Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Earl of Kinnoull

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual eloquence in explaining the transfer scheme. However, I ask her for help on a number of matters in relation to the scheme. I should say that I am not in any way wanting to object to the devolution contained in the Scotland Act 2016, of which this forms a part and which was the statutory embodiment of the Smith commission agreement of November 2014. I emphatically feel, however, that where these precious assets are concerned, we must be very careful to go no further than the Smith commission agreement, especially in relation to their status.

The framework document between the Treasury and the Crown Estate puts the status of these assets well. It is,

“a trust estate, independent of government and the Monarch”.

These assets are not therefore available for political uses. The first issue I will ask the Minister about is that of the onwards devolution which she spoke about a moment ago. Paragraph 33 of the Smith commission agreement saw this onward devolution going to named local authorities and to other authorities that ask. We debated this at length. As the Minister pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, made a ministerial undertaking in respect of the report six months after the transfer. In making the commitment, he also said that the UK Government would continue to press the Scottish Government on this issue. Can the Minister can update us on what progress has been made on that issue?

The Crown Estate is governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961, which sets out the duties and powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the general environment under which the assets are held. In her remarks, the Minister went some way towards this, but can she confirm that these provisions remain fully in force, now and in the future, over the Scottish assets that are transferring and the only real change is in the people and institutions who will be involved in the management of those assets?

The Treasury and the Crown Estate have a framework document, which I have already referred to. It is four pages of common sense in plain English. It contains two further important phrases:

“The Crown Estate ... is not an instrument of government policy”,


and, when referring to ministerial direction:

“A direction may be given only within The Crown Estate’s statutory duties”.


Can the Minister tell us whether a similar framework document is ready for 1 April in Scotland, given its importance in underlining the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners and providing clarity?

Lastly, I turn to the Scottish Government’s Crown Estate consultation document. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation, which started in January and finishes on 29 March. The document is 70 pages and contains, early on, a “Way forward” statement which says:

“The Scottish Ministers intend to introduce legislation which puts in place a new legislative framework for management of Crown Estate assets in Scotland”—


then, the part I emphasise—

“that ensures … alignment with Scottish policy objectives”.

Later on, it says:

“After the transfer, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate on the new framework for managing Crown Estate assets in Scotland”.


Then there is the part that I would emphasise:

“This will include the ability to depart from the Crown Estate Act 1961”.


Could the Minister comment on those two assertions as well?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister indicated, I moved an amendment on Report, and possibly also in Committee, on the Scotland Bill, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has already referred to. The Minister has already answered one of the questions I was going to ask, which was whether it was still government policy to have a statement after six months. I am delighted to hear that it is, and we look forward to the statement.

The noble Earl has asked the second question, which is a request for a bit of colour and flavour to the commitment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, when he was replying to the debate on my amendment and said that the Government would continue to press the Scottish Government to deliver what was promised to the island communities and other communities in the Smith agreement: some detail as to what the Government have been doing to “hold the feet of the Scottish Government to the fire” on this matter, which I think were the words used during the debate. This is a welcome first step in fulfilling the intention of the Smith commission and we hope that onward devolution will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Earl of Kinnoull

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Empey, for speaking to these amendments—which, as I said in Committee, are most important. I am also grateful to the Minister for organising the drop-in yesterday. I regret that I turned up 27 minutes late, as I was detained on other business of the House, so I was only able to get a debrief—a very interesting debrief—from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

I approach this matter from the point of view of the citizen, as I have done before. I think that the citizen is interested in security. They are interested in not having their daughter thumped on a train, and in drug smugglers not getting through. They are interested in terrorists being arrested. Our two holy documents—the white Smith agreement and the green Bill—as ever, need to be a good guide. This is another instance where they are in conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been eloquently telling us about the no-detriment principle now for three months. I know that he knows it, but I thought that it should be read out. The agreement should,

“not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts”.

That is one of the core principles of the negotiations. Coming as it does at the start of the Smith commission report means that it has extra power. It is even more powerful than the many paragraphs that follow. Of course, paragraph 67 says very curtly:

“The functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter”.

Those two paragraphs—I stress again the no-detriment principle, which has been so much the core of what we have been talking about for three months—are at odds with what is in the sacred green document, and that needs to be resolved. It is something this House needs to work hard to resolve. It is not resolved at the moment. I certainly agree that it needs to be resolved for Third Reading.

To repeat what I said in Committee, I note that the British Transport Police has separate duties, separate skills, separate powers and separate staff, who are trained and motivated differently. They have different skills and lives. It has a totally different structure. Its IT systems are completely different and plugged into some of the most sensitive IT systems in the United Kingdom—to which the standard Police Scotland constable does not have access. In short, they are an elite. They are after passenger safety and suppressing terrorism, and they get a seven-figure sum every year just for dealing with their part of combating terrorism.

Police Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so eloquently said, is a very troubled organisation. I have had just two Police Scotland officers in my home in the past six months—one from Dundee and the other from Perth. The particular matters that they came to talk to me about took 30 seconds, but I spent probably an hour with them listening to the awful difficulties they are dealing with as morale has collapsed and management appears to be on the floor. To be transferring into chaos at this time of terror alert—let us remind ourselves how big the terror alert is—one of the functions that is trying to keep us safe is pretty irresponsible. The Scottish Government might be nationalists, but they are a pretty responsible bunch of people. Neither they nor the UK Government should really be contemplating that. Of course, with all the differences in staff, training and IT duties, it would be very difficult.

I would very much like to hear from the Minister why the no-detriment principle is not the trump card, and why the collection of very well thought through and interesting amendments that make up this group could not be put in place. They would be consistent with the Smith commission agreement; they would certainly be consistent with the no-detriment principle. The core, surely, of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government is the security and safety of the citizen with whom I started this short speech. There is an overwhelming case for the Government introducing something at Third Reading, and I look forward to hearing a little about what that might be.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, paragraph 67 of the Smith commission report states:

“The functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter”.

That is a simple and straightforward sentence, but what lies behind it is actually very profound. My concern is that what is being proposed by the Government does not safeguard the functions of the British Transport Police if they are devolved. I respect and generally support the way it is being done in terms of exceptions to the general reservation under Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, but what we have heard is that the Scottish Government intend to put the British Transport Police under the ambit of Police Scotland.

I will not go into the woes of Police Scotland with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who have both mentioned them, but even at its best one can readily imagine that once the BTP comes under the auspices of Police Scotland, if you are the chief constable and you have problems and challenges with regard to resources, you might well think, “Well, why do we have a specific police presence in Waverley station? Surely it can be covered by the police we have got who would otherwise be monitoring Princes Street?”. It would not be proper for politicians to interfere in the operational decisions of the chief constable. For operational reasons the functions of the British Transport Police under a different guise could be whittled away bit by bit.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and we aired these concerns when this was debated in Committee.

It is interesting to note in the submission made by the British Transport Police Federation to the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee that:

“In 2001, the government response to the DfT consultation which led to the BTPA’s creation … stated that: ‘The Government therefore considers that the national railway network is best protected by a unified police force providing a dedicated, specialist service and able to give proper priority to the policing of the railways’”.

The memorandum to the committee of the Scottish Parliament goes on to quote the Transport Select Committee of the other place in 2004, which,

“looked at the reforms to the BTP’s governance arrangements … It concluded that: ‘The British Transport Police is not a Home Office Force, and nothing we have heard suggests that it should become one. The railways are a specialised environment, with specialised needs, and need a specialised Force’. They continued: ‘The steady reduction of resources allocated to traffic policing leads us to agree with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that unless there is a national force dedicated to policing the rail network, the task will not be given the priority it needs’”.

Our concern is that if, having devolved and lost control of this area and the Scottish Government exercise the devolved powers that they have to bring it under the direction of Police Scotland, the very concerns that were expressed by the BTPF and others will be borne out. The specialist services which the British Transport Police currently deliver could be lost over time, and therefore what the Smith commission argues is that the functions possibly could no longer be exercised.

Noble Lords have referred to a number of those functions, in particular tackling terrorism on our transport network. One I particularly note is that:

“The British Transport Police has created specialist teams with responsibility for the management of multi-agency support for local and national suicide prevention, mental health interventions and vulnerable persons encounters. An ongoing force-wide operation (Operation Avert) has so far achieved a 30% reduction in suicide attempts compared to the same period the year before”.

These are very profound specialist functions that the British Transport Police provide.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I think that we would all be very interested to hear the view of the noble and learned Lord on the quote that I read out about the no-detriment principle.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, one of the problems is that the no-detriment principle has so far tended to be looked at primarily in financial terms, but I think that the noble Earl is right that there are other detriments of a qualitative nature which he pointed out to the Minister. We could lose something of value. That would be to the detriment not just of Scotland, but of the whole country.

I share the views of other noble Lords that it is disappointing, despite the many concerns expressed in Committee, that the Government have not come forward with an amendment that would seek to address this. We owe a debt to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Empey and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who have sought to try to meet the Smith commission’s recommendation while ensuring that the specific functions of the British Transport Police are preserved.

I have some reservations about Amendment 41, which would be inserted at the end of Clause 42. Clause 42 fits the Smith commission’s arguments—it does devolve, in as much as it makes an exception—but my concern about Amendment 41 is that, having devolved, it seems to take back and would make it a requirement to have an agreement between the British Transport Police Authority and the Scottish Government. I prefer Amendment 42, which at least says that, if there is to be a police services agreement that applies in Scotland, Scottish Ministers should be involved, and that the oversight arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke to—he indicated that they were over and above what was proposed—are consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Smith commission proposals, while trying to ensure that this is a practical way to address them.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will take on board that there are genuine concerns that a simple further exception to the reservations in Schedule 5 will not necessarily guarantee that the functions of the British Transport Police would be safeguarded after the devolution proposals put forward there. I therefore hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will be prepared to come back and give some further thought as to how the functions can be properly safeguarded.