House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Mar 1998 (pt 7)

Madam Speaker: The point of order for me is whether the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can ask questions of Ministers--who, of course, have the final responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to ask questions, initiate Adjournment debates and, perhaps, table a private notice question, if he is not satisfied with what has happened.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the exchange that you had yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about whether the Foreign Secretary would come to the House and make a statement on his visit to the middle east. At that time, you expressed the view that perhaps he would, but that in any event you would do what you could to help. We have not seen the Foreign Secretary today, so we must assume that he is not coming to the House.

It has been a long-established principle that Foreign Ministers should report to the House on the outcome of important foreign visits. Would you, Madam Speaker, do your best, as you were kind enough to say you would do yesterday in a particular way, to ensure that the general practice is not being abandoned by the Government?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is for him, as a long-standing Member, and the many other hon. Members who are interested in this matter, to use the facilities available--his Front Bench, the shadow Leader of the House and the usual channels--to let it be known that the Opposition want a statement. That is the way to proceed now.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that a letter was sent out stating:

"Dear Colleague,

John Maples would appreciate it if you could be in the Chamber for Health Questions tomorrow.

I enclose a briefing note but it is particularly effective if colleagues are able to ask supplementary questions which relate to the experiences of their own constituents. Health Ministers in our last Government have confirmed that it is almost impossible for a Minister at the Despatch Box to deal effectively with questions involving individual cases and the impression given is of widespread problems and discontent"?

That was very naughty.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It looked as if the hon. Gentleman needed some Scotch tape to hold that together.

24 Mar 1998 : Column 186

Crown Estate (Amendment)

3.52 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Crown Estate Commissioners to exercise their functions with due regard to the non-commercial interests of local communities; to regulate the granting of sea-bed leases by the Crown Estate Commissioners and establishing the rent therefor; to amend section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes.

I welcome this opportunity to raise the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to sea bed leases. It is a subject that has generated much controversy in the highlands and islands, in particular in my Orkney and Shetland constituency. Indeed, in the northern isles there was even a legal challenge, based on Udal law, as to whether the Crown Estate had legal title to the sea bed. As the Court of Session found that it did, that is the legal basis on which we now have to proceed.

The nub of the problem is that the Crown Estate Commissioners charge excessive rents for the use of the sea bed--a use which, in practice, may not amount to much more than dropping an anchor. That can have a serious financial impact on salmon farming, shellfish farming and non-profit-making community marinas. Their rental charges also have consequences for the cost of providing lifeline transport links in the islands areas.

In all those cases, rent is charged, but the obligations on the Crown Estate as landlord are virtually non-existent. There is almost a parasitic quality about these rental agreements. In fact, the position is that, on the one hand, the Government and Government agencies are claiming to support industries such as fish farming, as well as investing in the transport infrastructure, while on the other, the Crown Estate Commissioners are sucking resources out of those industries and contributing to higher transport costs.

The regulatory function of the Crown Estate in relation to the granting of fish farm leases is currently the subject of Scottish Office consultation. The Bill could provide an opportunity to transfer that function to relevant local authorities in Scotland.

I shall deal with each of those points in turn. My Bill would regulate the way in which rents are charged for sea bed leases, not least to allow for realistic account to be taken of the aquaculture industry and the straitened circumstances that it currently faces. Anyone familiar with the salmon farming industry knows that it is in crisis, with prices barely--if at all--covering production costs. One of the costs that must be borne is the rent charged by the Crown Estate.

In 1996-97, the Crown Estate received some £2.3 million from the Scottish aquaculture industry at a time when it could ill afford it. Although more recently some of the demands for rent have been moderated, salmon farmers still believe that the Treasury, through the Crown Estate, is imposing a production tax on an industry in crisis. What adds to the injury is the feeling that as landlord the Crown Estate has little or no responsibility.

The annual report of the Crown Estate Commissioners shows how much is invested in research. The most recent report informs us that £1 million has been spent on that investment, which sounds a large sum, until one realises that it was spread over 10 years.

24 Mar 1998 : Column 187

Not even that limited discharge of landlordly responsibility can be found in relation to the charges made for community marinas in Shetland. As the House will readily understand, island communities have a strong affinity with the sea. For centuries, many of my constituents in Orkney and Shetland have kept boats, and only in very recent times have they been asked by the Crown Estate to pay a charge for the privilege of mooring their boat.

Many communities have worked hard to establish marinas to afford better protection and safety, yet the Crown Estate insists on charging those non-profit-making community associations the same rent as is charged for moorings in the larger and grander yachting clubs on the mainland in Scotland.

Where rentals have not been agreed, the district valuer has been brought in. Sometimes that has led to even higher proposed rents. It is not always clear on what basis a rent can be charged for permission simply to drop an anchor. In one case, the district valuer proposed an annual rent of £450. The secretary of the Marina Users Association made an interesting observation in a letter to me:

"Local land valued by the DV can be bought from approx. 28 pence per square metre, yet he is suggesting an annual rent of 42 pence per square metre for the sea bed."