Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 54)
WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2010
COUNCILLOR DR
MICHAEL FOXLEY,
MR GEORGE
HAMILTON AND
MR CALUM
IAIN MACIVER
Q40 John Thurso: The report was quite
critical of The Crown Estate Commissioners in respect of harbours
in the Highlands and Islands. You heard Mr Sangster for the British
Ports Association saying that things are not too bad. How do those
two gel together? What were the problems?
Dr Foxley: Can I come in on that?
Certainly from the Highland Council perspective, and I was also
a member of Mallaig Harbour Authority for 21 years. We had protracted
negotiations as to the curvature of a wave wall for a harbour
defence as to the redundant seabed which lay below it, that took
about a year to negotiate. The outer breakwater at Mallaig, which
is a £10 million project, Mallaig Harbour Authority pays
£8,000 a year in rental. The Crown Estate were not actively
involved with that development or assisting in that development.
Mallaig Harbour is an example that applies to the other harbour
authorities and port trusts in Scotland. It controls the water
but it does not control the seabed. Certainly our position as
a council is that harbour authorities should own and manage the
seabeds in the best interests of the community because it is not
just the harbour, as many of you will know, it is the village
and the socioeconomic activities within the village that contains
the harbour. Highland Council pays £22,000 a year in rental
for various slipways and harbour. It is really just a rental collection.
Just to come back on something one of my colleagues said, what
we are really good at doing in the highlands is partnership work.
You need to work with partners, you need to understand that you
have to pay rentals for things, but it is to actively work to
progress the development, that is what is lacking.
Q41 John Thurso: So your view would
be that actually in a situation like Mallaig they ought to be
in a position to acquire the seabed they need to extend a pier
or a wall and that ownership should vest with them rather than
remaining with The Crown Estate, which I think used to happen
in the nineteenth century actually?
Dr Foxley: Yes, because they are
acting in the public interest, which is the origins of the Crown
Estate within Scotland.
Q42 John Thurso: One last question.
I know that you had quite a lot to say on the Marine (Scotland)
Act, so can I put it to you? With the passing of that Act there
is a new system of planning and licensing in Scotland which will
come into effect through Marine (Scotland). How confident are
you that there will be sufficient integration between The Crown
Estate Commissioners' operations and the responsibilities of Marine
Scotland? Will it align things or will it just fracture things?
Dr Foxley: Well, it has to align
things. It potentially can fracture things. I think The Crown
Estate Commissioners have to fundamentally change in their relationship
with the national government in Scotland and with local communities
in the way they act. It is extremely important that this is joined
up. If I can just digress slightly by going back historically
to the origins of fish farming. Prior to1986 the first a local
community knew about a fish farm in a sea loch system, a major
impact in terms of the wild salmon fisheries' interests, the impact
in terms of those local communities, was when literally the cages
arrived beside the road. It took us 20 years of sustained campaigning
to have planning control over aquaculture developments. We invented
in Highland fish farming framework plans which gave a strategic
overview as well as a local view. That is what we have done as
a matter of record over the last 20 years. We need to do the same
with the offshore renewables industry. We knew that there were
going to be development in the Pentland Firth. We knew that there
was likely to be development in the Beatrice Field. The first
we knew about the details was when we opened our newspapers on
that particular Monday morning. Argyl had no fore knowledge of
the developments off the Argyl Islands. That was from their director
of planning. Now, that is not remotely partnership working. If
we are going to maximise the benefits—you heard from some
of the other witnesses—for things like offshore wind and
offshore tidal we have to work together. We have to work together
to solve all the interconnector problems. The community, certainly
in the Highlands and Islands, need to benefit from the jobs in
the construction industry, we need to benefit from training and
we also need to benefit from a substantial fund both from the
developers and The Crown Estate because otherwise we will be left
with very few crumbs from the table. That is what we are all now
determined to avoid. That is why we have been pressing for this
MOU to try and pre-empt it. We appreciate being able to give evidence
to this Sub-Committee because we need that pressure to make it
happen this time so that we do not have a repeat of what happened
with fish farming.
Q43 Sir Peter Viggers: The Calman
Commission in 2009 looked at all these issues, of course. It looked
at hypothecation, the concept of leaving local benefits where
they developed, and came to the conclusion that it was better
that Crown Estate should be able to use the larger benefits from
outside Scotland to invest within Scotland. This is your chance
to comment on the Calman Commission and the general thrust of
its conclusions.
Mr Maciver: I suppose relating
to Calman in relation to the concept as outlined there in general
I go back, speaking for myself really, to where the Outer Hebrides
are situated. They are situated on the very periphery of Europe
and the economy and the socioeconomics of the areas is dictated
by our geography and most of the time that geography is a socioeconomic
disadvantage. For once, in offshore renewables and the potential
west of the Hebrides our geography gives us real potential. We
have got to capture some of that potential coming out of our environment.
We have got to capture it and make it work for the Outer Hebrides,
so that capturing has to be in community benefit, rentals, manufacturing,
getting developments to work. What I see and what I think is important
is that there is local benefit for the area. I recognise Calman
and Scotland and the argument that is made, but I would make a
slightly different argument for peripheral disadvantaged communities
like ours. When we have suddenly got a potential economic regenerator
it would be a real blow for us if all the benefits of that potential
economic regenerator go south and we are not able to capture any
other benefits. While I appreciate Calman, there has to be a way
in which The Crown Estate stops being a rent collector, if you
like, and becomes a partner that helps us capture some of these
benefits to maintain some of these benefits.
Q44 Sir Peter Viggers: Has it been
possible for you to audit this, to assess whether you can actually
establish that there are greater local benefits than the benefits
of investment from outside Scotland? Calman actually thought that
areas outside Scotland were more profitable and that Crown Estate
could invest within Scotland. Have you been able to audit that
accurately?
Mr Maciver: I have not audited
for the whole of Scotland, but I can assure you that the investment
by The Crown Estate in our communities is fairly minimal. They
will be involved in some small-scale pier work with communities,
but that is very, very marginal to the potential that exists in
the marine resource around us.
Q45 Sir Peter Viggers: A last quick
point. We have been advised that Crown Estate have made some efforts
to engage more with local councillors and local interest community
units. Is that correct, do you think?
Dr Foxley: If I may, Sir Peter.
They have engaged more in the sense that we have been putting
a serious amount of pressure on them in the last year or so and
that is why this developing Memorandum of Understanding has emerged.
In terms of the benefits, we are certainly looking between the
councils at how there can be local benefits, so that if there
is something happening in the Pentland Firth it benefits Orkney
to the north and Caithness to the south, but there are also regional
benefits within the Highlands and Islands. We are looking at various
mechanisms for that. At the moment there is a marine stewardship
fund with grants up to £10,000 towards small jetties, so
they will contribute in a very small local level with small amounts
of money, or if there is a major commercial enterprise or a major
marina on a proven site, they will invest commercially in that
and take a 50% stake. There is nothing in between. There is nothing
in terms of pump priming to get the pilot projects going. In the
vast majority of cases they are simply collecting rental without
any communication and it is that fact that is so annoying.
Q46 Nick Ainger: From listening to
what you are telling us and your evidence, are you actually looking
in the same way the Shetland Islands Council looked at the offshore
oil industry when it wanted to land crude oil in Sullum Voe and
they ended up getting the best deal ever in terms of a local authority
and a major industry? It got a penny a barrel, or whatever the
deal was. Are you looking for that sort of deal in relation to
offshore renewables, and so on?
Dr Foxley: The very quick answer
is yes, but what we are offering in exchange—and we have
used that phrase the Shetland Oil Fund at a recent meeting I had
with The Crown Estate with the Orkney Islands Council leader—what
we are looking at is to work together in partnership and cooperate
over issues such as the exact location of structures, working
together over the grid connections, working together to train
people to be able to build and maintain these structures. That
is really about us all working together. It is not just that we
want a pot of money—which we certainly do want and a very
substantial pot as well—it is about working with them to
achieve what the Scottish and UK Governments want.
Q47 Nick Ainger: But it is not just
The Crown Estate you have to deal with in those terms about locations
and so on, obviously it is the Scottish equivalent of the MMO,
as the MMO will be coming in in terms of planning, and so on,
and the location of these developments. You are seeking a Memorandum
of Understanding but that is only with The Crown Estate. Can you
tell us a bit more about what you are actually trying to achieve
from that Memorandum of Understanding?
Dr Foxley: It is probably better,
because George and Calum have been at the meetings, and then if
I may just very briefly come back.
Mr Hamilton: I can make some comments
and Calum can take it up. The Memorandum of Understanding is supposed
to try and help establish a joint strategy for the coastal communities
in the Highlands and Islands. It is supposed to allow for the
utilisation of assets, joint assets, financial, property, people,
to help deliver the strategy which I mentioned and it is about
establishing project partnerships with public and private interests
to deliver value, if you like, in communities. There are a number
of projects that I have been involved in.
Q48 Nick Ainger: Just so the Committee
is clear, this Memorandum of Understanding is not just with The
Crown Estate, it is with a whole range of organisations?
Mr Hamilton: It will have to be,
yes.
Mr Maciver: It will have to be,
but we are talking very specifically at getting something in place
with The Crown Estate and the thinking behind that is to drive
them down the partnership route. The thinking is to get them engaged
with us because at the moment they are doing their own thing to
a greater or lesser extent. We are keen that we find a mechanism
that they can buy into that engages them and they work in partnership
with us. The thinking behind the Memorandum of Understanding,
if you like, is a drive towards partnership.
Mr Hamilton: With some of the
projects that are listed as ongoing and activities to develop
already involve organisations like other local authorities and
the Scottish Government.
Q49 Nick Ainger: In your evidence
you refer to a technological development fund? My understanding
is that was the Western Isles Council.
Mr Maciver: That would have been
me, yes.
Q50 Nick Ainger: Again, how would
that work? Is it just the penny on the barrel concept? Can you
tell us more about that?
Mr Maciver: Conceptually, yes.
There is no detail and there is no refining of how it would exactly
work at the moment, but what we do know is that through the University
of the Highlands and Islands, in my own community, for example,
there is a project called Green Space where they are working with
developers on projects to again try and capture some of these
local benefits for the community. We would like The Crown Estate
and other developers, maybe along the Shetland model, to be contributing
to a fund that can help the University of the Highlands and Islands,
that can help us locally to drive new technology and new ideas
in the area. It is a way for The Crown Estate, if you like, to
reinvest in the community. Rather than the idea of being a rent
collector and the money moving out of our climate and out of our
community, it is a way to encourage them to reinvest and that
is one of the ideas that we would like them to be investing in,
technology.
Q51 Nick Ainger: Our previous witnesses,
as you heard, were concerned that the rents The Crown Estate were
charging—there were issues over licensing, leases, and so
on—could actually prevent the development going ahead. Are
you concerned that in fact the position you are adopting may actually
dissuade some developers from moving into the area? Would you
like to comment on that?
Dr Foxley: Yes. We have made it
very clear that we are looking, after all the research and developmental
costs are taken into account, once the project is on stream and
commercially viable, what we are really looking for is a grown
up relationship between Crown Estate, the developers and the local
communities through the local authorities to resolve problems
and maximise the benefits because at the moment there is just
a bipartite discussion between The Crown Estate and the developers.
They will have problems that they require to be solved in terms
of the workforce and the infrastructure they require. We are offering
to help with that, but in return we want our community to benefit
not only in terms of jobs but infrastructure improvements, training,
et cetera. It is really for a much more mature relationship than
we have ever enjoyed hitherto.
Q52 Chairman: Just to sum up, Mr
Foxley, you have asked for a much wider review of the role of
The Crown Estate. What would you actually want that review to
come up with? What would you want to get out of a wider review?
Dr Foxley: Two things: primarily
that the Crown Estate in Scotland is managed in Scotland, and,
secondly, that there is clear benefit to local coastal communities
and the wider communities, as it were, behind them that benefit
from the activities in the coastal waters.
Q53 John McFall: What do you mean
"managed in Scotland"? What do you mean by your first
point?
Dr Foxley: Well, for example,
managed in Scotland, the foreshore and fish farming is managed
in Scotland through the local authorities and we should be able
to manage the offshore wind structures, we should be able to manage
the tidal structures as well, which at the moment are exempt.
Q54 Chairman: You mean the management
should be transferred from The Crown Estate to the local authorities?
That is what you want, is it?
Dr Foxley: Yes, absolutely.
Chairman: Okay. I am sorry, time has
run out. I know you have come a long way. I hope you think it
has been worthwhile. It has certainly been worthwhile for us.
Thank you very much indeed.
| 
