crown Estates or their replacement? I think that, just very, very briefly, and I am probably going to reiterate what I have already said is that I welcome some of the skills that the Crown Estate has demonstrated, some of the ability that the Crown Estate has demonstrated to act, if you like, as more of a commercially-facing organisation than I would normally anticipate from local authorities, for example. I understand what my panel colleague has said about the local authorities having a commercial bent and being able to operate, but the ability to use funds in a particular way has been one of the benefits that the Crown Estate has demonstrated. For example, I am not here to sort of talk up the Crown Estates, I assure you, but they have spent in the region of £100 million in supporting the development of the offshore wind industry. So, those are monies that they have diverted from their revenues or wherever they are from their budget. They have had the ability to invest in technology development, environmental management, a whole list of research work, for example, in how to drive the cost of energy down in the wind sector. They are not doing it because they feel that they are a charity or they feel that they should be supporting us as developers. They are doing it because they are trying to support a long-term revenue stream, as it is at the moment in the UK. They are investing a lot of money in that. £100 million in anybody's books is a reasonable amount of money, and that may be very difficult for the individual local authorities to deal with, to bring those sums together. There needs to be an element of central management. Whatever decision you make, they must be trying to deliver a Government policy, and that is, in theory, what they have been doing so far. That is a crucial factor for us. Essentially what you are saying is that from your perspective—I think that Angus Campbell might have—a United Crown Estate is easier to deal with, is that what you are saying to me? You are trying to put words into my methods. No, I am not. I am trying to draw it. I am not favouring one unit. I am simply trying to draw it to your view. I think that a common arm or a common body on behalf of the Scottish Government, let us not call it whatever name it is going to be called, but it is somebody that represents what you want to be delivered in Scotland. Angus would have a slightly different perspective on it, but I need to move on to other questions, Angus, but I will let you come back, Alex. The same subjects. We are okay. We have two witnesses who have talked about a positive experience of the Crown Estate, and we have two witnesses who want to take over the functions effectively of the Crown Estate. From what I am hearing, and I have not spoken to other people who are interested in the Seabed and the North Sea, for example, there is a fear of fragmentation, the spatial of expertise, competition for investment in some cases, and certainly an environment where there are policy differences between local authorities that could make it difficult to achieve results across local authority boundaries, for example. What can you say to me that will allow me to have these fears reduced? What I think I am hearing is that the Scottish Government does not have the ability to do what the Crown Estate is doing at the moment in terms of setting the agenda, in terms of setting the strategic direction. I just thought, as you were speaking there, that we have seen Palamas go out of business in the last few months. The Scottish Government has come in and created a body there to take that work forward. The biggest barrier to us in renewables has been the really weird system of consents that have stopped the islands prospering as they have with the Westminster. We have seen the policy being led by the Scottish Government in that we have worked alongside them. I do not see why there is a fear that that part of work cannot be done within Scotland. I find that really, really strange. I hear what individual couples are saying. It can be done within Scotland, but I do suggest that, as far as the Western Isles are concerned, it should be done within the Western Isles. I think that, at the highest strategic level, as I have said before, there is a layer there that belongs with the Scottish Government, just as ownership can sit with the Scottish Government. What I would say is that we can go to a level in these islands where you see the working of developments through. We have a track record of doing it. We have had, for instance, a 650 megawatt development going through the planning process very quickly. If you speak to developers in our area, they would say that all the islands are very reactive to the needs of developers. You see, at the moment, up in Shetland, some of the biggest oil extensions that you have seen anywhere. Those are massive responsibilities on local authorities, but they do them, and they do them well. If you agree with that area of discussion, do you want to add something more to it? I do wish to add something. Thanks, chair. Make it as significant as you can. Sorry, I just need to move on from this area. I agree with Angus on all that he said, and that a blend of expertise and a blend of input from national and local government is essential to the future. I wish to add one point here, which is that there is a disconnect at the moment between the national interests, commercial interests and local interests. If I could give a short example of that, during the recently extremely bad weather in the highlands, the communities that had suffered the greatest impact from renewables were those that were last reconnected to the grid. We had the shameful situation in which small communities around Loch Ness, surrounded by wind farms, surrounded by the impact of this technology, beleagered by commercial interests, were without power for seven days. We need to reconnect local communities to the impact, to the responsibilities and the benefits of decisions that are made. I am not saying that decisions need to be made by small communities, but they need to have a much greater say in how those decisions are made. Andy, you want to reflect on that, and then I will go to the Tavish, and then I will move on to a different subject with Mark, because I want to get the transition issues on the... Just very briefly, I want to emphasise the fact that the Smith commission and the command paper is not about how the governance of the Crown property rights in Scotland are decentralised after devolution. That is a matter for the Parliament to consider. It should start to consider it now, but it is a subject for it formally to consider after devolution, which is partly why I am a bit concerned about the way in which the proposed devolution is to take place and the scheme, which, it seems to me, has the potential to pre-empt what the Parliament might decide to do instead of being a fairly straightforward devolution issue. It is also complicated by the fact that there is a proposal that the current state commissioners continue to have an involvement in Scotland after the power, the rights over which they currently have responsibility are devolved, which seems to me both improper and politically very complex. I think that we are going to get a bit further into that when Mark asks... I am going to get into Mark's area question, but Tavish, I think that you've got one... Cementary, convener, for me, just in passing, the Smith agreement was very clear about the devolution of powers within Scotland of the island areas, very clear indeed. Mr Fincher, you make a perfectly reasonable point about your industry's concerns. It would be helpful to the committee if you could, in writing, or if your industry could quantify those business costs that you believe would arise as a result of any additional tier of policy and all the rest of it. I would highlight to you total building a £2.5 billion oil terminal, a gas terminal in Shetland at the moment, and they don't have those concerns. They've been able to deal with UK Government, Scottish Government, Marine Scotland and all the other regulatory bodies, including Shetland Islands Council's plan department, without those kind of concerns. So I think you need to be a little bit... If you can quantify it fair enough, but if you can't quantify it, I think at the moment, frankly, a lot of this is assertion. We are very much welcome to put written evidence to yourselves. What I would say, what I would actually like to really stress is the fact that we have had fantastic co-operation and fantastic work with all local stakeholders, particularly Moray Council and Highland Council, in the projects in which we work. The assistance that we've received is absolutely what I'm trying to say, and I'm very, very quickly, Mr Scott, is that oil and gas is different because it's completely controlled and there is a completely cohesive strategy on oil and gas throughout the entire UK. A lot of the offshore is consented through deck, for example, so it is completely and utterly a different case. We actually deal in a completely different way. One of the things that I should stress is that it's all very well going through the development process. It's all very well spending tens and tens of millions and the local authorities are spending a lot of time and a lot of effort in actually trying to get this, and so are the local communities. Fraserborough, Bucky, Wick, all the local harbours that will benefit from these types of projects, but if we don't actually build them, nobody benefits whatsoever, nobody. We can spend as much time and as much effort, but if we don't have a joined up process, then nobody benefits, not my company, not the organisation, not the industry and no jobs. So we need to get them through and they're so large. Thank you much, general. We move into a slightly different area now about transition issues and get a bit more into these issues and get that on the record. Mark, would you like to kick us off on that? Yeah, obviously, certainly Andy has touched or has gone into some depth in terms of his views around the transfer scheme. Looking at the scheme as it currently is proposed, there's a reference, obviously, to the explicit reference to the UK treasury. Given that the treasury has had involvement in the governance of Crown Estate, is it still appropriate for it to be specifically referenced in the draft clauses? I don't think so. I can't think of another area of devolved responsibility where there's been some kind of residual responsibility left with institutions in London. So, for example, if you're going to devolve the management of these Crown Property rights, that's what you do. You don't then see the Crown Estate commissioners continue to build up a new Crown Estate in Scotland, because that brings with all sorts of consequential issues, such as, shall they continue to have a Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility to Scotland, shall it report to this committee? Equally, I don't see what role the treasury has to play in this either. It should be a matter of straightforward devolution to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament then decides how it wants to decentralise those assets beyond Edinburgh. I don't know if any of the other witnesses have anything to offer on that specific question, or in which case I'll move on to... Sorry, Mr Fincher. Apologies for this, but I think I've already said this, really. To be honest, in another way, is that both treasury and deck retain control of the processes by which projects either go ahead or they do not. Irrespective of this, and I understand what the Deputy Convener says about this, it's not part of... Sorry, it was Mr MacDonald says that this is not part of the devolved powers in this case at this time. However, I would urge that we keep this... I'm trying to avoid the word interference, but this involvement to a minimum so that the Scottish Government can deliver what the Scottish Government wants to deliver. There's also reference in the command paper to an intention to transfer to the Scottish Parliament the competence to legislate on management of Scottish assets before the transfer scheme, although there's not a great amount of detail about that. Do any of the panel have any inclination as to what the reason for this would be, and what might that earlier competence be used for before the transfer scheme comes into effect? I don't know if... Andy, you want to maybe kick off? Address that. I'm unclear as to why this is being proposed. Clearly, once the... and all we're talking about devolving here are the property rights and interests of the Crown. Obviously, if you devolve them, you have to then be in a position to handle the on-going administration, the contracts already being entered into over pipelines and renewable energy and farm tendencies and all sorts of stuff. So there has to be a transition period where the administration of those rights is sorted out here before the actual power takes effect, that's not a problem. However, I am concerned that the reason why this is talked about in rather opaque terms in the command paper 5511 is that there is some suggestion that these powers will not be transferred until such times the Parliament has itself developed a scheme of decentralisation. That is not necessary in order to implement the Smith commission. You need to make sure that the Scottish ministers will inherit all the duties and functions of the current state commissioners immediately, but it's up to Parliament how then you decentralise those functions to local authorities, how you might have a scheme giving ports and harbors the right to take ownership of the seabed, et cetera. That's a consequential thing. So I think that the committee should be very, very assidious in its questioning, both of the Government and other witnesses, as to what in fact is the intent here, because I detect that the hand of the current state commissioners themselves in the framing of this, the proposal that they continue to have an involvement, and I just think that this is a recipe for chaos. Perhaps in different terms, do you think that what's being suggested there and what you seem to be implying is that a cart is being put before a horse, that essentially the transfer would require for preparation for the powers before the powers have come and before the detail of what exactly the scheme delivers is known, and that would be difficult to put together? Clause 558 and 5511 contradict each other, so it's difficult to interpret what they mean. I don't see any need for a scheme. There are clearly issues to be sorted about about defence, national security, on-going commitments, liabilities and all the rest of it. Those are administrative things. Those can be done under a piece of secondary legislation or a memorand of understanding or whatever is appropriate, but as it's proposed, they're in the face of the bill. When all that needs to be in the face of the bill is a few simple legislative amendments, such that authorities transferred to the Scottish Parliament, but you're right, there does need to be this transition, the Scottish Parliament and ministers need to be ready to take on these responsibilities before the devolution actually takes effect, but that process shouldn't be used to pre-empt what the Parliament might wish to do with those powers. We've just had a section 30 order in relation to votes at 16 and 17, which obviously was done on a fast-track timescale quite rightly. The amendments and the alterations that you suggest are the things that could be done outwith the scope of a single bill that could be done in a quicker timescale than what is being envisaged in terms of the delivery of the Smith proposals? The legislative clauses that I include in my written evidence are things that would be in the face of the Scotland bill 2016 or whatever. There may be a case for a section 30 order to grant to the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate over the administration and management of Crown property rights so that it can, at an early stage, begin to do the detailed consideration about decentralisation, for example. The Parliament could have that discussion anyway, but it would be outwith the legislative competence, so I think that that would be an interesting and possibly useful thing to do. I'd rather pick out other views before I move on to supplementaries. Does anybody else want to reflect any of that evidence that was given at Walter? Just quickly on the transition, the last thing that industry needs or tenants of the Crown estate within the aquaculture sector need is a long-protracted, drawn-out process that doesn't allow business as usual to carry on. I think that it's very important that whichever decision is made that somehow or other business as usual for existing tenants and industries is allowed to carry on without interruption and uncertainty. Angus, I see you nodding. You just want to put that on the record. I'd just like to agree with that. I think it's very important that we take a simple approach to this that we do in a way that everybody understands what's happening. Economic activity is in damage with that. Can I make it clear that we're not looking at another layer here, we're looking at moving responsibilities from one place to the other, we're not creating another layer? I'd just like to act with that as well, you know that it's as simple and timely as possible. Time moves on. The next bidding round for the UK CFDs will take place at the end of the summer, depending on the up-and-coming election, hopefully. If it's not a simple approach, we won't qualify. If there's any doubt about it, then Scottish projects will be disadvantaged again. I'm going to take a few supplementaries now. I think that it was Alison first, and then I'm going to come to Lewis. I'm going to direct my question to Andy Wightman. You spoke about confusion, conflict and chaos. I point out that, after the transfer of the crown estate will still be able to invest in Scotland, although, effectively, there will no longer be a crown estate, the Crown Estate Commissioner will still be able to acquire land and property, which would be administered and managed by the Crown Estate Commissioner. Why do you think that—what are your specific concerns about that, and why do you think that it's being allowed to continue? I don't know why. There's two broad concerns. One is political, one is legal. I don't understand why, in the same breath, one would devolve the administration and management, and then phoenix-like, a new crown estate would arise from the ashes of this devolution scheme to be continued to be administered and managed exactly as it is just now. The important thing to remember is that any property that Crown Estate Commissioners acquire is not theirs. They don't own any land. It's all acquired in the name of a third party, the Crown. Any property that they acquire in Scotland is owned by the Crown in Scotland. That leads me to my second point, which is that the Crown in Scotland is a separate legal entity from the Crown in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Treasury Committee inquiry makes that clear. The Scottish Parliament has authority over the property rights, for example, Crown property rights, so the Crown Estate Commissioners could find themselves acquiring land in Scotland, and then the Scottish Parliament might nationalise those rights. I just don't understand why you would devolve transport, health, education and then have some residual responsibility for an organisation outside Scotland to continue to have that same involvement. I want to ask about a specific property, an onshore interest, that seems to have been retained forcaneered. A property in my region is held in a limited partnership, half owned by the Crown Estate and half owned by a Jersey-based unit trust. It has been excluded from the proposed transfer. I just wonder why you think that might be the case in this particular instance. You may not know it all, but it is like a mega shopping mall on the outskirts of the city—probably a very profitable shopping mall. I just wondered what your views were on the retention. I would rather than to say that it is not a straightforward, it is a joint property partnership and there may be legal reasons why it is not straightforward to devolve that. Can I ask one very short question? You have suggested a different legislative approach. You have suggested that sections should be repealed, which effectively reserves the Crown Estate. I just wonder why you think that we have been presented with an entirely different approach to the one that you would advocate. I am keen to pursue it a little bit, because Andy Wightman said that an introduction does not implement Smith. However, I failed to seek the basis for that. I think that what you have put forward is an alternative way of implementing that. Would you accept that that is a fair comment that there are two different ways that this could be done and that the scheme adequately implements the commitments, even if it is not in the way that you might choose? The problem with the scheme is that the scheme opened up the potential to frustrate Smith's intentions. Why is that true? Because it is open to substantial negotiation. It has to be agreed between Treasury and Scottish ministers when it seems to me that the straightforward case for devolution is addressed by a few simple legislative amendments. The public would understand that. Is the essence of Smith not the negotiation of devolution from one government to the other? I do not think so. I mean that Smith makes it quite clear, in Para 32, that they want to devolve the administration and management. I think that any competent legislative process does that as simply and straightforward and transparent as possible. Lord Smith also made very clear in the Scottish Affairs Committee that the job that we were given was to devolve to Holyrood. That is the job. It is not to pre-empt anything, but what else the Scottish Parliament may subsequently do. I fear that within the scheme that opens up scope for negotiations to take place and complexities to be introduced that effectively tie the hands of the Parliament. I look at the proposal in your own paper and read five specific points, and then I read that there may be a few more consequential amendments. Is that not acknowledgement that, however this is done, there will have to be a scheme of adjustment in the legislative provisions? The consequential amendments will be to other little acts that reference the Crown and State commissioners and will be acts all over the place of our ports, etc. That is the normal part of legislative. I was not going to troll through them all. No, no, I understand that. I am not asking you to do that, but presumably that is something that government lawyers will do in providing a scheme. We will look at what consequences are. Why a scheme? I cannot think of any other process of devolution where we have invented a scheme to devolve what is a very straightforward matter of the administration and management of Crown property rights. I simply do not understand why we need this complicated scheme. One of the things you said just a few moments ago was that you were concerned about the scheme because it might delay the devolution of authority over the Crown and States until the Scottish Parliament had taken steps to devolve further to local authorities. I think that that fairly summarises what you said. No, I was not concerned that it would delay it. I was concerned that it would pre-empt it by binding the hands of the Parliament, by making it difficult for the Parliament to act of its own free will from Parliament to Parliament as to what it does with those rights because they are already tied up in the statute in the scheme. To devolve them further to local government? To decentralise. Is that not precisely what Smith says? Smith said that it is important to understand what Smith did say. In part 33 he said that there will be further devolution. That is not something, however, that the command paper should take any detailed interest in it because the political parties have signed up to that. In fact, Lord Smith himself, as I said, the job that we were given was to devolve to Holyrood. It then goes on to question 142 in the Scottish version committee in December 2014. L5, every word that is in here was signed up to by the political parties. And when the political parties say will be, that is an intention. But do you not accept that the purpose of the clauses is to implement Smith? And Smith says that it has devolved to local government. No, I do not accept that. I do not think—Lord Smith himself, the job that we were given was to devolve to Holyrood. The Smith agreement in word says decentralisation to authorities such as the island authorities. Yes, but I think that those arrangements come after the devolution to the Parliament is a two-stage process. But this is a limited spirit. I think that that is really my own. Okay, I think that is all on the record now. Stuart, on the last person in this particular area—I think that you said you wanted to do this one. Okay, I will come back to you later. Thank you, Mr General. Stuart. Thank you, Mr Richard. It is a very brief supplementary to this area. Just in terms of the devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland and the transitional period, is there an argument in that there is already a precedent there in terms of Scotland? And when the Scottish Canals come into being, when British Waterways ceased to have any dealings with the canal infrastructure and assets and liabilities in Scotland? The British Waterways Board transfer of functions order 2012 was a transfer of functions of a cross-border authority, of which there are 30 or 40. But the key difference between that and this current arrangement is that canals were already devolved in 1998. What was being devolved in the order in 2012 was the functions of a cross-border authority. What we have in the case of the Crown Estate commissioners is that we have a UK-wide body, the Crown Estate commissioners, who administer crown land in Scotland, which is Scottish public land. The management and administration of that land was not devolved in 1998, it was retained, it was reserved. So, this is a full scheme of devolution, as it were. It is not simply the splitting up of a cross-border authority. While you are on your feet, or using the microphone at least, can you just deal with the issue of agriculture that you are interested in as well, because I would certainly help a lot of speakers to get some contribution here? In terms of the issue of the agriculture and the sea bed, the Crown Estate is obviously at the control of the sea bed up to 12 nautical miles, and it has been the issue of the fish farming operations that are currently requiring the Crown Estate lease. In terms of the challenges and the opportunities for the agriculture industry and the proposed new regime, what would you say they actually are? First of all, the Scottish Government is very supportive of the expansion of agriculture, which is a very important industry in Scotland. The tenants of the Crown Estate are good landlords, so I do not think that the agriculture industry has any issues with that whatsoever. The biggest threat to the agriculture industry would be a period of uncertainty. If we enter into a period where we do not quite know who the landlord is, who the regulator is, that would be negative. At the moment, I do not think that the agriculture industry of any gripes whatsoever, with the current management of the assets in Scotland, which is why I thought that the best thing going forward would be to leave that existing structure in place for managing those assets on behalf of the Scottish Government, instead of the Crown Estate based in Westminster. I could also add into the issue of agriculture, the situation regarding marine tourism. This afternoon, there is going to be the launch of the first national marine tourism strategy that is taking place in Glasgow. In terms of going forward with agriculture and marine tourism, do you see any potential conflict of interest for local authorities, potentially granting planning permission and letting leases for fresh arms and other activities regarding marine tourism? Local authorities already have the planning consent, they have the power to consent or not to agriculture development, so that is not going to change. Whether or not irrespective of what happens with the revenue from those developments, it is not going to change that local authorities have the power to approve or reject an agriculture development. We heard earlier this morning the issue of the regulator and the beneficiary. Do you see a conflict of interest there if the powers were further developed? There obviously was perceived to be a conflict in 1999 or we would not have had the change, but I guess that it is a perception rather than perhaps a reality. However, if someone is both landlord and consenting, there would be perceived to be a conflict that would mean that if you grant someone planning permission, it would be to your financial gain. That is a slightly hypothetical argument, but it was the one that led to the changes in 1999. Is there any particular water that you want to put on the record when you have a chance on agriculture in that particular area, without going on? Very quickly, and I think that we will be back to what Mr Gibson said about the five areas. I think that the planning already is under the control of local authorities, so that does not need to be changed. You also mentioned Marine Scotland, and I think that, with no disrespect to Marine Scotland, they have really got their hands full at the moment with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Marine Bill, and I think that that has been discussed recently in Parliament. The last thing that we would want, I think, is for the workloads to be given to a body that is already pretty busy. Any other reflections on agriculture issues before I move on? Angus? Just very quickly, if you speak to agriculture developers in the Western Isles, of which there are very many, it is a very big part of the economy, I think that they would agree that the local authority has been a very active partner in the development of that industry. We are now seeing a change in how that industry works in terms of less localised, smaller enterprises moving to bigger ones. It is important that the local benefit of that still remains in some way back into the system. I really have an issue with what has been alluded at that there is a problem with permissions being given for activities that actually bring benefit to the area that you are representing and that you cannot differentiate that. If you apply that right across the board to all the activities that local government do indeed to what Scottish Government does, you are going to prevent anything happening. It is not impossible to have an open and fair system. Thank you very much. Rob, you wanted some questions on land issues in Highland Estates. I have a section on landed matters. Glendale live at estates, 57,000 acres, Fokkerbyr estates, 11,300, maybe around about 700 leases within these. There seems to be some resistance to the idea on these landed estates of them becoming the responsibility of the local council. Do you think that there is a difference between dealing with the offshore issues that we have been talking about and the way in which land might be managed by local authorities? I do not see a conflict there. I think that we are in a lucky position in the western aisles, where we already have 68 per cent of our land masses owned by the communities. I think that we have a very good track record of managing that. That is going to increase as time goes on. One of the important outcomes from that is that the economic activity on that land has actually improved. It has made a much better economy for people to live and work in. I do not see what ideas cannot apply to our input into the land that is privately owned, but it may be paying something back to the ground estate at the moment. Perhaps the answer for people in Glendale live at Fokkerbyr estates is to go for a community buy-out then, and they would not have to be controlled by a local authority. We have very good experience of that. We also make it clear that our request for control over the assets does not stop at the local authorities in any way, in any part, that there should be ways of this working its way down into local communities. We have, even in renewables at the moment, in the western aisles development trust that makes sure that the benefits are spread right across our communities. Andy Wightman wants to go. Steve, do you have any perspective from the highlands as well? I will come to Andy Wightman. I agree with Angus. The issue here is about supporting fragile communities and allowing communities to be close to decision making and enhancing social cohesion. The community empowerment bill takes us in that direction and gives us all of the means that we need to allow decisions to be made in the best interests of local communities. I will just briefly confirm that the landlord is not changing under this scheme. The landlord remains the crown. What we are talking about is who administers those property rights. I think that that is a discussion that should be had. Clearly, we need to discuss how the property rights in the landed estates are administered. That is a conversation that should begin now and it should be discussed in Parliament. However, as I said, that is a legislative decision that should be made after the powers are devolved. I have a question, because I am unclear about something. If you cannot help me, I will be asking the crown estate folk letter. There are three different zones that are explained in all of this, as far as the seabed area is concerned. The exclusive economic zone, the Scottish zone and the Scottish maritime zone. That phrase, the Scottish zone, is certainly used in the Smith commission in the draft clauses. Does anyone there explain to me what all those different zones are and are the clauses clear enough to make sure that we all understand exactly what we are talking about? Anyone have a go at that? I do not recall which clauses in the command paper relate to zones. Do you have numbers? Clause 23 refers to a Scottish zone, but it does not mention at the same time the exclusive economic zone, so I am not sure what the Scottish zone is. Well, what is being devolved or what is being proposed to be devolved are the property rights and interests held by the crown. In terms of the sea, there are two distinct categories. In my view, one is the territorial waters out to 12 miles, which is legally part of Scotland, and the second is the zone beyond that out to 200 miles, which is the UK continental shelf, economic, exclusive area, et cetera, over which the crown has certain property rights. There is really just two. You could add the foreshore, of course, but that is not really the sea. Are you saying that Andy, in terms of clarity, would understanding what that description Scottish zone means, because it is something new, I think, to put into the clauses, I think that we need more clarification around that. Is there anything else that you want to help with? Just to repeat, there is the best description of what the crown property rights are in Scotland is in figure 9 in the land reform review group. There is a ownership of the seabed excluding hydrocarbons within Scotland's territorial seas out to the 12-mile nautical limit, where that has not been granted out, and two rights over the continental shelf—that is 12 to 200—to minerals excluding hydrocarbons since the sedentary species from Scotland's territorial seas to the 200-mile nautical limit. Those are the rights. Okay, no. It's time for the Crown of States who are going to have to answer that one then. And I guess, unless you're some sort of expert, you can tell us about this. No, I'm not an expert. I don't have that skills, but in all our discussions, the three areas we talked about was the foreshore out to 12 miles limit and further out, according to next year. Okay, but this particular description has come into the clause, which I've never heard of until now. There is a question that you may wish to address, which is what happens in the area of off-Berwick that was subject to the adjacent boundaries order 1999, which is not clear to me in relation to the Crown property rights. Okay, thank you. There are some anomalies between the way it's treated within the 12-mile limit and outside the 12-mile limit, and the way the Crown has reacted to developers within the 12-mile limit and outside. So, for example, we have different lease agreements, different AFLs, agreements for lease, et cetera. And I think this is something we would certainly welcome, is clarified in when we go forward. We, for example, because my projects are out with the 12-mile limit pay a different lease premium, and this has made it, we are constrained competitively compared with projects that are within the 12-mile limit for some unknown reason. That's great. Could you rate this for that, Dan? I will. I would like to explain that a bit more to us, because of our constraints there, if we can sort them out as part of this process, and if sorting them is the sustainable thing to do, then obviously we need to look at that. Certainly well, Mr Gwener. Thank you. I think, Linda, you're the question. Yes, it's a sort of general issue that I'd like to comment on. I mean, I think everybody here knows that we've been talking around these issues for years and years and years and years at Westminster, at Holyrood, the last Scotland Bill Committee, et cetera. I think that Tavish would agree with me that we recognised that when we sat in the Smith commission and we wanted to get this right in the initial stages, so that we can then get it right further down the line in terms of further devolution, et cetera. I know that there's a lot of aspirations that have built up with people like yourselves on the panel over the years at what you feel could be achieved. I would just like your view as to whether the Smith agreement has put forward met some of those aspirations in terms of what could be achieved, and whether you feel that the draft clauses as now submitted could in fact meet those aspirations. That goes through more and more legal scrutiny. There's going to be more clauses in, more clauses in, more additions in it, and it's not going to be simple. I just want to reiterate the key thing would be if you could leave the customer-facing side of this operation in place, whilst all this happens behind the scenes, that would be a tremendous benefit to people who are tenants and depend on a working relationship with the Crown estate at the moment. We as an organisation believe that it's not up to us, it's up to the Scottish people to determine what they want, and they've spoken about what they want and you're representing them. What we would like, though, is just the ability to be able to compete and to be able to develop the resources that we think are fantastic and are here, and to make that as not as simple as possible, because it's bound to be complicated, but to make it a level playing field. We accept whatever the Scottish Government deems to be the way that they want to take this forward, we think. As long as there is a strong cohesive strategy, and that's always been the case on energy in Scotland, but there's as much of that, if the Scottish Government can control as much of that as possible, from the resource to the actual power being distributed, then that's good for us as an energy company. I'm just saying that in addition to the comments that I made previously, the command paper clauses, excuse me, open up by saying that the Treasury may make a scheme. That, to my mind, is not what the Smith commission, which you served on intent, is not to give the Treasury the option to make a scheme. Devolution should happen, will happen, and that's not what is in the command paper. Angus, you want to come? Just to say that what we don't want to see is that an easy solution for the customer facer is at the cost of what our communities have. What we're looking at is not a short-term fix here, we're looking at putting a system into place that will deliver benefits to our communities for many years going on. Can I say, we were pleased with the Smith commission that it actually, in paragraph 33, that responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. That was a significant marker, even if it was over and above what maybe Smith was charged to do. For us, looking at the outcomes, we want to see that translated into the legislation that comes from here, and that is the main point that we're trying to get today. I think that on energy generally, the Highlands would very much back as much control coming back to the Scottish Government, so we get a simpler system and deliver some of the fantastic assets that we've got. A significant marker, and if I could just remind the committee that the specific mentions of the island authorities do not include the mainland authorities and Murray Highland and Argyll and Bute have much to gain here. Or other areas? We hope so. On one point, just to make sure that there's clarity here, because Andy touched on a part from section 23 of the clauses where it says that the treasury may make a scheme transferring on the transfer date all of the existing Scottish functions. Would you accept that actually what the clauses are not actually devolving powers at this stage are giving the treasury power to devolve, and is that satisfactory? I know what Andy's view is, so I haven't heard a view from other people. I think that you probably have heard my opinion on this, is that it's difficult unless there is one Government or one Government controlling the entire delivery of renewables. It's more about the process here, though. I think that no one's disputing the fact that the clauses try to devolve in the way—it might not be the way that everybody likes the clauses to be—that they try to devolve it, but it's the process that's actually saying the treasury will bring forward a scheme. The clauses themselves do not allow for devolution. I just wondered if there was a reflection on that specific point. I'm sorry that I probably haven't caught on to that and seen that through, but my understanding was that it would be a devolution process to the Scottish Government. I'll read it again. You might want to go and reflect on this and come back to this then, because it says, quite clearly, that section 2390b, the treasury may make a scheme transferring on the transfer date of all the existing Scottish functions of the Crowley state commissioners. So people are absolutely aware of that. It's an important matter. That's not the spirit of what I thought was intended. That's why I need you to come back to us and give us some evidence to reflect on that point. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful for your attendance today. It's been helpful. It's certainly thrown up a lot of issues that we need to consider, and thank you for giving us your time and your expertise in this area. At this stage, I'll suspend the meeting until we go into the next session. Thank you very much. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we reconvene and welcome our visitors for the second session of witness giving today on the Crowley state issues. We'll just go straight into recognising who's here. I think that would be helpful. We've got Alan Laidlaw, the rule and coastal portfolio manager in Scotland for the county state. We have Gareth Baird, who's the county state commissioner for Scotland. Vivian King, who's the director of business operations and general counsel for the county state. And we have Ronnie Quinn, who's the head of ocean energy and energy and infrastructure lead in Scotland. That's quite a title, Ronnie. I think that Gareth, if I've got this right, you're going to act as a sort of chair for your panel. You'd like to just make two or three minutes' opening statement, so if you want to do that, please feel free to commence. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for giving the Crown of State the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the committee today. For allowing me to make a few opening remarks, I will be brief. I am one of the Crown of State's commissioners, that is a member of the main board of the Crown of State. I am also a Scottish commissioner appointed to ensure that the board is fully aware of and gives proper consideration to Scottish interests. I'm joined today by my colleagues who the convener kindly introduced there. Alan and Ronnie form our Scottish leadership team, and in her role as general council, Fevian is leading our work on preparation for Crown of State devolution. Convener, I'd like to place on record my enormous pride and admiration for the Crown of State staff in Scotland and the great work that they perform day in and day out. They are a small team, just 38 people, but the vast knowledge and expertise that they possess means that they punch well above their weight. Whether it's minimising the risks facing developers in the consenting process for offshore wind, or encouraging new entrants to farming, or supporting the aquaculture industry, or establishing local management agreements, our team has a unique breadth and depth of expertise that has served Scotland well for many years. I know that the staff will carry those strengths forward into whatever new devolved arrangements are introduced. Indeed, to that end, our team is already working hard to prepare for a smooth and prompt transfer of our Scottish management functions. We will continue to perform strongly up to the handover and beyond, and we will do all that we can to minimise uncertainty for our customers, staff and the communities that we work with across Scotland. We are very keen to engage with the Scottish Parliament, Scottish ministers and local government to help to find a pragmatic and workable way of implementing the Scotland Bill of Provisions relating to the Crown of State in Scotland. In closing, convener, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to give evidence to the committee. My colleagues and I will do all that we can to assist you in your deliberations. Thank you very much, Gareth. One thing I'm certainly a cute way of saying is that you've got a body of staff who work for you. Obviously, they'll have issues and concerns as we go through this, and we need to be careful to respect your relationship with them as part of this process, so I recognise that. We've had a lot of sectoral questions around the table earlier, colleagues, but I think that probably the best thing to do is try to get the issues of devolution arrangements and the transition stuff at the beginning on the record and out the way, because that's a big issue for the Crown of State, obviously, and then we'll get into the other areas of interest. With that, Mark, you led on that as part of the previous debate, so I'll just kick off with you. First of all, what role have you had in terms of the discussions around the development and the drafting of the clause, and with whom has that involvement been? I'll just before we kick off on that, if I may, just to show you that the attitude, the positive attitude that our team has taken, the Crown of State team initiated discussions with Scottish ministers or the Scottish Government teams four days after the announcement of the Smith recommendations. To give you the detail of that, I'll pass over to Vivian. Yes, thank you. Our involvement has been one of informing and providing technical input because we're the ones who've got the in-depth knowledge and understanding of our portfolio, of our business, so it's been for us to ensure that Treasury, who we've been liaising with, are adequately informed to enable them to perform the role of Government. We've been providing a range of information about the business, things like definitions of the business, the Scottish loan that was mentioned earlier, and in areas where, for instance, our seabed has an interacting focus alongside other sectors, DEC and MOD and so on. We've been providing that level of information. It's a complex business. I think the complexity of it shouldn't be misunderstood, and we're able to inform the process as a consequence of our knowledge, like we're informing the committee today. In fact, as we've started to inform Scottish Government officials already, I have a counterpart among Scottish Government officials of Graham Dixon. We've been talking to Graham, Linda, David Mallon and others about that specifically. We had some evidence earlier, which you were in for, that certainly Andy Wightman considers that there is a much less convoluted method of devolution of the functions of the Crown estate. Do you take a view on the method that he has highlighted? Is it one that you would be relaxed with if it were suggested as an alternative way to devolve those functions? Yes, I listen to that and I read the written submission that was put forward to this committee. I'm not actually persuaded that it would be faster or simpler. I think that it has a real risk of trailing wires. We are looking for absolute clarity in relation to the transfer of the management functions of the Crown estate, so that from the point of transfer, day one off to transfer, the business that we've been running as successfully as we have been running is in a position to continue running to that standard with customers understanding exactly where they stand in relation to us. The proposal that's been suggested doesn't actually implement the transfer, that's something that would follow. It doesn't deal with the enormous amount of detail that's involved in transferring a business such as ours. There is a lot more to it than administration, as my portfolio colleagues can explain to you. It also doesn't deal with the stakeholders that are recognised in DEC and MOD. I'm not convinced about that being the best route at all. My firm belief is that a statutory transfer scheme is the ideal vehicle. Of course, this is a matter that's being led by Treasury, but I'm very supportive of it. In fact, if I were to take my Crown estate hat off and if I were to be coming to you and I were to be advising you on what's the best way of ensuring that this complex business is transferred in the smoothest and most efficient and most comprehensive way, I would say, let's get it all down and dealt with up front so that everybody knows what's being transferred. A statutory transfer scheme is a commonly used form of secondary legislation to implement the outlines that primary legislation would identify where there's just too much detail to be included in the primary legislation, and that absolutely fits the model of our business. It is a very complex business. So the beauty of a statutory transfer scheme is, first of all, it would implement the transfer in one step. It would capture all of the detail around that business in one place. It's very transparent. It will call for input from ourselves, from Scottish Government and other stakeholders, so everybody has a chance to input to it, and it minimises the uncertainty. It's a very public process, and customers are very clear about where they will stand post-transfer before that transfer happens. It's essentially getting all your ducks in a row before you make the transfer happen. I appreciate that, and very briefly, if I may convener, at the same time, though, you've said on more than one occasion about getting this transfer all done and dusted, but even after the transfer of powers and the administration and management, there will still be a potential that the Crown Estate will continue to invest, build up a portfolio and have a role in Scotland after that transfer takes place, as things are currently drafted. Do you think that that's appropriate? Well, it's been suggested that that's unworkable, and I'm not sure why. I don't think that it would create confusion. There are other Crown Owning bodies in Scotland where we aren't managers, and we're not involved. We are a successful business. We are beating our market benchmarks on a consistent basis, and we would simply be one investor alongside others wishing to include Scotland as a place to invest. That's where we left off effectively in the last discussion area with the particular section 2390B clause. We did not also be possible to draw up legislation that devolved, and in that devolution say that the Crown Estate function will be devolved from a certain date in the future, and in the meantime, it will be that a transfer scheme, a member of understanding, could be drawn up just as adequately as it's currently designed in the clause. The transfer scheme will enable everything to be handled in one place, and it will implement the transfer of management to the Scottish Government. It's a case of organising everything sufficiently up front and then using that as the simple step to implement that transfer. I understand that. Everyone can accept that there needs to be an adequate transfer scheme that's got to deal with the complexity and the deep nature of your organisation, but that could be done at any time after the power was devolved at a given date in the future and a transfer scheme arrangement brought into place at the same time. That would create uncertainty for our markets, for our customers, for our staff who wouldn't have that clarity on where the transfer was going to go. It also wouldn't— As I said, a date in the future that was defined when that transfer would take place, that certainty would be there. It's my view that there should be that clarity that happens and is created with a scheme up front and can be put into place with legislation. To follow those points up, one point that was raised in the last evidence session was that there was something unusual about the wording, the Treasury may make a scheme. Would you agree that it's unusual or is that normal language for statutes of this kind? It's parliamentary council that does the drafting of the statute, so you should appreciate it. It's not me. My understanding of that was that that was a necessary wording to empower Treasury to deliver on the requirements of Smith. Is it, in your view, the Treasury that is included in the clauses because the Treasury is the Government department to which you are currently accountable? It is. Can I just ask about the matters that continue to be reserved, such as defence and oil and gas and so on and so forth? In the context of Government-to-Government relationships, there will be some memorandum of understanding. Have you been asked to give some thought to that as to what that might look like in the context of the issues that will remain reserved in the United Kingdom Government but are within Scottish waters? Do you presumably have a deal of expertise dealing with them at the moment or are involved, shall I say, in how those are being dealt with at the moment? We would inform the process if we were called upon by Treasury to do that based on our knowledge, but matters such as defence and oil and gas are very much matters for the respective departments. That's the wrong way around. At the moment, you wouldn't necessarily be terribly involved in those issues. Would that be fair? In terms of the running of our business now, I think it's probably best if I ask my colleague Ronny to handle that. In relation to the MOU, at this point in time, no, we haven't been asked to input. I appreciate that. There's not really much to add to that. I'm afraid we have interactions, obviously, with DEC who retain oil and gas rights for the UK and work with them where we can on particularly offshore wind renewable projects. We also have some liaison with the Minister of Defence in respect of the placement of some resources. However, going back to your original point, I can't say I'm terribly well-cited in what the intention was here. Stuart, is it in this area too? Just very briefly on this one. In terms of the transition and the offshore wind, have you had any discussions with the people in the agriculture industry and also with the marine tourism sector in terms of the changes and the proposals? We've got a small office and we have an open plan office. Most of what I hear at the moment is discussion with our team with customers and stakeholders looking for clarity and looking to understand what any change means for them. That might mean that it's their home, or their farm, or their rural context, or it might be in their business, or their mooring, or a lease. There's a lot of discussion going on, and it's really mixed. Some people have direct concerns because of business decisions that we are taking today that have 25-year life impact, if you like, and we've got to make sure that we continue to make those decisions properly. Others just want to know that the policy and the procedures will remain similar. I think that the area that was touched on earlier was one of clarity over different geographic areas, and that's a question that's being asked time and again about what will I get if I do x in this area, but will it be different in another area? I think that there's a lot of questions being asked, and there's a discussion at the recent cross-party group, as you know, about marine users talking about the advantages of looking at these assets and the management of them and the interests strategically to make sure that we don't get aquaculture conflicting with marine leisure and we don't get navigation issues and local conflict, and we all know about the navigation issues that are working at the moment. When people look at the sea, they quite often don't see how many uses are being used of a certain area, and that's where a lot of the discussion is having at the moment, is clarity on what will happen in the future and clarity on making sure that we're still attractive place to invest. I think that Mr Finch mentioned that for renewables. It's exactly the same in the aquaculture industry. The producer organisation has been very clear with us that Scotland adds a place to invest in competing with Norway or with Chile or other areas to come and bring industry to Scotland, and they want clarity as to where that might be. Mr Lidlot, if I may, convener. It is, yes. Mr Lidlot, at the moment of what you mentioned, you gave an example of potentially entering into longer-term contracts and then what would actually happen. What actually would the Crown Estate need in terms of clarity? What would the Crown Estate need to ensure that the services that they currently provide to these people involved in the other end of the contracts, that that contract is still going to be maintained and the service delivery is going to be there? I think that the key point that we would cover there is that we've got a statutory function to fulfil at the moment of managing the assets as we are set up. There's a discussion about devolution and we're open to that and we look forward to making that happen and delivery beyond. We've got to keep delivering at the moment. There are many land use decisions and land management and asset management decisions that I take on a day-to-day basis that are absolutely 100 per cent aligned with all of Scottish Government's policy about sustainable economic growth involving local communities, added value and investment into local areas. Most of them actually, as long as that continues and we know where we're going, the clarity on—I don't want to make a decision tomorrow on a 25-year land use that somebody says to me and we have the chair of the rural affairs committee here as well—could pull me up in three years' time and say, well, that was a silly thing to do. That clarity would be really appreciated to know where the direction of travel is and to make sure that we're still making correct asset management decisions. I could just add to this from a layman's perspective. Excuse me, at our last and most recent Scottish liaison group meeting at Bellsbury when we had about 23 stakeholders there, the representative from Scottish Marine leisure tourism spoke very passionately about the momentum that they have gathered over recent years. That has been an aligned industry approach with a strategic policy for Scottish marine tourism. I was absolutely flabbergasted when he said that it was worth more to Scotland PLC than golf was. He felt that the delivery of that strategy was not yet complete and he was very concerned at any fragmentation of that. It has to be looked at a Scottish view for that. He said that it is worth more than £300 million to Scotland. As you are aware, Mr Baird, the next step in that particular strategy is to launch this afternoon. Put that on the record. Well done, Stuart. Twice. I think that Linda had one specifically in that area. Then I will go to Rob Gibson. Linda, let me finish you up. Then I will go to Rob Gibson. Then I am going to change slight direction here and move on to another area with Alice and after you two for a couple of supplementaries. It is just something that Alan had said following on from Vivian. The Smith commission report talked about responsibility for the management of the economic assets being transferred. The draft clauses are also talking about transfer of wholly owned Scottish property assets. In the discussions that you have had with the UK Government treasury, if you have reached an understanding of what that actually means, what does economic assets mean and entail? The economic assets under Crown Estate Management are those that are wholly owned. They are assets that are traded. It is very much part of our wholly owned portfolio. In the transition period, which we hope can be smooth and therefore decisions that you are making are ones that will stand. One would not want to see people going into a situation where you are making decisions and then somebody else thinking that they were wrong. Are you going to continue to invest during the transition period? Is this going to be two or three years, at least possibly, before we get this sorted out? Do you want to take that off and then run it with them? Absolutely. I think that the phrase business as usual was used earlier and that is the way that the team is looking at this at the moment. I say that we have a statutory function to keep managing these assets and we have a team that is really proud of what they do, they are really good at what they do and they want to continue to see the good work that they have done for many years and in some cases delivered. They are really keen that that continues. Our normal investment programme of investing into our holdings, looking for new opportunities, will continue. Is business as usual in a different context? We have to be aware of the discussions that we are having here with the committee today that Smith has set out and the process that we are going through. We will still continue our normal investment programme in that way. I know that Ronnie would like to update you on his side of the business. Yes, thank you, Mr Gibson. First of all, I would fervently hope that we do not have a three-year transition period. I think that, specifically for the renewable industry, we really do not need or want a prolonged transition period. The more certainty we can get into these areas, the better. Mr Finch spoke about some of that this morning. As far as energy and infrastructure, we are continuing and still investing as we are going along the major and project that we entered into till the end of last year. We are making substantial payments in respect of that now and intend to do so for the rest of the year. Those investments are still running and still working and we intend to do so. How much gross are those investments? From my listeners, in Scotland, the major investment is £10 million. There are other investments that are gross in terms of offshore as well. There are, yes. Which amount, too? I think that, if we can refer to the latest annual report that we have sent out, over the past four years, we have invested just over £33 million in Scottish assets. Much of that is in the renewable side. That is quite a big input to the Scottish case with the skills that you bring with it in terms of the way that you focus your investment to help them deliver. You talked about offshore renewables in particular. Is the expertise in Scotlanders that is shared with other offices in London? Tell me what would happen in the transition to your approach to helping people to develop in Scotland. Are we going to have the skills transferred? What I can say is that it is, as you say, very much seen and the estate is managed on a UK-wide basis just now. I have some UK responsibilities. Other people who work out of Bellsbury have some UK responsibilities. Equally, people in the London office do some advisory work on some of the Scottish projects. It is not wholly clear-cut. I can advise that there are 12 people working out of Bellsbury who work in the energy and infrastructure portfolio, but there are many more who work south of the border advising into the Scottish projects and, likewise, people in Bellsbury who advise into UK projects. So that has to be unscrambled if we are going to have the management of the assets and so on in Scotland? It is one of the issues that I think the transfer scheme would hope to address. I think that Alison Smith wants to do. Yes, thank you. As we were discussing with the earlier panel, there will still be scope for the Crown Estate to invest in Scotland. I just wondered why that provision was included and how you think what that investment might look like. In particular, an example might be that the management of rural estates might be transferred to Scottish ministers one day, and then the next day the Crown Estate Commissioner could go out and invest perhaps in some other rural estates in Scotland. It seems to me that we have a devolution of what the Crown Estate is on a certain date, and then potentially you could be building another Crown Estate portfolio in Scotland, which would also have to be managed. I would just like to hear your views on that. We are absolutely clear about this devolution process, and we will do everything we can to accelerate that and provide information so that the outcome is best for Scotland. I think that the question that I might put back to you at the moment is pre-devolution. The Crown Estate is a £10 billion asset organisation. As Vivian said, our benchmarks out there in industry are recognised as being either at the top or very near the top. I am not speaking as a Crown Estate Commissioner here now. I am speaking as a Scott. Why would we not in Scotland want a very big, successfully managed business investing in our country? It is a business. If you take away the fully realise all the emotion surrounding the Crown Estate and all the rest of it. That response seems to suggest that the Scottish ministers will have the responsibility for managing anything that is devolved at a certain date, but the Crown Estate Commissioner can then continue to build up a large portfolio in Scotland. I do not think that it would be in anyone's thoughts, because none of the assets of the seabed or the coastal areas would be involved. I suspect that it is probably in areas of business investment into sectors that were involved in elsewhere, such as ports and harbours, energy and others. We are discussing schemes with our tenants at the moment that they are looking for capital investment in. That is alongside our ownership of the foreshore seabed, but it is also as a partner to help to unlock economic activity in key sectors to Scotland. I was not involved at all in drafting those clauses, but I suspect that it is there to allow that. If a large harbour was doing an expansion and wanted £30 million investment, that might be open to the Crown Estate body corporate from the south in the future, but I do not think that it has ever been intended that there would be any replication. That has certainly not been the thinking of our team locally. Can I ask for your current investment levels in Scotland? Are they on an upward trajectory? Is there a trend there? There is an upward trajectory. The last published annual accounts had the capital value at about £267 million. That was up about £30 million from the previous year, driven largely by the increase in capital valuation of some offshore renewable schemes that had received consent by that stage, so there is an upward trajectory at this point in time. Do you have any planned disposals of assets between now and transfer? If you did, would you have to seek permission from Scottish ministers to dispose of those assets? I do not have any planned disposals. Thank you. One final question. It is an onshore interest that is in the region. I want to clear this up. I am absolutely clear in my mind what is being talked about in the area that you quite rightly went into there. If the Crown Estate were to make future investments in Scotland, after devolution, will the receipts that flow from that come to the devolved Government or will they continue to be reserved? I would like more clarity in this, because I do not know if Tavish will agree with me, but this is something brand new to me compared to all the discussions that we had at the Smith Commission. I have it very clear that what you are saying is that, in your understanding, as at the commercial enterprise that you have talked about yourself as at the moment, is that there will be a transfer of what you currently have at the given date following the scheme or whatever. From that point on, you are free to start all over again building up a portfolio in Scotland. The investments that the Crown Estate made are assessed as those opportunities arise and are made in accordance with our investment strategy. As I have mentioned, we are a major investor in property in the UK. We would like to think that, with Government support, we could continue to be able to invest UK-wide with the advantages that that brings in terms of employment and skills and so on. That is what sits behind. What you are saying is that you have agreed with the UK Government that, following the transfer of what you currently have, the devolution stops there and you carry on as a commercial enterprise, potentially in Scotland? Potentially, yes. The command paper makes reference for it being possible for the Crown Estate to make investments in Scotland after the transfer and they will remain a reserve matter. Can I please have it put on record that that is absolutely opposed to any understanding at all that I had when I sat on the Smith commission? You do not have it on record. I think that it is a bit of a surprise to us, but whenever we are, Lewis? For clarity on that point, I can ask two questions. First of all, do the Crown Estate commissioners currently invest out with the United Kingdom or is investment confined to the UK? Therefore, you would be looking in a sense to maintain the ability to invest across the UK from Crown Estate commissioners subsidiary to the Treasury. Would it be part of the same or would there be a logic to the same arrangement that the devolved Crown Estates, as they would be in Scotland, would be in opposition to invest in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the successor bodies of the Crown Estates in Scotland chose to develop a commercial investment portfolio? I can only speak for the powers and duties of the Crown Estate under the Crown Estate Act and not for whatever purpose the Scottish Government might seek to put the management powers that were transferred. In principle, if Crown Estates, the current body is able to invest commercially in property anywhere in the United Kingdom and that continues to attach to the Crown Estate commissioners incorporated under the Treasury, in principle, a similar power could readily be available to any devolved successor body. I think that that would be a matter of policy for government. I am grateful for the clarity that you have already provided. Is there any consideration that, after devolution, following an investment, that a share of that investment should come to Scotland and that a share of it should go back to remain at the Treasury or is all of the income that might be derived from that activity envisaged to continue to be reserved in the Treasury? The Crown Estate would remain a reserved matter. I just want to be totally clear. We are going to find ourselves in a situation in which we, in effect, have two Crown Estates, one operating in Scotland and one administered by the Crown Estate Commissioner in London. The Crown Estate under the Crown Estate Act would continue to exist. What happens to the management powers that are transferred to Scotland after devolution will be a matter for the Scottish Government? Alex, I do not know if you want to ask a question on cohesion at this stage or would you rather reserve it to later? I think that I could reserve it to later, but I have a very small point on the same subject. Just to develop this further from my understanding, we have talked about the whole issue of investments. When the devolution process takes place, money that has been invested by the Crown Estate in projects in Scotland on the basis that it would generate a return, the revenue generated by those projects would become the property of the Scottish Government or a local authority depending on the schemes that take place. Where do those investments fit within the structure? Do you require to get your return on that capital before any revenue is redistributed? Or do you require the body that is taking over the management of that asset to recompense you for the investment that has been made? That is exactly the sort of complex level of detail that will need to be talked through as part of working up the statutory transfer scheme. The whole process of apportioning will require a lot of detail thought with the finance team on the Crown Estate and also in the Scottish Government. You have touched on one of the areas of complexity that sits with transfer of our management. Am I right in thinking, however, that in general terms there is no prospect of the Crown Estate retaining debt for which it no longer has the right to accrue any return? The Crown Estate will not continue to have any involvement in relation to the management that is devolved after the point. Revenue, do you need your investment back? If I can bring it down to a small level, if we invest tomorrow in a new building on a tenanted unit and we say it's £100,000, the tenant brings £100,000, we operate in partnership and there's an amendment to the rent of £1,000 for argument, that £1,000 will stay within whatever body is set up with the Crown Estate in Scotland. There would be no expectation of any apportionment of funds or anything like that. Investments that we made five years ago, their revenue flows through our annual accounts and the figures are £13.6 at the bottom there. If that's £13.6 plus the £1,000 for the investment that I make next week, that we envisage will all flow into whatever body is created by Parliament in Scotland. There's not any expectation that there would be any sort of averaging or anything like that. Try and simplify it, convener, slightly. I don't know if that's helped or not. It just brings me... I can understand the simplification, but it does raise another question in my mind. Then I'll come to Alison, because I know you've still got a question. You will now have the potential if a project was to develop on a harbour in Scotland, that the Crown Estate UK and the Crown Estate Scotland could both invest in that project. It's highly unlikely. Having been involved in those decisions in the last week, I couldn't ever envisage that happening at the moment. Thank you, convener. I'd just like to understand why a particular property fork and aired, which is in the region that I represent, has not been included in the proposed transfer. I'd also like to understand whether it generates a significant income scheme. How much revenue do we receive from it? Or does the Crown Estate receive? I think that it was mentioned with the earlier panel that there are likely to be legal reasons around this. Fork and aired is held in a separate structure. It's not actually a Scottish asset in the Crown Estate's Scottish portfolio. Our interest in fork and aired is a partnership interest, held in a mixed property English limited partnership, along with another property in Cheltenham. We don't have a direct interest in it. We don't manage that property. We have never included that property in our financial statement for Scotland, contained in our Scotland report. As a result of that, it's not an economic asset in Scotland, as envisaged by Smith. The massive shopping mall on the outskirts of Edinburgh is not benefiting Scotland economically? Our interest in it is not an economic interest in Scotland. Okay. Do you have no idea at all about the revenue that it generates? I believe that the revenue was in the region of £4 million net, but if I could, I'd like to provide absolute clarity on that after this. I appreciate it. Thank you, convener. I see it prolong this bit about the second Crown Estate. I'm just trying to get this absolute crystal clear in my mind. At some point, the assets, as Linda Fabiani was saying earlier on, will transfer to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish Parliament, but what is envisaged in terms of what we've learned this morning is that there will be a UK investment body, which will be called something, but presumably will be the continuing Crown Estate based in London, which can take investment decisions across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, and it could invest in whatever portfolio areas that body wishes to invest in. Will that be fair? Yes, it would. As we've said, we would hope that our investment in Scotland would be as welcome as any other responsible investor. When the Treasury were consulting you, as you very fairly described, right at the start of your evidence this morning, was this something that they introduced, or was this something that you suggested to them was a sensible way in which you can continue to do business across the United Kingdom? It was in the mix, really, because we talked about the fact that Scotland will remain part of the UK, the Crown Estate is in power to invest in the UK, so what does that mean? When you say in the mix that it was the Crown Estate's suggestion that you wished to continue to be able to invest, I don't mean you personally, but I mean the body, the corporate body that you would be able to continue to invest across the United Kingdom. Yes, the Crown Estate would wish to be able to invest in the UK, but our role was very much an informing role and, as I've explained, the process was led by Treasury. I thank you for clarifying that, and that was quite helpful to actually establish. As an aside to Lewis, I just said that it would be great to do that and understand why that should continue, but it would not also be appropriate that Scotland gets a share of the action. That's the point, I think, in terms of where I am, in terms of the revenue stream that would come in the future. That's an issue that we obviously need to take up with Treasury officials or the Secretary of State. I realise that it's not for you. Mark. I am very interested in the response to Alison Johnstone's question, and I want to explore that a little bit further. Mr Laidlaw used a phrase around something not being likely as a scenario, which is not the same as something not being possible as a scenario. I want to explore a possible scenario off the back of what Alison Johnstone has said. In the intervening period between the command paper and the eventual devolution, is there anything that would prevent the Crown Estate from entering into future investments in Scotland around the model that you have responded to Alison Johnstone with in relation to Fort Canard, where assets that are physically located in Scotland, but as a result of the accounting measures or the legal agreements that you have entered into, are not defined by the Crown Estate as assets in Scotland? That is to say that following the devolution of the Crown Estate, there could be a scenario where future investments that have been made in Scotland would not be devolved under that arrangement in the same way that would happen with Fort Canard. The Crown Estate's responsibility is under the Crown Estate Act, and we will continue to discharge those up to the point of devolution. Our investment strategy requires investments to be assessed as the opportunities arise, and investments are made in accordance with that strategy, and that is the way we deliver our Crown Estate Act duties. However, there is nothing that would prevent the Crown Estate from, say, taking a bundle of investments that cross both England and Scotland, but capturing those within an agreement that exists in England, as is the case with Fort Canard, so that all of those would not show on the books of the Crown Estate as a Scottish asset in the same way that is being described with Fort Canard, and therefore those would not fall under the terms of the clauses in terms of what would be devolved. That scenario could play out over the intervening period in terms of any future investments that are made prior to devolution. Would that be accurate? I suppose that, to the letter of the word, it would be accurate. I can assure you that there is absolutely no intention to muddy the waters at all in this process leading up to devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Absolutely none. You will forgive me that that is already in existence with Fort Canard, so there is already that precedent there that has happened with what—I am not familiar with Fort Canard, but those who are telling me that it is quite a lucrative investment or ought to be quite a lucrative investment. You will forgive me for the fact that the precedent is there and the possibility is there that we have to then, as a committee, take that very seriously in terms of our considerations for the implication of that for the devolution of the Crown Estate. We are just drafting or completing, should I say, our business plan for next financial year, and there is nothing that looks like what you are suggesting may happen in the business plan on either Ronnie or I sectors. We shared our business plan with Scottish Government colleagues last year, and we have agreed to do the same this year. I hear exactly what you say in terms of the potential, but, as much as I am able to say in my part of the business, there are no plans for that sort of structure. Indeed, all the preparations that we are doing with Vivienne mentioned in terms of discussions with Scottish Government are assuming that all of our assets will transfer as a package, as one, into whatever vehicle or body is identified. In terms of that, that is all that I can say at the moment. As manager of those portfolio assets at the moment, there is no such intention to muddy any water. We just want to deliver the assets that we look after today, and I think that Ronnie is nodding at the same time into the new body as they are at the moment. I think that that is as far as we are able, as members of the team, to clarify that. Mark, in the time that I have got left, I am going to ask what it is. We are going to write to you, because I think that we need some clarity around the fork. One of the things that has come clear around this table from all of our colleagues is the fact that we need as much transparency as we can possibly achieve as the powers are transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We are the body responsible to making sure that we scrutinise all of this properly. I think that we will write to you to ask you some further questions about fork and air and the arrangements about how the funding and mechanisms are working in the future, just so that we have more than we have gotten here on the record, so that in a written format there can be no misunderstandings. I think that that would be fair to everybody to do that. At that basis, I am going to Lewis on Energy. On energy matters, I will first ask whether I am right to assume that there are no unintended consequences in any of this for the oil and gas industry, that the scheme can be designed to avoid any unintended consequences. I am thinking particularly in relation to pipelines and other access within Crown Estate responsibilities for the foreshore and so on. In relation to that as well, there is a project, as you know, based on Peterhead power station for transferring what are currently pipelines for extracting oil and gas into pipelines for depositing and storing carbon offshore. That is a very exciting project. How will the process that we are describing here impact on that change of use offshore? Thank you. Just to follow on and to be consistent with what has been said before, I believe that what we are trying to do is to transfer everything that is currently managed by the Crown Estate in Scotland across to the Scottish ministers. That would include the renewable energy assets, it includes the control over the cables and pipelines within 12 nautical miles, and it goes back partly to what Mr Scott was saying earlier on about the interaction between oil and gas and renewable energy and the work that we do in respect of crossing agreements etc with cables and pipelines and managing that interflow into, or rather, onshore. You have picked up a good point with respect to carbon capture and storage, and in particular the golden eye field, which I think is the one that you are referring to, and that is also intended to transfer and you are right, the use of the pipeline and the site itself is also part and is intended to be part of the transfer scheme. I am quite clear on that. For that transfer, as it is envisaged at the moment would be to the Scottish Government, would there be any implications from further devolution from the Scottish to the local authority level for projects of that kind, and indeed for offshore renewable projects that are located between local authority areas such as the Murray Firth? I think that Mr Finch this morning alluded to his view of some of the difficulties and issues that would arise. Therefore, I would say that I have heard similar concerns being expressed to me by members of particularly the renewables industry. I think that carbon capture and storage is well beyond 12 nautical miles. How that would be dealt with, it would need to be considered quite carefully. It is of a very strategic nature, it has huge implications not just for Scotland but for the UK and for the world, because this is a world-leading project. I am very keen that we do not put anything in the way that is going to make that more difficult to deliver what is already a very substantial project. I am going beyond the 12-mile limit into the exclusive economic zone, the Scottish territorial zone. The clauses refer to rights in relation to the Scottish zone, and I confirm that that is, as we describe it, the UK continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles from the shore. As defined by the Scottish adjacent waters boundary, the order of 1999. More a question than that. It applies to the sea that is covered by devolved powers currently. I am under no doubt that all the renewable energy projects that we manage both within 12 nautical miles and outwith 12 nautical miles within the renewable energy zone, out to 200 nautical miles, are included. That is my clear understanding in the matter. I am covered by the wording of the clauses. I will end by going back to the beginning. I say one in terms of engagement with the UK ministers and officials and the reference to Scottish Government ministers and officials. Can we have an indication of the scale and scope of those meetings? Are there any minutes, agendas that are publicly available for the committee in terms of these engagements? We have met with Treasury on a number of occasions to talk about the process of devolution. I am afraid that we do not have any minutes, but the sort of things that we cover have included largely information about our business. As I mentioned previously, definitions might be helpful. I am sure that it is fair to say that a lot of the questions have come from our side about how the process will run. We have been very much in an informing mode for our meetings with Treasury. I have met officials at Scotland's office to talk about how we are managing the process now to get the business ready for devolution. That has been very much the focus of discussions with Scottish Government officials. I have certainly had one and there have been a number of meetings with Scottish Government officials, but there have certainly been some very focused meetings on the process of preparing for transfer. On Friday, we supplied Scottish Government officials with a number of documents that we feel will help us to work together to this common end. We have a project meeting set up for next Friday, which will include the entirety of the specialist from the Crown Estate with the specialist from the Scottish Government, who are assigned to managing the process. It is pretty much an all-day event, but I know that colleagues of mine have had other discussions about this and might like to contribute to that. Has there been any ministerial engagement at the UK or the Scottish Government level yet? It has all been by officials. I have not had involvement with ministers. We have been discussing it at the exact level, and I am not certain if I have missed that there is a minister assigned to this transfer at the moment, because there are different parts of the business involved in different ministerial portfolios. The initial discussions are very much on understanding what that means as a transfer. The meeting that Vivian talked about a few days after Smith was arranged with people who we have dealt with for many years and understand what we do, but maybe needed to understand how we do it and what that means as part of a transfer to try and get as seamless a transfer as possible. That is the sort of discussions that we are having. You have a paper that you will be presented with a number of challenges. You cannot share that with the committee or the public at this stage. We have put a paper to the Scottish Government about the sort of things that we think need to be covered, unless there are any problems anywhere else with sharing that with the committee. That has been something that we have drafted and taken forward. As a conclusion, I want to go back to the beginning. I am sorry, I am back at section 23 again, because the first paragraph or the first section of the Scotland Act said that there shall be a Scottish Parliament and Donald Dewar and I think that we all like that. If it is good for us to create a Scottish Parliament, why is it not good to create a Crown Estate in Scotland that says that the Treasury may make a scheme? Why can't it be that the Treasury shall make a scheme? I think that that would be a question that I would want to direct to Parliamentary Council. I was not involved in the wording here, so it is my understanding that it is empowering Treasury, but it is very much the draftman's territory. Would the Crown Estate have any objection to the word, shall it? I would not like to pass a comment in a sector that is beyond my territory. It is very much Parliamentary Council's territory. I will ask Alasdair Cymruco that when he comes before us then. I am not going to let that one go, I am afraid. Thank you very much for coming and giving the others. It has been quite illuminating. Gareth, is something you want to end with? I understand the concerns of your committee around the legislation. I must stress here that, as the Crown Estate, we are doing everything that we can to inform Scottish ministers and the UK Government about our activity and what needs to be done, what activity needs to be taken on to maintain the good work that this team has done in Scotland. There is one thing that we have not covered today because of the discussion around the legislation, but it is really the people. I just wanted to make a wee point here. We are doing everything, 100 per cent, to get this process through quickly, clearly and very openly. For our stakeholders, this is a time of real uncertainty and huge concern. In those stakeholders that I can talk about, we have talked about the aquaculture industry. We have communities out there with whom we have gone into local management agreements who have taken real ownership of economic activity in their area. They are concerned about the uncertainty. From my own perspective, I am a tenant farmer down in Kelso. Our agricultural tenants are very concerned about how that goes forward. Those businesses are multi-generational businesses. We are talking about not just their businesses but their homes. That takes real concern for them. Finally, the last word that I would say is that our own team down at Bellsbury is a time for enormous uncertainty for them. They are obviously concerned. My absolute determination in that is to get that team who have enormous intellectual capacity, resource and experience passed across the Scottish ministers for the benefit of Scotland. I will have to conclude now, because I need to move on. On behalf of the committee, we share the same concerns. I am absolutely no doubt about that. We have very much value coming along today in sharing what evidence we can. We obviously realise that at the end of the day politicians will make the decisions, but you have helped us to throw some light in some important areas. I am very grateful for your coming evidence. We are now moving into private session.