Welcome to the 25th meeting of the 2018 of the ECCLR committee. Before we move to consider the Scottish Crown of State Bill at stage 2, I would like to remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. The committee will now consider the Scottish Crown of State Bill at stage 2. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and her officials, Mike Palmer, Deputy Director of Aquaculture of the Crown of State Recreational Fisheries and European Division, David Mallan, Head of the Crown of State Strategy Unit, Laura Begg, Scottish Government Legal Division and Annalene Murphy, Parliamentary Council. We should note that officials are not allowed to speak on the record during these proceedings. The members may find it helpful if we have a reminder of the process. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments which sets out the amendments in the order which they will be disposed of and the groupings. There will be one debate for each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call on any other members who have lodged amendments in that group to speak on their amendments, as well as any others in the group, but not at that time to move their amendments. Members who have not lodged the amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate to me or the clerk. If the Cabinet Secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will invite her to contribute to the debate just before we move to the winding up speech. There might be times when I allow a little bit more flexibility for members to come back on points during a debate, again just indicate to me or the clerks. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the First Amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate in the group, I will check whether the member who moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press it, I will put the question on the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw it, I will check whether any other member objects. If any member objects, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must immediately move to vote on it. If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it is called, they should say not moved, and they should do so audibly. Any other member present may move such an amendment. However, if no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting on any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. I hope that that is clear to everybody. The first question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with all other amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that if amendment 8 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 35 in the group management of marine assets. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and welcome to your new post. The amendments in this group are all of a minor or technical nature. Amendment 1 is a technical amendment that takes account of two new acts, the gender representation on Public Board Scotland Act 2018 and the Islands Scotland Act 2018, which were passed by the Scottish Parliament after the introduction of the bill. The amendment inserts provision to adjust references to Crown Estates Scotland interim management in these two acts as a result of the renaming of Crown Estates Scotland interim management by section 1 of the bill to Crown Estates Scotland. Amendments 7 and 8 have been lodged in response to parliamentary feedback at stage 1, and my commitment to ensure that section 4 is sufficiently clear to give effect to the intention that Scottish ministers should be not able to direct a manager of an asset to delegate the management function of a Scottish Crown Estates asset to the Scottish ministers. I am pleased to lodge amendment 7 to address the matter. It clarifies that the Scottish ministers and, furthermore, Crown Estates Scotland are not persons to whom the function of managing a Scottish Crown Estates asset may be delegated under section 4 1. Amendment 8 is a consequential amendment, but, as you have pointed out, it would also result in a preemption of amendment 35. Amendment 19 is a minor drafting amendment. The duty to obtain at least market value for a transfer of ownership or grant of a lease, etc., can be departed from if the manager is satisfied that the transaction is likely to contribute to the promotion or improvement in some way. It is clear that the list of any socio-economic or environmental factors listed in paragraphs A to E of section 11 subsection 2. The inclusion of an or in that list makes it clear that the list is not cumulative and that a transaction may be made for less than market value if any of the listed factors is relevant. There are references to the Crown Estates transfer scheme within the bill. We think that it is neater to provide a definition of the transfer scheme within the interpretation section of the bill, as has been done with the Crown Estates Scotland order. That avoids the need to repeat the title of the statutory instrument in full, along with the number every time the bill refers to the transfer scheme. Amendment 29, therefore, inserts a definition of Crown Estates transfer scheme into section 43 with amendments 20, 21 and 23, consequently removing the full title and number of the transfer scheme from sections 11, 12 and 24. Section 25 of the bill requires the Scottish ministers to lay a copy of each annual report prepared by a manager before the Scottish Parliament. The bill, as originally drafted, prevented Crown Estates Scotland and other managers from publishing their own annual reports until the Scottish ministers had laid a copy of their report under section 25. Section 37 of the bill allows the Scottish ministers to delegate some of their functions, including the laying of annual reports to Crown Estates Scotland. To take account of that possibility, those amendments make adjustments to refer instead to managers being prevented from publishing their own annual report until after it has been laid before the Scottish Parliament to reflect that annual reports may be laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish ministers or by Crown Estates Scotland. That is a very technical bill, convener, and I appreciate that those are very technical amendments. I move amendment 1. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and to your officials. I simply want to highlight that although I fully appreciate that gender representation on public boards is already a legal obligation, I am very pleased to see it coming through into this context. Stuart Stevenson? I am afraid that I may not have fully woken up, so the question may be a dumb one, but I would just like confirmation that schedule 1, which is the list of bills to which we are just adding by amendment 1, is capable of further amendment after the bill is passed by order. No other members have any comments to make? I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up. I don't think that there's anything further, mostly I can add. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 30 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I invite Andy Wightman to move amendment 30 and speak to all other members in the group. My amendments in this group form two distinct propositions. The first is set out in amendments 30 and 31, and the second is comprising amendments 32 and 33. I'll deal with each in turn. The Smith commission recommended in its report, paragraph 33 of its final report, that following the devolution of management of the Crown Estate, responsibility for the management of these assets will be further devolved to local authorities. As drafted, section 3 gives authority to ministers to make regulations to transfer management functions to any person mentioned in subsection 2. It remains possible that ministers may not choose to make regulations or may choose to revoke any regulations that are made. In addition, it remains possible that regulations may be drafted in such a way that makes the transfer of management functions unduly, onerous and complex. Those are all questions to which there is no clear answer, but there are possibilities in the future. The Smith recommendation makes clear however that responsibility will be further devolved to local authorities. Amendment 30 is designed to uphold that cross-party agreement. It provides that the transfer of management functions in relation to the foreshore is a statutory right, which regulations must be designed to facilitate, and amendment 31 makes that clear. Why only the foreshore? Quite simply because it is one of the distinctive ancient Crown property rights. The ownership by the Crown is regarded by the Scottish Law Commission as a patrimonial right, derived from the Crown prerogative that is nowhere defined in statute, but is merely as the commission notes the predominant modern theory. It plays a distinct and critical role in coastal management, a function that more widely falls into the realm of local authorities. Its history is set out in a recent book by John McCaskill, published by Edward University Press. It is one in which the public interest in the foreshore has frequently been compromised by the long-standing requirement to, among other things, obtain best consideration from any sale or lease. Amendment 30 is designed to fulfil the recommendation of the Smith commission to provide that the transfer of management functions is as of right and not as currently drafted in the gift of ministers. If agreed, I will be proposing to bring forward subsequent amendments at stage 3 to the effect that any transfer of functions to local authorities relating to the foreshore will be exempt from the direction making powers under section 4 and to exempt it from certain functions imposed by other sections in the bill, but that is for the future. Local authorities should be free to manage the foreshore in the manner best judged by them to fulfil their own responsibilities and their own electorate. That is amendments 30 and 31. I will now turn to the second set of amendments in my name, 32 to 36, of which 32 and 33 are the substantive ones and 34 to 36 are consequential. Amendments 32 and 33 achieve the same purpose as each other, the first in relation to the seabed and the second in relation to the foreshore. The history of management of the foreshore and the seabed in and around Scotland's coasts has been very often one of conflict between the aspirations of local communities, local authorities and harbour authorities on the one hand and the Crown Estate commissioners on the other, and devolution I hope should change this. Of Scotland's 375 harbours and ports, 241 are owned and managed by local authorities, 24 by other public authorities, including Scottish ministers, and 33 are trust ports. They all operate under a statutory framework intended to secure the public interest and are critical to Scotland's marine economy. Schedule 5 of the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017 highlights the role of Crown Land to those harbours, as it amends a very large number of statutes, including the Pytton Weam Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1992, the Lerwick Harbour Act 1994, Confirmation Orders for the Burnary Causeway, the McDuff Harbour Revision Order 1999 and the Scottish Natural Heritage Empowerment Order 1999. The committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the bill should be amended to ensure that the seabed cannot be sold. In section 10, the bill provides that this is possible with the consent of Scottish ministers and in any event a lease of up to 150 years is pritted under section 14. Scotland's ports and harbours are routinely and actively engaged in development activity by way of new slips, piers, harbour walls and breakwaters that involve securing legal agreements with the Crown over the seabed and, less frequently, the foreshore. Amendments 32 and 33 are designed to make it obligatory that section 3 regulations transfer the management of the seabed on the foreshore provided that it is in the public interest to do so. I was minded, convener, to frame this provision in relationship to ownership of the foreshore and seabed, but given that the bill continues to permit the alienation of the seabed and leases of up to 150 years and no amendments have been lodged to deliver on the committee's recommendation at stage 1, I framed it in such a way that that statutory right is created for the transfer of management functions only. My view, however, is that such a scheme should include the circumstances in which ownership would also be transferred, given that lenders, for example, an Norwegian bank willing to lend £10 million to Lerwick Harbour Authority, may not be content with the security that rests on mere management or indeed a long lease. If the ministers are minded to agree with the principle underlying those amendments as they stand, I would be keen to explore how that could be extended to cover cases where the port or harbour requires ownership of the seabed or foreshore to be transferred. I move amendments 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 in my name. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The bill includes powers for the Scottish ministers to devolve management responsibilities in respect of Scottish Crown Estate assets and opens up the possibility for local authorities and community organisations to take on the management of assets in their areas. This is a key principle of the bill that was supported by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee following its consideration at stage 1. I wish to respond to Andy Wightman's amendments before I go on to the Government amendment. Amendment 30 cuts right across the proposal that a community organisation could take on management of an area of the foreshore, as it would restrict those who could take on that management function to local authorities. Amendments 31 and 32 seek to restrict the power to make transfer regulations as they seek to compel Scottish ministers to make regulations under section 3 subsection 1, transferring the function of managing assets relating to the seabed to a local authority or a trust port if it is in the public interest to do so. However, that fails to take into account that not all local authorities may have the desire to take on the management of an asset. Also, it fails to give due weight that another person such as a community organisation may in fact be better placed and could demonstrate wider public benefits in managing such an asset. As we speak, Crown Estate Scotland interim management is considering applications for pilots of local asset management. The scheme will test different approaches to local management and inform how aspects of the bill may be best implemented. The scheme is a clear indicator of community interest in management and over half of the 13 applications are from organisations that are not councils or trust ports. Amendments 31 and 32 would effectively prevent community organisations from becoming managers of those assets and, as I indicated, cut right across the pilot scheme process and a key provision of the bill. It is my clear intention to use the new powers in the bill to enable further devolution of management on a case-by-case basis. That will allow decisions to be taken carefully while recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach is simply not suited to such a diverse range of assets. It is not clear in amendment 32 who would determine whether the transfer would be in the public interest nor does the amendment define the seabed. The bill already establishes a process for the transfer by regulations and it is unclear how the consultation obligation provided for in the amendment would work in this context. Amendment 32 would in particular result in a more fragmented distribution of leasing responsibilities out to 200 nautical miles and representatives of offshore activities have expressed concerns about councils taking on seabed leasing functions currently managed at the national level. There is an overlap between amendments 32 on the seabed and amendment 33, which relates to the foreshore, as typically the seabed is understood to also include the foreshore. There is not a definition of foreshore contained within amendment 33 and these amendments will remove ministers discretion regarding the management of the seabed and foreshore. I also consider amendments 34, 35 and 36 to be unnecessary as provisions in the bill under section 6 sub-section 1 sub-sub-section B could be used to enable one or more trust ports to be eligible to become a manager if they were designated by the Scottish ministers as a community organisation. There are also potential definitional difficulties associated with amendments 34, 35 and 36 as they only add trust ports to the list of eligible delegates and transferees. There are at present other types of port that currently exercise public functions and could therefore potentially seek to manage Scottish Crown Assets. For those reasons, I would urge Mr Wightman not to press amendments 30 to 36. If Mr Wightman wishes to contact me to discuss his concerns about the ability particularly for a trust port to be a manager, I would be happy to meet him to discuss this matter in advance of stage 3. In relation to the Government amendment 25, both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee requested the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the content of regulations transferring the management of Scottish Crown Estates by the affirmative procedure if the regulations were transferring the management of an asset of significance or significant value. I recognise that concern and accept that the recommendations at a definition of what would constitute significance or significant value in relation to an asset should be set out on the face of the bill and also that the affirmative procedure should apply to regulations which would transfer the management of such an asset. I have reached the conclusion that a transfer of the management of any part of the seabed except where it is the foreshore is one of significance or significant value. The potential impact on third parties such as mariners is significant as is the potential or actual financial value and the wider economic and environmental significance of these assets. The amendment ensures that the affirmative procedure will apply to any transfer of management of strategic national infrastructure such as cables and pipelines, offshore wind, tidal and wave energy and carbon capture and storage. What constitutes part of the seabed has been defined within the amendment and includes the Scottish marine area, which is that part of the seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit and the Scottish zone, which lies between the 12 nautical mile limit and the 200 nautical mile limit. The Scottish zone is not owned by the Crown, but international maritime law gives a coastal state the rights in that zone and these have been vested in the Crown. Marine assets, which lie solely within the foreshore area, which is the land that lies between the high and low water marks of ordinary spring tides, are not considered to be assets of significance or significant value and will therefore be subject to the negative. Amendment 26 is consequential on amendment 25, so I urge members to support amendments 25 and 26 in this group and I also urge Andy Wightman not to press amendments 30 to 36. Thank you Cabinet Secretary. We have some other members. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, convener. I've got a particular issue I raised, but before I do that, I just want to pick up on what Mr Wightman said about leases and whether they can be used as assets for bank borrowing. The maximum length of a lease, of course, is 175 years after the passage of the long leases act by this Parliament in 2012. He and I worked on that, so we're both quite familiar with that particular act. Banks are much more imaginative in what they'll lend money against and habitually will lend money against long leases, which can, of course, be registered. Indeed, I remember being in a board meeting of the Bank of Scotland where we were discussing lending money against an asset, which was two stories of a building in Manhattan that had not been built, but for which the owner of the building had consented. The building had consent to build and to transfer to someone else, because the maximum in Manhattan is six stories. There are skyscrapers, but you need to buy the rights from others. It was an asset, even though it was nothing but clear air with no physical manifestation. Banks are much less worried, but more substantially, the issue that I really wanted to raise in particular in sections 32 and 33 was the definition of trust port. Mr Wightman is using it at 32.1e. In this part, trust port means a harbour authority other than one within subsection 1f below and then gives a list. One item on that list is any company having shared capital. Mr Wightman has told us that we have 33 trust ports. I do not know what they are, but, before coming here, I did look at the structure of Aberdeen harbour, which I think most of us think is a trust port. According to the company's house, Aberdeen harbour is limited, but there is one share and it is owned by the Aberdeen harbour board. The structure is a slightly complex one, because I understand that the Aberdeen harbour board is not an executive board, but is a non-executive board and therefore the powers and assets would be attributable to the company that has a shareholding. Therefore, the definition that Mr Wightman has used, and I am absolutely open that the researcher on this may not be entirely complete, but what I have done indicates that the particular definition that is being used may introduce difficulties and exclude some ports that we would imagine are trust ports. I suspect that that is not Mr Wightman's intention. The construction at 1E and 1EF in 32 is repeated at 1E and 1EF in 33. Of course, the further references to trust ports depend on the definition of the trust port at 1E and 1EF, although I am not entirely clear in 34, 35 and 36, where the references to trust ports are the same. That is exactly what the definition that is being used for them, because the definition used at 321E is restrictive in this part, but also 331E is in this part. I know that they are identical, but I think that just in drafting terms there is a little bit of confusion around that. It may, of course, be that it is only in my mind and I will wait to see what we hear. Claudia Beamish I want to preface my short remarks by saying that where I agree with Andy Wightman and where committee and I know the Scottish Government agree is that with the Smith commission statement that there should be further devolution and that is an important marker for these amendments. I've listened to the debate and to be open about it, when I came in I thought, yes. Now I'm listening very carefully and I do think that it's very important that these issues have a more robust way of being devolved to local authorities. In view of what the cabinet secretary has said in relation to amendment 30, I think that at this stage it is important that we recall our other deliberations in committee and also it happens to be that it's also my role as a spokesperson for land reform that the devolution to communities is also very vital. I wouldn't want it to affect that in any way. I'm not saying that I understand all the complexities of this issue in the way that others appear to, and I'm sure that I do, but I would at this stage ask Andy Wightman to consider not pressing the amendment 30 and associated amendments, especially in view of the cabinet secretary offering to have further discussion. I do think that there's an important issue that I just want to quickly highlight that I'm glad that it is recognised that tenant farmers in rural estates have a concern about the devolution to local authorities, and I know that this amendment doesn't cover that, but I think it's important that that is pointed out. In terms of the amendment 32, I'm again in discussion with my colleague Alec Rowley as well. We had thought that we would be voting yes. I would again ask Andy Wightman to consider holding back at this stage in view of the offer of the cabinet secretary. I do think that it is very important this amendment because of the possibilities for the ports and harbours and the trust ports and local authority, indeed, owned ports and harbours to be able to have the powers to do what they want to do without being radically held up, which I understand is one of the issues. On the other hand, I think, from hearing about the follow-on amendments as well, that these issues will need further discussion and refining, which is perhaps the purpose of stage 2. I would also like to support the cabinet secretary's amendment 25, and I think that the division between affirmative and negative is appropriate. Anyone who knows Andy Wightman knows that he is a champion of community ownership, but I agree with my colleagues that if we pass his amendments on the foreshore, to my mind, this will deny community organisations the opportunity of managing the foreshore. I do not believe that Andy Wightman, all the amendment that he wants to press, goes to the heart of what he wants to see. I would ask him to withdraw it and take up the offer to have future discussions with the cabinet secretary in regard to the points that he wants to make. I am similar to what Richard Lyle and Claudia Beamish have said. I have some sympathy with Andy Wightman's idea of further devolution and growing the trust ports, but it does appear from what the cabinet secretary has said that it is incomplete in achieving the ambitions that he is seeking to achieve. I think that he should accept the cabinet secretary's offer and withdraw amendment 35 and 36 and work to bringing forward an amendment perhaps at stage 3. I welcome to amendment 25, which introduces the affirmative procedure, and I agree with Claudia Beamish that the balance is now correct. Thank you. Another member wants to make any points. I will invite Andy Wightman to wind up, and if he could press or withdraw amendment 30 at that point. Cabinet secretary, if I could just say something before that, because I thought it might be helpful for the committee to hear who it is that has expressed an interest so far, the 13 applications that are already in, if members would find that helpful. Clide Fisherman's Association and Clide Fisherman's Trust, the Western Isles Council, Community Insure Fisheries Alliance, Findhorn Village Conservation Company, 4th District Salmon Fisheries Board, Galsin Estate Trust, Lochgoil Moorings Association and Lochgoil Jetties Trust, Malake Harbour Authority, Orkney Islands Council, Port Gordon Community Harbour Association, Shetland Islands Council, St Abbs and Eye Mouth Voluntary Marine Reserve and Tay and Arn Trust. Of that, there are only three local authorities expressing an interest thus far, and only one on the list, Malake Harbour Authority, is a trust port. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Andy Wightman, would you like to sum up and press or withdraw your amendment 30? Thank you very much, convener, and thanks for the various contributions to debate on this section. A number of members raised technical drafting points. I think that's to be expected at stage 2. I'm interested in testing the substance, though, of the propositions. I would just remind members that the Smith commission recommendation wasn't about should or would, it was about will. I take the points about community bodies, but there's nothing to prevent local authorities from further delegating or devolving their own responsibilities in that regard to community bodies. I've never taken the view that it should be ministers who determine those things. I've never taken the view that it should be ministers who determine community right to buy applications. I've always thought that should be local authorities. I think ministers have far too much discretion and control in this area. Amendment 1331 is designed to fulfil the Smith commission recommendation in its spirit, in other words, to provide a statutory right to implement the Smith commission recommendation, that these regulations will be used in order to fulfil that recommendation, that, as of right, they have that right to have that managed. Trust ports, on that point, there's no obligation placed on local authorities, either as the bill stands or under my amendment. There's no obligation to take on board these management functions, no obligation whatsoever, so those who don't wish to have no need to. On trust ports, this is very important. I do not agree with the cabinet secretary that trust ports are community bodies to be added to by order under section 6. Trust ports are established in the 19th century by statute. There are statutory bodies with a well understood statutory framework. I think that a scheme or some ability for them to have particular rights to have either management functions or, indeed, the ownership of the seabed transferred to them is an important one. I welcome the cabinet secretary's offer to further discuss that. For the record, I'm not proposing in this amendment that any rights to the seabed be granted outwith the normal area of operations of a port, which already, again, defined in statute, these lines are on maps. All ports and harbours have lines on maps over which their existing authority to dredge and set up moorings and all the rest of it is defined. Given the range of views that have been expressed on the amendments and given the cabinet secretary's willingness to sit down and talk about the issues that I've raised, I will not be pressing amendments 30 and others in my name in this group. Andy Wightman seeks to withdraw amendment 30. Does any member object? No. Amendment 30 is withdrawn. I call amendment 31, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 30. I invite Andy Wightman to move or not move. I call amendment 32, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 30. I invite Andy Wightman to move or not move. I call amendment 33, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 30. I invite Andy Wightman to move or not move. I call amendment 34, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 30. I invite Andy Wightman to move or not move. I call amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 16. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 2 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Scottish Public Authorities are one of the categories of those persons who are eligible to become a manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. The bill does not define what a Scottish Public Authority was and relies on the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010 definition. Using that definition potentially includes cross-border public authorities of which there are only two, the Scottish Traffic Commissioner and Citizens Advice Scotland, neither of which it would be expected to become a manager. The intention is not to transfer the function of managing Scottish Crown Estate assets to any cross-border public authority, which is a Scottish public authority that is exercising functions only in or as regards Scotland. Amendments 2 and 16 therefore provide that the references to transfer or delegation of functions to Scottish Public Authorities are restricted to those public authorities with mixed functions or no reserved functions within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998. That avoids any suggestion that Scottish ministers intend to transfer management functions to cross-border public authorities, and I encourage members to support those amendments. Thank you. Any other members wish to speak in this? I will invite the cabinet secretary to sum up, but I do not think that there is any need. I do not think that there is any need. I move amendment 2. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 4 and 6. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group. The set of Scottish Government amendments has been lodged as we identified a need to ensure that the relevant provisions of the bill permit the Scottish ministers to impose requirements on Scottish Crown Estate asset managers regarding the treatment of records. Part 1 of the Public Records Scotland Act 2011 already places obligations on the majority of Scottish public bodies in respect of the management of public records, such as the keeping, securing and preservation of such records. Those obligations would apply to a number of bodies who may become Scottish Crown Estate asset managers, including local authorities, Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish ministers. The legislation does not, however, apply to community organisations or, potentially, some other public authorities. As that would create a gap in the management of some records relating to management of some Scottish Crown Estate assets, depending on who manages them, I have concluded that there should be a provision in the bill to permit the Scottish ministers to impose similar requirements on other Scottish Crown Estate managers not caught by the 2011 act regarding the management of records. Amendments 3, 4 and 6 amend the bill to make it clear that Scottish ministers, when making regulations under section 3, subsection 1 and subsection 8, may make provisions about the management of records relating to the exercise of the transfer ease functions as a manager. And use section 3 subsection 7 provides a definition of management of records confirming that keeping, storing, securing, archiving, preservation, destruction or other disposal are all matters included in the power to make provision about the management of records and I encourage members to support them. I move amendment 3. No one has indicated that they wish to speak in this. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, are already debated with amendment 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 4 formally. Move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own. I invite the cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 5. Convener, section 3 subsection 4 of the bill, as introduced, contained a power to make regulations to transfer the management of an asset or any associated rights or liabilities which had been transferred to a community organisation by way of regulation in the event that community organisations cease to exist to another person who is eligible to become a manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. There is, however, also the possibility that a manager may dispose of any such asset or require new rights and liabilities during the intervening period or that a community organisation may still be responsible for rights and liabilities relating to former assets when it ceases to exist. To take into account the possible scenarios, the amendment has the effect of adjusting section 3 subsection 4A to allow transfer regulations to make provision where a community organisation ceases to exist to transfer the function of managing any Scottish Crown Estate asset and any right or liability that the manager may have in relation to a Scottish Crown Estate asset or a former Scottish Crown Estate asset to another eligible manager. I move amendment 5. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that section 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated. I remind members that, if amendment 8 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 35. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments, is shown in the groupings. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. The set of Scottish Government amendments has been lodged in response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommendations at stage 1. Amendment 9 addresses a desire to strengthen engagement with potential asset managers and other interested parties as part of the delegation process. Sections 3 and 4 of the bill confer on the Scottish ministers the ability, by way of two distinct methods, by which the management function of Scottish Crown Estate assets can be passed to another person, that is, transfer and delegation. In respect of the ability to transfer management functions, section 3 subsection 5 places a duty on Scottish ministers to consult with certain interested persons prior to making regulations transferring the function of managing a Scottish Crown Estate asset. Amendment 9 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to carry out a similar consultation process prior to giving a direction requiring the delegation of management functions. That will facilitate increased engagement with relevant parties, which we consider to be of particular benefit as delegation of a management function is likely to be a method by which community organisations take on management functions. The amendment ensures that stakeholders are involved in the process, that the views and opinions of potential managers are heard and that they have a greater ability to provide supporting evidence, which will enhance the information and evidence available to the Scottish ministers in the delegation process to inform the decision making process. Amendment 10 requires the same consultation to be carried out before revising or revoking any delegation direction. It also requires the consent of the proposed delegate for such a revision or revocation. Both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform and Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform committees sought clarification about what types of information would be published in the notice of direction under section 4 of the bill. Amendment 11 confirms the intention, outlined in my letter to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to amend the bill so that it is the direction itself that is published rather than a notice of the direction. As introduced, the bill does not require any publication of the revision of a direction. As a result of amendment 12, the Scottish ministers will be required to publish the revised direction. Amendment 13 is in consequence of amendment 11 to continue to provide that a notice of a revocation of a direction is required rather than the revocation itself. Amendment 14 is consequential on amendment 11, and it provides that the information that must be included in a published direction is, as follows, the fact that a direction has been given, the manager to whom the direction or revised direction has been given, the proposed delegate of the function of managing an asset and the asset in relation to which the direction or revised direction has been given. Information may be regarded to be commercially sensitive or commercially confidential depending on individual circumstances, and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and it may be necessary to withhold such information from publication in certain circumstances. Amendment 15 tidies up the drafting of section 47 subsection B in consequence of amendment 14. I encourage members to support them. I move amendment 9. Thank you. No other members have asked to speak, so the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated and invite the cabinet secretary 10 to 15 on block. Does any member object to a single question that has been put on amendments 10 to 15? The question is that amendments 10 to 15 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I move on to section 5. I call amendment 36 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 30. I invite Andy Wightman to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 16 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 2. I invite the cabinet secretary to move firmly. Thank you. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I move on to section 6. I call amendment 17 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own. I invite the cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 17. Amend the definition at section 6 1 b of the bill of those community organisations which are eligible to become Scottish Crown Estate Managers so that the Scottish ministers may only designate a body as a community organisation for the purposes of the bill if it is an incorporated body. An unincorporated organisation has no separate legal personality from that of its members. If unincorporated community organisations were able to take on management functions of a Scottish Crown Estate asset, this would cause problems if it wished to enter into contracts, own property or engage employees. It cannot contract in its own name, so as a result it is individual members rather than the organisation itself who would have to enter into contracts. There is a risk that office holders and sometimes even members of unincorporated organisations will incur personal liability with potentially serious financial consequences. For example, liabilities under a contract entered into on the organisation's behalf or for certain criminal offences committed by the organisation such as health and safety or to compensate third parties who suffer injury while using the Scottish Crown Estate asset or its facilities managed by the organisation. As unincorporated organisations cannot own property or take on a lease, that must instead be taken in the name of individual members. Difficulties then arise if that individual is no longer a member of the organisation as the property title will still be held by them. Unincorporated bodies are also not subject to the same robust statutory, regulatory or transparency requirements as corporate bodies. Although they would still be required to meet the transparency and accountability requirements placed upon them by section 18 of the bill, along with the requirements relating to management plans and annual reports in sections 22 and 24 of the bill, other difficulties may arise due to the lack of legal requirements placed on their governance and lack of regulatory control. This amendment restricting those community organisations which can be designated as a community organisation under section 61B for the purpose of this bill and therefore that can be given responsibility for the function of managing a Scottish Crown Estate asset. Two of those which are corporate bodies will provide additional reassurance for Parliament that those organisations taking on this role will be subject to a legal regime that allows them to do so effectively with less risk to individual members of those organisations. Furthermore, they will be subject to the same stringent statutory requirements both upon incorporation and in respect of on-going regulation which relate to transparency, governance and administration as those bodies under section 61A taking on management of assets. I encourage members to support this amendment and I move amendment 17. We have a couple of member's wishes to speak. John Scott. I welcome this amendment 17 from the cabinet secretary. We called essentially for this stage 1. I welcome the fact that moving to bodies corporate or full incorporation will give protection to all parties of the Scottish Government of the Crown of States and indeed individuals and as well as provide more transparency and a very clear framework in which to operate. So I want to welcome this amendment. Thank you, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. I was hesitating as to whether to speak or not because John Scott has highlighted the issues that I wanted to highlight, although I do think that this is a very important amendment. It is wise and protective in nature not least for community groups who may need guidance on these issues as to not getting themselves into difficulties if that does not sound patronising. Thank you. Will the cabinet secretary like to wind up? I do. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. And the question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I move on to section 7. Call amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with amendments 40 and 41. I would point out that if amendment 18 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 40 in this group. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 18 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 18 has been developed in response to the committee's stage 1 recommendations and strengthens the obligations on managers to manage assets in a particular way. It places an obligation on managers that they must have regard to the desirability of managing those assets in a way that is likely to contribute to the promotion and improvement of the wider socio-economic and environmental factors listed. We do not expect nor would it be good management to run the Scottish Crown estate at a loss. We want managers to look beyond the balance sheet, but we don't want to tie managers' hands where it is not appropriate to do so, particularly since there is such a diverse portfolio and there are obligations contained within wider legislation that managers will have to comply with concerning sustainable development and the environment. The solution that I have proposed seeks to maintain the value and income from Scottish Crown estate assets while obliging managers to take account of wider socio-economic and environmental facts in carrying out that management. In fact, Crown estate Scotland is currently developing tools to help them understand better, measure and monitor the social, economic and environmental value of the assets and this will be used to inform future planning and investment decisions. Their intention is for this to become core business and also to share the information with other organisations with a view to driving inclusive and sustainable economic benefit. Amendment 18 strengthens the bill but in a proportionate way. It is also important to highlight that section 1 of the Community Act 2015 requires any person carrying out functions of a public nature as a manager of a Scottish Crown estate is doing to have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out these functions. The new national performance framework that the First Minister launched on 11 June embeds the UN's sustainable development goals so managers will be required under existing legislation to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Similarly, the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 places an obligation on public authorities to act in a way in the discharge of their functions that contributes to the Government's goal of reducing emissions. I understand that amendment 40 also seeks to strengthen section 7, subsection 2, by proposing that May should be changed to must and is linked to amendment 41 which would remove all the wider factors that accept sustainable development. In my own evidence to the committee I set out the clear imperative to ensure that the value of the Scottish Crown Estate and the income arising from it is maintained, otherwise the net revenue paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund will be reduced to the detriment of the Scottish people as a whole. I also remain of the view that there is a clear imperative to ensure the value of the Crown Estate in Scotland is maintained. Devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland under the Terms of the Scotland Act 2016 resulted in the UK Government's block grant to Scotland being reduced by the estimated annual amount of net revenue earned by the Crown Estate. All of the income minus any running costs are now paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund to benefit Scotland as a whole. There is therefore a public interest in ensuring that the value of these assets is at the least maintained. Less money being paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund may have a knock-on effect on the operation of other schemes providing a wider socio-economic or environmental benefit. We must remember that this bill is not just about the management of the foreshore by community organisations or of the rural estate. It is also about the management of strategic national infrastructure, the telecoms cables, the oil and gas pipelines, the fuel for offshore and renewable energy, the rights in the seabed beyond the 12-mile limit of territorial waters. I recognise the concerns expressed about section 7 subsection 2 of the bill as introduced and that is why I lodged amendment 18. My amendment delivers the recommendation of the committee from the stage 1 report and I'm concerned that amendment 40 could have unintended consequences for such a diverse portfolio. Section 7 subsection 1 will allow our manager to focus on short-term gain at the expense of longer-term benefits. Such a short-term approach is by definition incompatible with a duty to maintain and seek to enhance the value of the estate as a whole and the income arising from it. I am therefore confident that amendment 18 is the right approach and that it delivers the helpful recommendation of the committee. I therefore move amendment 18. I'd be happy, however, to discuss further, following stage 2. This overarching duty affects key strategic decisions of managers, but members will be aware that under section 11 of the bill, managers are able to sell and lease, for example, assets for less than market value in the interests of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing or sustainable development. Amendment 41 proposes the removal of all of the wider factors in section 7.2 except for sustainable development. I clearly wish to see the reference to sustainable development retained in this section, but I am concerned that the removal of the reference to other socio-economic and environmental factors would be very unfortunate. Of the view that it is desirable that asset managers contribute to wider public objectives that economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing and removal of this requirement in section 7.2, may act as a barrier to a manager actively considering and contributing to such factors. Whilst we all want our natural resources, including rural land at the seabed and foreshore, to be managed sustainably, I do not support amendments 40 and 41. Amendment 40 competes with my amendment 18, which does not tie the hands of managers in taking strategic decisions. Amendment 41 would remove the references to other benefits beyond sustainable development, supported by stakeholders during the devolution process and in response to the consultation on the long-term framework. However, as I have already highlighted, I recognise the strength of feeling around the actual wording involved in amendment 40 and amendment 18. Therefore, I would be very happy to discuss the issue further following stage 2. Nevertheless, I move amendment 18 and urge members not to support amendments 40 and 41. There are a number of members who want to speak to them, but I am going to invite Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments on the group. Can I start by acknowledging the movement that the cabinet secretary has made by introducing an amendment that does indeed pick up on the recommendation of the committee? However, I am disappointed because I still think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what sustainable development is, which is a shame given that sustainable development goals are incorporated into the government's objectives and have been part of our legislation and understanding for many years. What stage 2 does is that it creates a list, a list of things, economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing, a list of things which are already incorporated into the very nature and notion of sustainable development. The whole idea of sustainable development is that the economic, the social and environmental are considered as a whole. It is important because it means that we consider win-wins and it is important because it means that when we consider the health of economic health of our communities we are also considering the environmental basis on which that economic health is delivered, an issue that I am sure we will return to in the next amendment. I think that it is important that this list on the 7.2 is not a pick and mix approach because a decision is justified on economic grounds without consideration of any environmental or social impact and likewise a decision on environmental grounds is not considered without due process and consideration of economic and regeneration social considerations. I think that in terms of returning best value for these assets, in terms of enhancing the value of these assets for future generations we need to put sustainable development and sustainable development incorporates all those other items that are listed on the 7.2 Therefore, I feel that those other items are unnecessary and that is why I am moving this amendment. We have some other members' questions to make comment. John Scott. Thank you, convener. I just want to speak to this amendment, the Cabinet Secretary's amendment number 18. While it may have been a committee's view at stage 1 that it should be must instead of me or that there should be movement on this I actually review and the Scottish Conservatives are of the view that the bill has introduced is absolutely fine. In terms of the word used in the cabinet secretary's amendment desirability I am not quite certain what that means in law or what the effect of it is in law and I would certainly welcome an explanation of that. Similarly I don't support Mark Ruskell's amendment 40 nor will I be supporting amendment 41 because I believe the bill as drafted is quite sufficient and while I take his point about this creating a list it once again highlights the lack of understanding as he has said of a clear definition of what sustainable development means because I suspect that he and the cabinet secretary are not on the same page as to what sustainable development means at the very least in this regard and I think if you asked all members around this room to write down on a piece of paper on sustainable development you would get many different answers so I think we're as well with the list which again reinforces my view that we should be staying with this clause as it is drafted and further like the cabinet secretary I believe that current estate managers in the terms of me should have the maximum flexibility to maximise all the benefits that the current estate can give both to the Scottish people and to the Scottish Government and I think that is my position Thank you Stuart Stevenson Thank you convener I speak to amendment 41 in relation to the deletion of four items from the list there in 72 specifically if we delete social well-being let's just consider examples of activities that would then not be possible because no reasonable person would imagine sustainable development an example might be where there is a current estate property and there is a property on that piece of land which is derelict which actually the community would benefit from the demolition and restoration of the area concerned to simply being a grass area I'm not sure that's sustainable development but it might well promote social well-being in a particular community and it certainly isn't development at all it's the opposite of development it's undevelopment you might almost say similarly if I look at environmental well-being it might be that there is a piece of ground to a previous industrial contamination and the appropriate response of the community to that might well be to wish to decontaminate that land visually it might remain absolutely the same we might do nothing with it and that might be the right thing to do with it after decontamination that too would not be development it would be a peripheral environmentally friendly sustainable thing to do but I can't see that it would be encompassed in the definition of sustainable development so on those two headings in particular and with the examples I've given I would find it difficult to support anything that deleted social well-being or environmental well-being from what the manager may or indeed must do Claudia Beamish I've added my support to Mark Ruskell's amendment 40 which places an obligatory duty on managers to promote the improvement of Scotland in the ways that is clarified in his amendment colleagues may remember I spoke on this issue at stage 1 and there was a good dialogue if I may say so with the cabinet secretary at that stage and I welcome the consideration that has been given to this issue and I recognise the cabinet secretary may have worded her amendment in order to avoid a situation where the nature of assets might be meeting one of the factors might be a practical impossibility if this is the case I would welcome some more discussion on this in the future because I don't think we're perhaps quite there with either amendment I would still very much support the word must being in there and amendment 40 does strengthen the duty for the factors involved and I just think that we need to look at it further so yes I will just for clarity I note that amendment 18 says the manager must have regard is that in line with what the member is seeking that is in line with what I'm seeking because our ability is weak and I would like to see that firmed up I think that there's further discussion to be had on that word I'm sorry to be perhaps seeming to dance on the head of a pin but that's where I am and sorry I haven't finished a convener if that's alright so I would ask Mark Ruskell to consider withdrawing his amendment 40 and I don't know if it's appropriate to ask the cabinet secretary to withdraw an amendment but I would do the same if I'm allowed to do that with 18 and I'm not minded though to support amendment 41 leaving only sustainable development as a mandatory factor leaving out the other four factors and it's actually not for the same reasons as my committee colleagues to Stevenson because I actually think that the examples he gave are indeed sustainable development because sustainable development can involve the removal of something that is no longer sustainable however I think while there is a clear understanding of what sustainable development is to my mind and I know John Scott and others disagree but I think there is a clear definition of it I do not know that everybody follows that and agrees with that and I think that such words if I give one example as regeneration are important factors that need to stay in that list because regeneration is so much part of what we're doing in Scotland for rural communities, coastal communities and so many of the communities that are affected by this devolution bill so although I understand that economic development, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing as the points made by my colleague Mark Ruskell are indeed all part of sustainable development as is regeneration I think it's pretty good to spell it out so I would not be supporting amendment 41 at this stage Thank you, Alex Rowley I think it's important to acknowledge that the cabinet secretary has taken on board what the committee said by bringing forward the amendment 18 although I don't think it is strong enough, that said I think the cabinet secretary did say that she would be willing to have further discussion on that matter and I think that that would be the best way forward at this stage so hopefully Mark Ruskell will consider not pushing at this point in time and likewise agree with others I wouldn't be able to support amendment 41 because I think it is stronger to leave those other definitions The cabinet secretary likes to wind up in response to that I just want to pick up on a couple of points first of all on the issue of the use of the word desirability which I think one or two members have said in fact that is a fairly common drafting construct so it's not an unusual terminology that we've dreamt up out of nowhere it's one of those things like a reasonable person where it's a widely understood way of constructing a form of duty which isn't an absolute legal duty so it's a normal process so basically what you're really trying to ensure is that we don't end up in a very diverse portfolio imposing that something that means all the factors in the list might have to be kind of looked at even when they're not actually relevant to very particular circumstances and we are trying to find a kind of line in between these things in this conversation because there isn't a purpose in forcing a manager down a tick box exercise when half of it simply doesn't apply so that's one of the things that we need to think about making sure that we're not imposing unnecessary constraints that through the convener could the cabinet secretary then perhaps explain would there be an obligation on managers to explain why they haven't taken something into account otherwise I just feel it's going to slide into oblivion that's not what the amendment says there might be a useful area for conversation about how we might look at this and take it forward in a way which ends up not tying the hands of managers we're trying to avoid a situation where managers are tied by things that aren't actually particularly relevant it may be an area where we have to think about guidance it may be an area where there's a way to come back and have a look at this we're all trying to get to the same place I just want to make some remarks about sustainable development and I guess the conversation that's already been had shows the slight danger of relying entirely on simply the sustainable development phrase and I just wanted to reiterate what I had said in my comments at the start which is we already have an obligation deriving from the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 that does require any manager carrying out functions of a public nature and that's what this is about this is what the Crown Estate Bill is about it requires them to have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out these functions and the national performance framework does embed the UN sustainable development goals so in a sense at one level that requirement in respect of sustainable development is already there and already imposed on them as it is imposed across all of those who are involved in carrying out functions of a public nature so in a sense that that requirement is already there under existing legislation the more detailed list is one which I think from my perspective that we would think is appropriate to consider and keep in the bill partly for some of the interesting conundrums that are raised inevitably by my colleague Stuart Stevenson who will always find some something of that nature but maybe what he's doing is highlighting an issue where there might actually be some debate about it whereas keeping the list removes that debate I think that Claudia Beamish has already said that so I move amendment 18 thank you from where I'll comment the question is that amendment 18 be agreed to are we all agreed okay we have a division give me a second right can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now and those against are four total votes against it's five not agreed okay so therefore I call amendment 40 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated with amendment 18 I invite Mark Ruskell to move or not move I call amendment 41 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated with amendment 18 I invite Mark Ruskell to move or not move not moved the question then is that section 7 be agreed to are we all agreed the question is that section 8 be agreed to are we all agreed right I call amendment 42 in the name of Mark Ruskell and a group on its own and I invite Mark Ruskell to move and speak to amendment 42 thanks very much convener and I'd like to start by perhaps just indicating the reason why I brought forward this amendment this amendment attempts to enshrine a golden rule that's applied to the harvesting of kelp for many years if not generations it's a rule that's ensured that the kelp harvesting sector has stayed in business and that the very environmental resource that that sector relies on is protected for future generations and the rule is the golden rule is really quite simple the rule is that kelp should be harvested in a way that doesn't prohibit the regrowth of the individual plant and the form of words which I've incorporated into the amendment is actually reflected in the licences that are issued to those who hand harvest kelp at the moment it comes from those very licences it's a very well established principle now what my amendment doesn't do is it doesn't ban mechanical harvesting of kelp but it does set a very clear expectation that it must be harvested in a way that doesn't prohibit the regrowth of the individual plant now if we were to consider forests on land these days we wouldn't be clearfelling ancient woodland we may consider perhaps pollarding or copicing an individual tree but it wouldn't be good practice to clearfell a forest in that way much is the same with kelp forests it's not sustainable to be clearfelling kelp forests as well and I think perhaps that the difficulty here is that once an area is clearfell once an area is dredged of kelp it will take many years for the bare rock the exposed rock to regrow the kelp and in some cases due to the changing ecological conditions it may be impossible for these kelp forests to re-establish on areas which have been stripped of their habitat so in many ways once these kelp forests are gone from a particular area they may be gone forever or certainly for a very long time and once they're gone we lose the benefits that these kelp forests deliver I'm sure many members have had correspondence over the last few weeks or if not the last few months about proposals to mechanically dredge kelp and what the benefits of kelp are to our coastal communities and our environment but perhaps if I could just pick one example underline for me the importance of kelp my understanding is that kelp forests provide a really important nursery for juvenile fish particularly cod, saith, pollock the white fish that of course our fishing communities depend on and when kelp dredging was introduced in Norway surveys going back to areas that have been dredged found that there was over a 90% reduction in the juvenile fish in these areas so we'd be removing the nurseries which support our white fish sector also the roots which are pulled up the holdfast as they're called the holdfast provide a very important habitat for crab and lobsters and I think this is one of the few environmental issues where I've actually seen the white fish sector and the creeling sector come together in opposition against mechanical dredging I can't think of another issue which has really brought so many diverse stakeholders together in their concerns kelp forests are priority marine features they're vulnerable to climate change so we should be protecting them and if we look of course at the policies from natural England they're advising against mechanical harvesting so I really don't think in Scotland we should be engaged in a race to the bottom over environmental standards having said that I also believe we shouldn't be stifling innovation a business can legitimately come forward with a sustainable way to mechanically harvest kelp but there should be this golden rule applied this legal backstop and I'll read it out again that kelp should be harvested in a way that doesn't prohibit the regrowth of an individual plant it's common sense and that's why I intend to move this amendment today thank you we've got some other members but before we do I'd like to make comment myself on one of my concerns although I'm hugely sympathetic to everything that Mark Ruskell has said and the idea behind it one of my concerns has been that we haven't taken evidence on this and allowed the opportunity for members to really drill down into what's involved in this and myself included another issue that I had as well coming myself from a background that's been involved in oil and gas safety was the fact that often innovation any kind of measures can also mean that things are safer for workers which take away the need to do any manual handling and that would be an area that I would have liked to explore should be had the opportunity to take evidence on this but I'll pass on to my fellow members Stuart Stevenson thank you very much in relation to kelp I'm as big a fan of kelp was Mark Ruskell indeed all the environmental observations he has made have considerable merit and indeed to see the Creole and Whitefish sectors agreeing I'm delighted to see that they're agreeing on something often areas where there appears to be some difference of view I think the real issue is whether this is the right way to address the issue of how we need to protect kelp and ensure that it can regenerate it's covered the proposal as I understand it it's covered by line item 6 in section 21 of the Marine Scotland act of 2010 which essentially means you need a licence if you're going to use a vehicle vessel aircraft et cetera to conduct harvesting of kelp and indeed there is a process I understand undergoing on that subject I did think that I too have received a lot of correspondence one of them and I only choose one the Northman's Shellfish Association but the particular point they make the ecological consequences of the industrial harvesting of kelp have not been specifically evaluated and I think that goes to the heart of whether this is the time and place to do this I will find it quite easy to support protecting kelp in an appropriate way but to have it come into this bill without having considered it the community has made reference to that and have taken the evidence on the two sides of the argument and make sure that when we move forward on the subject we do so on the basis of sound science I have no knowledge whatsoever to reject anything that Mark Ruskell has said and I'm not going to look terribly hard for it but I think the committee in considering things like this should always make sure that it acts on the basis of information understanding of the wider issues bluntly if we were to act in the absence of that what sometimes happens and it's always unhelpful and it happens you end up in the court with a judicial review possibly from the company concerned although I suspect the economic value of this might not justify the quite expensive process of that but I think there's considerable risk in doing it here in the way that Mark Ruskell is proposing and I would invite him to withdraw that amendment and he did work with the Government to see if the provisions of the Marine Scotland Act are going to read to the right outcome or indeed whether there's another way of doing it it means this committee or another committee has the appropriate opportunity to take all the evidence before coming to a final conclusion about the particular way in which we protect, seek wild kelp it's how we do it and where and when we do it Richard Lyle I also want to preserve and protect and ensure that it's there for future generations and we've all received numerous emails and Twitter tweets with the harvesting of sea kelp over the last few days and weeks but I'm also reminded as other members are that this committee has not taken any evidence on this from those that would be affected from any other interested parties in this matter specifically since the activity I understand can go ahead without a marine licence which includes robust process for assessing environmental impacts and am I not correct there's not even a marine application licence for this but I do understand the concerns however and I certainly will be taking notes of what is said by future members in the way that I will vote in this issue Thank you Claudia Thank you convener I want to speak in support of Mark Ruskell's amendment 42 it is absolutely right that the newly devolved Crown of State should be tasked with considering whether any future licensing for harvesting continued to be given on the basis of sustainability Mark Ruskell's amendment will ensure that licences are not granted and I quote where such harvesting could inhibit the regrowth of the individual plant kelp is as we have heard from Mark Ruskell a priority marine feature this is a clear indication that there are serious issues around its protection that need to be considered and sustainable kelp harvesting has a long tradition in our Scottish Indian waters it's been done with care and sensitivity to both our marine environment and the other jobs which depend on the kelp forests future kelp harvesting must in my view of course be continued to be sustainable and must not threaten the seabed habitats sea life and indeed the protected seabirds that feed on the sand eels therein nor should it threaten the nurseries for the young pollock cod and other white fish I have taken a keen interest in marine environmental issues over the past six years since being on this committee and its predecessor another significant issues to consider is that kelp forests along with seagrass and other areas of our initial waters are invaluable carbon sinks which merit great respect there is now recognition in the present climate change plan of the developing research into these complex issues which we ignore at our collective peril there is also Norwegian research I understand although I have not been able to investigate it further which shows an evaluation of the failure to regrow kelp after harvesting and I just point that out as well we should be taking the precautionary principle in relation to kelp harvesting and it is also important to ensure that sustainable jobs are supported in our coastal communities for now and the future there must be careful analysis of whether the present marine biopolymers proposal would lead to sustainable harvesting or not I just finish this point please but I do not see it as my role in committee today to comment on an individual application that would be inappropriate so I'm deliberately avoiding pointing out research or expert views which relate to this specific possible development yes I'll take an intervention I don't think anyone disagrees with the point that you're making Claudia the point I made earlier was we haven't taken evidence so I welcome what you've brought in but again I wish that I'd discussed this well before now I understand that point but it's because of the approach of a number of groups and individuals between stage 1 and stage 2 possibly partly on the back of this application which I don't want to refer to any more possibly not but there is plenty of evidence in relation to climate change in relation to carbon sinks in relation to marine protected features that actually point us in a direction and the direction I believe it points us in is in the direction of supporting marks amendment and I finally want to end please by saying that I do see it as important to highlight that in terms of this amendment there are many present jobs which are sustainable and depend on the protection and enhancement of the marine environment as clearly stated as an aim in the marine act 2010 these include creole fishers and we have heard from Alistair Sinclair only yesterday I acknowledge that the 400 members he represents 400 members and the creole fishers are in support and we've heard that the white fish sector has also put in information to us about their concerns it's also marine tourism operators hand scallop divers and kayak sea kayak companies and hand divers for kelp itself I've had emails from some of these asking for my support for amendment for the amendment today and I ask all other members to seriously consider whether this puts down a robust marker at this point in time to appropriately protect our kelp forests and we have some other members wanting to comment but before I do can I ask that you speak to the chair if you want to make a further comment to your original comment I'm not entirely keen on this intervention strategy this is a committee I'd rather that people speak through the chair and I'll take you if I have time Finlay Carson I welcome Mark Ruskell's open statement where he's brought something into the public domain that certainly needs to be discussed however I do agree in many ways with his statement but he also stated there was a well-established principle when it comes to harvesting of kelp forests I would agree that with much of his says but I think it may be somewhat inappropriate to bring the legislation in under the Crown Estate Bill or it would be more appropriately dealt with through the licensing system which if we get the opportunity should be viewed with a scientific background and actually we can see what the environmental and economic impact should be so I would welcome further work on that and I do welcome Mark Ruskell's amendment which will bring this into the public domain but I'm not sure that it's appropriate that it's dealt with under the County Estate legislation Angus MacDonald As we're eating this is a subject given the social media traffic and emails that I've received as well as the submissions that have come in to the committee in recent days and I would agree with you, convener and others that this committee must take more evidence on this before reaching a conclusion however I think it's worth stressing once again that this is an enabling bill and we're discussing an issue that's not as yet the subject of a marine licence application although I believe that a scope and report has been submitted to Marine Scotland but I don't want to dwell on that application but I have concerns that were strained into operational issues and what's effectively as I say an enabling bill however I also have to say that I do have some sympathy for the concerns that have been raised but I would ask a question to Mark Ruskell and that is if he thinks that the amendment is accepted today at stage 2 what amendments are we likely to see from members being lodged at stage 3 seeking to ban managers from doing other things so as I would suggest that this amendment sits out of kilter with the general duties of this bill which is my main concern on this and ideally I would like to see Mark Ruskell withdraw the amendment for the time being Thank you, John Scott Thank you, convener I think most of what I was going to say has already been said but I will reiterate it nonetheless unlike Claudia Beamish I'm not convinced that this is the correct place to introduce this piece of legislation into this bill, I don't believe it to be appropriate I do of course note the significant concerns of the different industry bodies out there who have contacted us I think both have points of view Like others, I hugely regret the fact that we haven't taken evidence on this subject and Stuart Stevenson made a valid point when he said it might not yet be too late to take evidence I know there is a precedent for taking evidence at stage 2 it's unusual but Stuart is a man who knows the rules and probably knows what I'm talking about and so I think there is a process to be followed here and I'm not sure that the proper process that is expected of this Parliament is being followed especially when I think Claudia Beamish by I said she was avoiding expert views and I find that surprising Of course Just for clarification that was specifically in relation to the dredging application which I was sent information about so I wasn't going to refer to that Norwegian example for that reason But notwithstanding if I may respond in that regard you've been quite keen to extol the case of the people whom you are obviously representing and very strongly and without giving any credence to any arguments that have been presented otherwise so I believe that there is a process to be followed and I think it is possible to act in haste and repent at leisure but I would urge Mark Ruskell to withdraw this probing amendment and perhaps the cabinet secretary might wish to discuss such his amendment and to see what can be achieved at stage 3 if at all but I think that there is perhaps a better way of going about this than the one that is being suggested in this amendment Thank you for the reason set out by Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish but I just want to pick up on a couple of points Angus MacDonald talked about managers being asked to ban the Harvesting of Well Kelp but that's not what this amendment is about and if this amendment was about that then these points that have been made about the science and having the evidence I think would be far more relevant but what this is asking is it's asking that managers must not grant a right to carry out Harvesting of Well Kelp where that principle of harvesting would inhabit the regrowth of individual plants and that's what this amendment is about and I think it's perfectly appropriate therefore that guidance and that clear direction is given on this bill to managers so that we do protect and ensure that where the Harvesting of Well Kelp is being taken place then that principle established principle is put into play so I think it's a myth in a sense to say the science if we were taught about bans then yeah but that's not what this amendment is speaking about Now it's been pointed out that during the Mark Ruskell's submission you did not formally move your amendment would you like to take the opportunity to do so now? I would like to take the opportunity to do that Thank you Secretary to speak to the amendments in this group Thank you I have very considerable legal difficulty at the moment given that there is a current marine licensing process being undertaken albeit at the pre-application stage and I am the responsible minister for whom that would end up being a decision making process I cannot therefore make a great deal of comment about this and I certainly cannot indicate any value judgment in respect of this issue one way or the other because that would be instantly prejudicial to an on-going process I want people to be very clear about that the pre-application process is part of the process so this amendment and I'm going to have to pick my way through a minefield now just to try and make a couple of points in respect of the situation that we are in today this bill is about the general management requirements for the assets not specific activities and it's also about devolution of management of Crown Estate assets to those with an interest in those assets and we've had discussions about community organisations local authorities etc with a view to increasing local control over decision making so the bill already contains powers for the transfer or delegation of the management of a Crown Estate asset and these include the ability to restrict the activities that a manager can undertake as a manager and that does reflect the ethos of the bill to allow decisions to be taken on a case-by-case basis amendment 42 isn't about trying to give effect to those principles at all but it's trying to bring about effectively a ban of one particular marine activity and that is the seaweed harvesting that's under discussion and I simply make the point that other members have made that thus far there has been no evidence gathering that would from my perspective adequately inform the opinion of committee members one way or the other and this is being proposed in the absence of any proper process there is an existing robust marine licensing regime that regulates activities the pre-application process is part of that and as I indicated at the outset that is already a under way the amendment therefore cuts across what the Scottish Parliament has already legislated for within the last decade a statutory regime which requires licenses to be granted before an activity of this type can be carried out and that regime does include a full assessment of the environmental impacts to take a decision before those impacts have even been assessed does not seem appropriate and is certainly not evidence based and that's not to say that we don't recognise that there are concerns about potential environmental impacts however as I indicated at the outset I'm in an extraordinary position here in that I can't actually really indicate of you one way or the other for fear of creating a difficulty with the process that is already under way if Mark Ruskell insists on pressing this amendment then I can only ask members to abstain and I am of course happy to continue to discuss this matter at stage 3 thank you cabinet secretary I invite Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment yeah thanks very much convener let me deal with one issue first is this an appropriate bill to be considering such an amendment I believe it is because kelp is a property right of the crown everything that is attached to the land forms part of the land so it is an appropriate place to be considering how kelp can be harvested sustainably in terms of the process of dealing with evidence and taking this bill through the Parliament yes I agree with members it would have been better to have had evidence on this at stage 1 but you know sometimes events out there in the real world overtake the work of this Parliament we have to be fleet of foot we have to respond to evidence and concerns that the public bring to us I believe that if this amendment was passed at stage 2 today it would still give time to consider evidence and representations from stakeholders and further discussions with Government ahead of stage 3 and a final opportunity to amend this bill one way or another this isn't enshrining a new principle into legislation this is a well established principle and I want to emphasise as Alex Rowley and Claudia Beamish have that this isn't a ban on a particular proposal from a particular company that's irrelevant what this is doing is establishing a principle a well established principle that already exists in the licensing of hand harvesting of kelp around Scotland and has been in place for many years and it creates a level playing field with what other other interests may wish to put forward licence applications to harvest kelp in the same way or in a different way it's not establishing a new precedent merely taking an existing precedent in licensing and ensuring that that has a more robust legal basis it doesn't determine what's a good way to harvest kelp or a bad way to harvest kelp it just sets out a key golden rule which is it must be harvested in a way it doesn't prohibit the regrowth of an individual plant and that's why I'll be moving it are you pressing your amendment? I'll be pressing the amendment the question then is that amendment 42 be agreed to are we all agreed? okay we have a division okay can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now and those against and those abstaining so we have the total votes for three total votes against zero and total abstention six therefore the amendment is not agreed okay the question is that sections nine and ten be agreed are we all agreed? yes we are call amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment one I invite the cabinet secretary to move formally moved the question is that amendment 19 be agreed to are we all agreed? yes I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary okay the question is that amendment 20 be agreed are we all agreed? okay the question is that section 11 be agreed to I call amendment 21, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 12 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 43, in the name of Liam McArthur, group with amendment 44. I invite Liam McArthur to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. Can I start by offering an apology to yourself, colleagues, and to the Cabinet Secretary for my late arrival this morning? There's a Justice Committee meeting on going to which I'll have to return afterwards, but apologies for that. Unlike colleagues, I haven't had the benefit of sitting through the evidence at stage one. Nevertheless, the devolving management of Crown East State Scotland to the communities with most interest in and reliance on the future use of those assets has been an issue I've been pursuing since before I was elected in 2007. I therefore welcome the bill and what it can help achieve, although I think like most of us accept that it can and should be strengthened, not least to my mind in unlocking and securing the benefits for communities arising from developments in the marine environment at the stage out to 12 nautical miles. To be clear, this includes but shouldn't be limited to the revenue accrued through rental agreements. It's also important that decisions over how those benefits are set, raised and allocated are taken at a local level. This is the underlying principle behind the amendments that I am moving. I appreciate that there may be those who are concerned about adding to the costs of projects, particularly in the early phase, where they may be more vulnerable. However, I'm confident that flexibility in my proposals and, indeed, the mutual interest of local authorities and developers in avoiding a situation where projects are effectively throttled at birth would ensure that a proportionate and potentially a phased approach is taken. In each instance, of course, there would be a requirement for detailed prior consultation. As colleagues will be aware, the Orkney and Zetland County Council Acts already provide evidence and probably a blueprint of how this might work. Over the past 40 years, local management and commercial extraction of marine resources have been achieved through formal agreements such as work licensing under the Orkney and Zetland Acts and agreements with the oil industry. Those arrangements have worked well, both in the interests of the local communities but also, I think, at a national level, too. That track record of our island authorities has been recognised and underpins how inshore regional marine planning is being taken forward and should be extended. The principle that local authorities should be compensated for disruption and convenience associated with development work seems widely accepted. We see this in territorial planning, albeit on a voluntary basis, and we're starting to see it emerging in terms of offshore developments, although, again, on a voluntary and, I think, patchy basis. Fundamentally, however, communities that have to endure the burden of development, dislocation, risk and exploitation of scarce resources must be involved in decision-making about which developments happen and which do not. A community benefit is a necessary adjunct of that decision-making process. None of this convener should be unduly controversial. Indeed, much of what I've said sits comfortably with the commitments made by the Government in their prospectus in powering Scotland's island communities. I realise the amendments may need some fine-tuning ahead of stage 3, and I'm happy to work with the Cabinet Secretary and our officials to achieve something that is workable. However, I hope today that the committee can see fit to agree the principles underlying these amendments so that we can take them forward. On that basis, I move amendment 43. Thank you. Stuart Stevenson. I've just got a small issue to raise, and that is simply where there are adjacent local authorities that might be said to share an area. An example I would give between Bute and Arran where there would be the 12-mile from each of the local authorities would overlap. I'd be interested just to hear how that is dealt with because the particular definition that's used to be is from mean high-water springs out to 12 nautical miles. In the case of Bute and Arran, that will overlap the two adjacent local authorities. Thank you, convener. If Liam McArthur does indeed press his amendment today rather than agree to any offer of discussion prior to stage 3, I will be keen to support it. I do think that it's a very complex issue, and I think that having looked at what the island local authorities have stated, their arguments seem to be cogent and coherent about, that is where the benefit should go for distribution. I think that they know their communities well, and as long as the criteria are set appropriately, and that they are occasionally to be blunt, they aren't on some issues to do with onshore wind, which I have experience of, I think that it's very good to support. I also think that the possibility of delays to the revenue coming in might be appropriate in relation to start-ups. I don't think that anyone would want to jeopardise the jobs and indeed the renewable energy possibly, such as carbon capture and storage, if we go down that road, that are just developing. In principle, a yes from myself, but possibly, as I say, there may be further discussion to be had. Thank you. Mark Ruskell. Thank you, convener. I had a question, really, and it was in relation to how this may or may not impact on the planning system and licensing. My understanding is that, at the moment, community benefit isn't a material consideration. It's considered as a voluntary contribution, it may be desirable, it is desirable, and it is reflected in government policy, but it doesn't form a material consideration in planning. I'm clear about how it sits within marine licensing as well. I'm just wondering if this is approved today, whether it actually changes that in any way and elevates the status of community benefit in relation to the determination processes that exist elsewhere in legislation. Secretary to speak to the amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. We are currently resisting amendment 43 and consequential amendment 44. We think that these are unnecessary, given that Scottish ministers have made a commitment to ensure that coastal communities will benefit from the net revenue from the Scottish Crown and State Marine assets. There are already wider arrangements in place that are promoted by the Scottish Government. In addition, the Scottish Government has for some time encouraged all renewables developers to provide community benefit, and that's the kind of thing that Mark Ruskell has just been talking about as part of any new project and promotes good practice principles in relation to that. We also encourage aquaculture developers to evidence community benefit as part of any proposed new development. The Scottish Government has no powers to oblige developers to pay community benefits for such schemes. That isn't necessary in practice, as there are examples of local community benefit schemes being put in place on a voluntary basis by developers in Scotland. With regard to ensuring local community benefit, we've had constructive discussions with COSLA and have agreed an interim mechanism for local authorities to receive a share of the net revenue out to 12 nautical miles. Having said that, I noticed that I was having a vigorous conversation with an official to my left, because I have to say that this sometimes happens with amendments at any stage, that our reading of this amendment would impose a duty on the Scottish ministers to make regulations about a community benefits request scheme relating to Scottish Crown Estate assets within the Scottish Marine region for the Orkney Islands, as defined in article 8 of the Scottish Marine region's Order 2015. It may not be that Liam McArthur intends to bring an amendment that is purely related to the Orkney Islands, but it may be. I can see that there would be advantage in a local press release along those lines. However, our reading of this and our understanding of this is that the way that it is currently drafted, it would apply only to the Orkney Islands Council. I am not certain that that is entirely what is meant by this. That is perhaps something that we need to discuss. Arrangements, and I am happy to have conversations with Liam McArthur about this, because arrangements are being made to distribute the revenue to coastal councils later this year for the purpose of benefiting local communities. We have agreed with COSLA that we will review the interim arrangements, including whether we can establish a closer link with the net revenue raised in a local authority area and how benefit to local communities can be assured. There are already active conversations in and around this area. I would ask the member not to press amendments 43 and 44. I am happy to engage with Liam McArthur on a discussion about how we can perhaps give effect to what I suspect is a general feeling around this rather better than has perhaps been drafted at the moment. I invite Liam McArthur to wind up and to press a withdrawal as amendments. I should start becoming clean in relation to the Orkney specific focus of the amendment. I am fairly sure that that was unintentional, but it may just become a muscle memory and force of habit. I think it does illustrate, along with some of the other points that, as I think I conceded in my opening remarks, these amendments were lodged with a view that they would almost certainly need some further work. I think that taking on the points that were raised during the debate in a tank, Stuart Stevenson, Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell for making those points, to Stuart Stevenson's point about adjacent local authorities. This does arise. I think that there are already examples within marine planning that would point it in a direction that might address some of those, whether it is competing interests or mutual interests, how those might be properly balanced. I welcome Claudia Beamish's support for the principle underlying the amendment. I think that she is right, that the cabinet secretary has illustrated the complexity of this, but I think that the arguments, as she said, put forward by local authorities have been cogent and coherent in terms of articulating the underlying principle behind them. In terms of Mark Ruskell's point about the impact on marine licensing and community benefit not being a material consideration in planning, I think that, as I said in my opening remarks, while community benefit has been a feature of planning applications in land-based developments, this has been on a voluntary basis, it has been patchy, I know, in my own Orkney constituency. I can point to examples in the early stages where this was, I think, fairly unsatisfactory. While the process for arriving at that may have improved, that communities are better cited on what has been negotiated in other similar circumstances, it still remains the case that that is, on a voluntary basis, a concern that, for some of the developments that we are looking at, that a firmer right is required. I note the conversations that the cabinet secretary indicated on going with COSLA. I thank her for her invitation to continue the discussions on what might be achieved at stage 3. On that basis, I will not move amendment 43 at this stage. Thank you. Liam McArthur seeks to withdraw amendment 43. Does any member object? No? Amendment 43 is withdrawn. That means that the question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 27. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 22 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 22 inserts a new section after section 14, which makes provision about rights and liabilities. The amendment makes it clear that the costs and liabilities associated with managing a Scottish Crown Estate asset must be met from Scottish Crown Estate funds and cannot be met from any other funds that the manager has in respect of any other purpose. The amendment also gives the Scottish ministers a power to make regulations transferring rights and liabilities between managers which can be exercised at a time even when the management function is not also being transferred or delegated. This power is additional to the power contained in section 3 subsection 1b to transfer rights and liabilities which may be used only at the time when a transfer of management of an asset is being made. The power relates to rights and liabilities relating to Scottish Crown Estate assets, former assets and historic Scottish assets, assets that once formed part of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Amendment 27 provides that regulations made under the new section will be subject to affirmative procedure if they textually amend an act and otherwise will be subject to the negative procedure. I move amendment 22. Thank you. No other members wish to speak. I imagine that the current secretary does not want to wind up. No. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 15 to 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 37 in the name of Andy Wightman, group with amendments 38 and 39. I invite Andy Wightman to move amendment 37 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 37. Section 20 of the bill places a duty on Scottish ministers to prepare a strategic management plan for the Scottish Crown Estate. By way of introduction, I want to spell out briefly why I have lodged these amendments. The Smith commission recommended in recommendation 32 that responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate's economic assets in Scotland and the revenue generated from those assets will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The management was devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, but the revenues were not. They remain reserved, notwithstanding that the Civilist Act 1952 provides that the revenues of the Scottish Crown Estate shall be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The reason for that on-going reservation is yet to be established, but one explanation is that the Treasury will protect in the interests of the monarch and their successors who have a constitutional obligation to surrender the revenues of the Crown at the beginning of every reign. It is worth noting that if that does not happen, then this bill will be rendered meaningless. The failure to devolve the revenues is why Scottish ministers are having to have discussions with COSLA to work out a way of implementing their commitment to transfer 100 per cent of the net revenues out to the 12 nautical miles to local authorities. The 2016 act constrains the freedoms of this Parliament to legislate over management and provides a no scope whatsoever to legislate in respect of revenues. That is why I lodged four amendments that would have exercised the devolved competence to legislate on Crown property rights that were provided in section 3 1 of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. Those amendments were to extinguish the Crown's rights in native oysters and mussels, extinguish the Crown's rights in the foreshore, extinguish the Crown's rights in the seabed and extinguish the rights of the Crown in naturally occurring gold and silver by repealing the Royal Mines Act of 1424. Those rights, in my view, are a feudal relic and anachronism in relation to any modern system of land tenure and should have no place in that system. I was disappointed, however, that the convener ruled those amendments of being out with the scope of the bill. By removing those rights from Scotland's system of land tenure, they would be taken out with the Crown State and out with the constraints imposed by both the 2016 act and this bill and the attempt by a future monarch to refuse to surrender Crown revenues. I will continue to make the case for doing this at stage 3 and be happy to enter discussions with the minister if she is minded to contemplate such a move. That is by way of explanation and as an alternative to those amendments ruled out of scope, I have lodged an amendment that would place a duty on ministers to set out their view on the desirability of doing precisely those things that I would prefer to be done today in this bill. Amendments 38 and 39 are designed to prevent this duty being delegated to Crown Estate Scotland. To be clear, amendment 37, which is a substantive one, requires that in any strategic plan for the Crown Estate Scotland that ministers express their views on the desirability of extinguishing the Crown's property rights and interests in naturally occurring oysters and mussels, the foreshore of the seabed and Golden Silver, which is vested in the Crown under the Royal Minds Act of 1424, I think is the oldest statute on the Scottish statute book. Thank you, convener. Stuart Stevenson. Let me first congratulate Andy Wightman on moving the bar backwards the previous oldest act that I think we referred to in debate was the 1491 Common Good Act, which he will recognise. The 1424 Royal Minds Act moves the boundary even further back. In his remarks, Andy Wightman said that the effect of this is to abolish the Royal Minds Act. It is quite a short act. It is but two lines and essentially is an act that nationalises the extract of silver and gold where there are three half pennies of silver in one pound. The question therefore is what is the effect of abolishing the act. Therefore, it undoes the nationalisation and transfer of other people's assets to the Crown. There is, I understand, only one gold mine in Scotland. I understand that at the time of the 1424 act the local government of that gold mine was in land owned by the Campbells. Therefore, the abolition of the 1424 act is to transfer back to the Campbells their rights to gold and silver. I will. You will have an opportunity to answer some of these points later. I appreciate that, but at this stage I just want to clarify that you will have a chance to I would like to hear from Stuart Stevenson and then you can answer them. If that is Mr Whiteman's intention well, fair enough, he is entitled to have that intention it would not be one that I would support. If of course he has as he suggested his amendments will abolish their all mountains act I am not quite sure how it will have that practical effect then I think we kind of need to know then what and I am not sure that the amendments before us currently deal with the then what question, convener. Thank you, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. I am clear that anything that will abolish further feudalism in Scotland in this day and age is an imperative. I think the issues are complex and I haven't perhaps just to be open about it made the time to delve into the detail of this and it's no excuse to say I haven't had the time, I just haven't made the time. However, I do think that in these circumstances I would ask if Andy Wightman would consider withdrawing so there can be further detailed discussion with the Cabinet Secretary and others who have an interest in making sure that this is the direction of travel for the future so hopefully something can come back at stage 3. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the amendments in this group. Thank you, convener, amendment 37 would require the Scottish ministers to set out their views on extinguishing the crown's rights to the property rights and interests in the listed assets, oysters and mussels, the foreshore, sea bed, gold and silver. I should highlight that the right to gather naturally occurring oysters and mussels has not formed part of the Crown Estate in Scotland since November 2014 as those rights were transferred to the Scottish ministers. As such, this right does not form part of the Scottish Crown Estate following the transfer that took place from the Crown Estate commissioners last year. The bill itself is concerned with the management of Scottish Crown Estate assets and the loving management of those assets to those with an interest in them, such as local authorities and community organisations. While the bill does enable the transfer of ownership of assets in the course of management, the bill is not about the question in principle of the Crown's ownership of those assets and whether those assets should form part of the Crown Estate at all. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not relevant to the purpose of the bill. It would not be appropriate to require the Scottish ministers in the strategic plan, which is concerned with the management of the Crown Estate to comment on whether the Crown's rights should be extinguished. While the amendment does not directly seek to legislate to extinguish the Crown Estate's property rights and interests in the listed assets, the effect of it is to require the Scottish ministers to consider the desirability of doing so in the strategic management plan which the bill requires to be prepared every five years. Clearly, any such consideration would have to take account of the fact that it is not within the Scottish Parliament's powers to take forward such legislation. Any attempt by the Scottish Parliament to extinguish the Crown's property rights and interests in Crown Estate assets is likely to be outside legislative competence. It would have to take account of the fact that extinguishing the Crown's right in an asset will have a knock-on effect on hereditary revenues generated by that asset, which are reserved although the revenues are now paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The hereditary revenues are the monies generated from an asset, both that currently raised and also in the future, particularly as regards the potential for offshore energy in the Scottish zone, which is that part of the seabed outwith the 12-mile limit of territorial waters. More fundamentally, only the seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit is currently part of Scotland, that is the territorial waters. The seabed between 12 and 200 nautical miles are governed by international law specifically under part 5 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. The convention confers certain special rights to the coastal state to this area of the seabed including exploration and use of marine resources including energy production from water and wind. The coastal state being the United Kingdom with recent devolution of the management of these rights to Scotland inter and management being granted on the basis that they form part of the Scottish Crown Estate. If the Crown's rights in the seabed were extinguished, it is likely that the devolved management of the seabed rights beyond the 12-mile limit, that is, over the zone in which we see great potential for development of renewable energy, would simply revert to the UK Government. As for the gold and silver, if the Crown's rights were extinguished, then those rights would fall to the Crown as the owner of the lands. At the time of the Royal Mines Act 1424 became law, if the owner's descendants could not be traced, the rights would fall to the Crown anyway as Bonavocantia. The exercise would therefore in our view be futile. In these circumstances I ask Andy Wightman not to press amendment 37 and not to move consequential amendments 38 and 39. I now invite Andy Wightman to wind up and press or withdraw his amendments. Thank you very much, convener, and thanks for the comments that members have made. Just to be clear, amendment 37 is about requiring ministers to set out their views. Where it comes to aspects such as the Royal Mines Act 1424, for example, this amendment of mine was not deemed to be within scope and therefore was not tabled for debate, but just for members' information that did, in fact, contain a provision that, on such day, is the act that has repealed golden-silver vests in Scottish ministers, so it would not be my intention for the Campbells or anybody else to get back their gold and silver. With regard to naturally occurring oysters and mussels that the minister mentioned, I am well aware that management was transferred a couple of years back, they no longer form part of the Crown estate. Nevertheless, the Crown still has rights in them, notwithstanding the fact that they are not managed as part of the Crown estate, they are managed by other Crown property rights, such as Bonavocantia, which the minister mentioned that, historically, they have always been in fact managed in Scotland by the Crown office. In terms of competence, I mentioned the section of the Scotland Act in schedule 5 which devolves competence over property rights of the Crown. There is an issue that could potentially arise over the fact that revenues remain reserved, but in the Civil List Act of 1952 or 1953, the assets of the Crown that have never been part of the Crown estate that is Bonavocantia, Ultima Ares and Treasure Trove are admitted to be not formed part of the Civil List settlement at that time because they have never been part of the Crown estate. Indeed, the act has now been amended to take account of the devolution of the Crown estate. Therefore, I do not think that there will be any substantive problem in regard to abolishing these rights. It is worth noting, of course, that we abolished the Crown's rights in the paramount superiority and the Lord Advocate General and nobody took any issue with that. In light of the comments that members have made and in light of the cabinet secretary's comments regarding what she regards under section 20 in terms of the scope of the bill, I will not be pressing this in debate today. Andy Wightman seeks to withdraw amendment 37. Does any member object? Amendment 37 is withdrawn. Therefore, the question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. My question is that sections 21 to 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 24 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 24 in the name of... thank you. Paulfullynành selّ لكن oherwydd tdw feedback iawn y entricheわ sydd o fe, wychוןadau yn fund y privacy. stemswch, entheu, c Jesyn. Fel y ranUnHS, забeshafb afiwr o wedi amddai R Witchfeydd Ceynchabo, nid obod rwy'r teifftyr sicrhau'r cysylltol u'r wahanol. Ieolbau, MS Mass, Rw—B17. Felly, Gerll 향o挑f. yn eich byw? Rhaid i'n gwaud assydu'r cyfnwysleadau, bai nhw,real i'n gweithio. Production Cymru Systemwytaeth I will agree. I call amendment 44 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 43. I invite Liam McArthur to move or not move. I call amendment 27 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 22. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to or will agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to or will agreed. The question is that section 40 be agreed to or will agreed. The question is that sections 41 and 42 be agreed to or will agreed. Rhywogaith hwnnw Tynllun i mi'n grid yw nid yn ei gweld, gan y rhaid gan gallai argaw fandod yn erbyr pan ser heavensod diarried. Rhywogaith hwnnw ymgwyll bead digenol a fimag gan dein gincline puppies yn ei halex erbyr, tanline plafed yheукig yn ei hwyrol ac we will agree. Lang tidal will be agreed to, are we all agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. At its next meeting in 25 September, the committee will take evidence in a round table format on the register of controlled interests in land. I now close this meeting.