Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Official Report 1124KB pdf

---

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-10916, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.

17:46  

It is important that the Parliament gives the matter of consent to the bill careful consideration. Although much of the bill focuses on matters that are not relevant to Scotland, part 1 has direct implications for us. That is because it introduces powers for UK Government ministers to set targets for the 12 levelling up missions in Scotland and allows UK Government ministers to report on their progress, irrespective of the fact that six of those missions relate to devolved matters. Part 6 of the bill is relevant to the interests of the Parliament, as it makes provision for introducing environmental outcome reports to replace our existing environmental assessment regimes. There are consequential links with part 3, which relates to planning data. Two miscellaneous provisions in part 12, which also apply in Scotland, relate to the surveying profession and fees for post-marine licence services.

We have engaged with the UK Government to ensure that the bill does not interfere with our devolved powers and that the powers of the Parliament are respected. With regard to part 6 and the associated provisions in part 3 and part 12, I am pleased to say that we have come to an agreement with the UK Government and are able to support consent for those parts. That position is the result of extensive negotiation.

Under previous versions of the bill, the secretary of state had the power to make regulations on environmental outcome reports after consulting with Scottish ministers. We have negotiated amendments to ensure that consent is required for matters within devolved legislative or executive competence. That means that we will retain our existing roles and responsibilities. Scottish ministers will have discretion to consider whether there is merit in replacing our well-established and well-understood environmental assessment regimes with environmental outcome reports.

Further, the UK Government has committed to reinstating the Scottish ministers’ regulation-making powers under the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which were rendered inoperative due to Brexit and the loss of relevant enabling powers. The UK Government has committed to doing that before the end of the current UK Parliament. That is important because those regulations play a key role in our consenting regime for offshore renewables and related onshore infrastructure. I am pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement on that.

Nevertheless, we remain concerned about the potential for diverging environmental assessment regimes for the consenting of offshore renewable projects, which could have a significant impact on our collective ability to meet net zero commitments.

Similarly, we have secured amendments to relevant provisions of part 3, so that the secretary of state may make provisions on planning data in Scotland only with the consent of the Scottish ministers. Although that is positive, I should be clear that the Scottish Government remains unconvinced that, at this time, existing arrangements for environmental assessments would benefit from a major overhaul. It is unclear whether the new regime would be consistent with existing European requirements or move us away from the current high standards for environmental assessment. That will emerge only through secondary legislation.

Furthermore, there is very little detail about how any new regime would operate in practice, the outcomes that it would seek to achieve and the benefits for investors and regulators. Much more evidence and explanation would be required before we would be persuaded to make such significant changes in Scotland. When considering any future changes, we will need to carefully consider the needs of our environment and the need to reach net zero.

I have no concerns regarding relevant miscellaneous provisions in part 12 of the bill relating to the role of chartered surveyors and fees for post-marine licence services. However, I must be clear that the Scottish Government remains firmly opposed to part 1 of the bill, which relates to levelling up missions. That cuts across devolved responsibilities and therefore raises constitutional issues. I am disappointed with the UK Government’s approach to part 1. Scottish ministers must retain the right to disagree on the principle of a bill with a view to continued and productive negotiations. This is about good governance in the face of disagreement between mature Governments.

Although we have a shared interest in reducing economic inequality, the route to that is not through setting targets in devolved areas. Rather, it is through redistributing economic and financial powers to Scotland in a way that allows the Scottish Government to deliver the activity that will effectively target inequality.

Incidentally, important themes are picked up in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee report, which was published earlier today. It highlights the extent to which the UK Government’s approach diminishes the role of the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising decisions that are taken by UK ministers in devolved areas without agreement. As written, the bill requires UK ministers to publish and report on objectives for levelling up missions, explaining when and how they will measure progress.

As I said, six of those missions are in devolved policy areas, including in transport, justice, education, skills, health and housing. Those are the responsibilities of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament under the devolution settlement. Though some efforts have been made to incorporate a degree of consultation with the Scottish Government in part 1 of the bill, the provisions remain weak and vague. As it stands, there is no explicit definition or shared understanding of what would constitute meaningful consultation with Scottish ministers prior to UK Government ministers reporting on devolved matters in Westminster.

The UK Government claims that that part of the bill does not require consent from this Parliament, as it covers UK-wide targets, but we strongly disagree with that. As I have set out, the levelling up missions are clearly in devolved areas and so are clearly within the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. In our view, the UK Government is failing to respect the role of this Parliament and the allocation of responsibilities set out in the devolution settlement. Consequently, I cannot recommend consent for part 1 of the bill. Although some progress has been made, the provisions still fail to recognise that the provisions on levelling up undermine the powers of Scottish ministers and, importantly, the Scottish Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in Part 3 - Chapter 1, Part 6, Part 12 and Schedules 14-15 and 25 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022 and subsequently amended, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

17:53  

I speak as convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to highlight part 6 of the bill, on which the committee focused its scrutiny. This important part of the bill relates to the environmental outcome reports, which are a new approach to the environmental assessment. The bill sets out a framework for environmental outcome reports, but much of the detail is left to subordinate legislation, which means that in the bill as introduced, broad powers are given to the UK Government to make regulations in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish ministers. That prevented the Scottish Government from recommending consent to those provisions.

The committee’s report encouraged both Governments to agree an acceptable outcome to the matter, and the bill has now been amended so that the consent of the Scottish ministers is required before those powers are used in devolved areas. That ensures that the Scottish ministers can decide whether to agree to adopting the proposed environmental outcome report approach or to maintain the current approach.

It is welcome that the Governments could reach that agreement. However, the committee has also highlighted the lack of clarity about the role of the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising proposed regulations in the area. Now that agreement between the Governments has been reached, I would welcome any thoughts from the Deputy First Minister on how parliamentary scrutiny can be assured. I am sure that we can all agree that that is hugely important in the Parliament.

I call Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

17:55  

I speak as convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which has a long-standing interest in the UK Government’s levelling up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. Of particular interest is how effectively those funds will be spent in Scotland, the outcomes that they will achieve, and their impact on Scottish Government policy and spending plans.

Notwithstanding the Deputy First Minister’s comments, I will focus on amendments made to part 1 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That part of the bill establishes a new statutory requirement for UK Government ministers to set and review levelling up missions and report on progress. The amendments provide for UK ministers to “have regard to” any role of the devolved legislatures and to consult devolved authorities in relation to reviewing the levelling up missions and any changes to mission progress methodology, metrics or target dates.

As a result, the committee sought confirmation that the Scottish Government will work with Parliament to agree a formal and meaningful role by which Parliament and relevant committees can be consulted on any proposals to change the missions or revise the methodology, metrics or target dates of the levelling up missions. We welcome the Deputy First Minister’s confirmation that she is happy to work with the committee on a process

“When there is a clearer proposal from the UK Government on how it intends to carry out the duties set out in Part 1 of the Bill”.

We also welcome the Deputy First Minister’s commitment that the Scottish ministers will continue to operate on the basis of informing Parliament of significant policy developments and sharing relevant information, where appropriate.

The Scottish Government was consulted on the amendments to part 1 that relate in part to the Parliament, but it is disappointing that the Scottish Parliament and the committee were not consulted. We would welcome a Scottish Government commitment that that will not be the case going forward, and we seek clarity from the Deputy First Minister that, in relation to the UK Government’s annual report on progress in delivering the 12 missions, the Scottish Government will work with the committee to ensure that it is made available in Parliament for scrutiny.

The 12 missions for the levelling up fund matter, as they will serve as a policy anchor across the UK Government, including in relation to funding to be spent in devolved areas. However, as the former finance cabinet secretary explained in 2021, it is extremely difficult for the Scottish ministers to determine how best to use capital funding when UK ministers make decisions about capital spend that the Scottish Government is not sighted on. We have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ask how UK ministers intend to comply with the duty in the bill to report on how they have had regard to any Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government role.

The committee looks forward to working with the Scottish Government to develop a transparent process that supports parliamentary scrutiny.

17:58  

I, too, extend my thanks to the committees and clerks who spent time looking at the legislative consent motion back in 2022 when it first came to the Parliament. It is a pity that the devolved Scottish Government has not shown the same respect to our committee system and the processes of the Scottish Parliament in lodging today’s motion, as we have heard from two conveners.

Our committees are in place to provide scrutiny and reports to Parliament. The devolved Government will like and use some parts of those, and it will disagree with other parts of them, but normally in a respectful way. It is disappointing that the committees have been treated in such a poor way over the LCM.

I will move on to the motion that is before us. I welcome the fact that civil servants of both Governments have worked to ensure that the measures and benefits of the bill will work across the whole of the United Kingdom. Council leaders from all parties have welcomed the additional funding from the UK Parliament, and councils—including Scottish National Party-led councils—have been eager to put forward projects and proposals to access it. That is indicative of the requirement of local authorities to access much-needed funding for capital and major infrastructure projects in their areas.

The levelling up funds have led to significant projects—there is £27 million for a new ferry for Fair Isle, £20 million for Peterhead regeneration, £20 million for town centre regeneration in Kilmarnock, £19.3 million for Fife and £18 million for Dumfries and Galloway, plus many more projects. All those projects will deliver economic growth, regeneration, business development and—most important—jobs. The money goes direct to our communities so that they can make significant improvements to benefit their areas. That is real devolution in action.

I am pleased that compromise has been found on many of the clauses in parts 3, 6 and 12 of the bill. Our two Governments seem to disagree about part 1—one says that it goes against devolution and the other says that consent is not necessary for setting missions. If only we had committees of this Parliament that could report with a view.

It is strange to hear that the cabinet secretary feels that part 1 is an attack on devolution in the same week that a council tax freeze has been imposed on local government. The past week has shown the value that the Scottish Government places on our local authority colleagues; it has ripped up the Verity house agreement before the ink was even dry. That agreement clearly states that there should be no surprises, although the announcement that council tax would be frozen was a surprise not only to local government but to the Cabinet, according to the cabinet secretary.

The changes that UK ministers proposed to secure legislative consent make it clear that they will consult devolved Administrations and Governments appropriately. UK ministers will have regard to devolved legislatures and Governments in preparing statements on levelling up missions. Other provisions in part 1 will ensure that the Scottish ministers retain the options and controls that are required in the devolved context.

Conservative colleagues will vote for the motion. In support of our valued colleagues in local government, we want to see more investment, not less, and we want to see more devolution to our communities. We support the efforts of any Government to do that.

18:01  

We will support the legislative consent motion, while recognising that the bill legislates in devolved areas. Scotland and Britain need to get building to tackle our housing crisis, and we can see why powers are needed to align planning data and report on environmental outcomes, but the Tories’ bill is desperately lacking in ambition and is as thin as the white paper that came before it.

Planning information must be used to drive improvement, but it will also expose the fact that a decade of Government cuts has hollowed out local authority planning departments. We want planning that delivers more genuinely affordable housing, serves communities well and helps local businesses and town centres to thrive. The bill will not achieve that for Scotland, but the national planning framework does not do that, either.

It is welcome that the UK Government may make planning data regulations only after consulting the Scottish ministers or if they are outside devolved competence, but the bill has been beset by Tory back-bench rebellions and Government U-turns, which ended up in the UK Government ditching mandatory housing targets. In ditching those targets, the Tory Government let the SNP Government off the hook for failing to set its own all-tenure targets, which we desperately need to get back to building the 25,000-plus homes a year that we need.

As with the Government here, the UK Government lacks ambition in its bill’s reform of compulsory purchase rules for England, which will hinder progress on development, on delivering more houses and on bringing empty homes back into use. The measures in the bill will do little to address the deep inequalities that exist in Scotland and in every part of the UK. Major decisions will continue to be made in Whitehall, with communities forced to compete for small pots of money that are handed out by Tory ministers. Many of the poorest areas will miss out entirely, which seems to be a badge of honour for the current Tory Prime Minister. If neither current Government will deliver on the promise to level up the country, Labour will.

18:04  

I thank all members who have spoken in the debate, albeit that it has been a short one. There have been some thoughtful contributions, which I will try to cover.

Douglas Lumsden said that we should be investing more, not less. I say to him that I do not see how his position can be reconciled with the UK Government’s cut of nearly 7 per cent to the capital budget. That delivers not more but less across the length and breadth of Scotland.

I am pleased that we have been able to improve parts of the bill. The concerns raised regarding part 1 do not detract from the progress that has been made on parts 3 and 6. The amendments that we have negotiated to part 6 and, by consequence, part 3 now recognise that the consent of the Scottish ministers must be sought before the UK Government makes decisions on devolved matters that will directly impact on Scotland’s environment and the economy.

Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?

I will, in a second.

I say to Edward Mountain, the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, that I will be happy to take forward the issue that he raised about parliamentary scrutiny, and I will ensure that it is progressed.

Although I applaud the Government’s success in securing the changes that have been made to the bill, which protect devolution, does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would have been best for the Government not to have had to face such a threat by having a United Kingdom Government that respected devolution in the first place?

As ever, John Swinney makes an important point. The fact that we have had to negotiate at length and in such detail over provisions that should have respected devolution in the first place is a sign of the UK Government’s starting point, which is to try to remove and undermine devolution and to remove the powers not only of the Scottish Government but of this Parliament. Every one of us, across the parties, should be concerned about that.

The UK Government’s commitment to make an order under the Scotland Act 1998 to reinstate specific powers of the Scottish ministers that were rendered inoperative following Brexit is an important step forward in the wider context of our Government’s capacity to assess and regulate critical offshore renewables projects and related infrastructure. Of all the changes that have been made, those are significant.

However, we have to get back to the point of part 1 of the bill, about which Kenneth Gibson made important points.

Please conclude.

Mr Gibson’s committee has asked Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to provide evidence to the cross-party committee. I hope that the UK Government will respond to that.

As I said in response to Edward Mountain, I look forward to working with the Finance and Public Administration Committee as we take forward those matters.

That concludes the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.