Housing and Regeneration Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1582, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Housing and Regeneration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I welcome the Local Government and Communities Committee's unanimous support for the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in the Housing and Regeneration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 15 November 2007, relating to the executive competence of Scottish Ministers to enter into agreements for the provision of services with the Housing Corporation and/or Welsh Ministers, on such terms and for such payment which they consider appropriate, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I welcome the opportunity to raise some issues on this legislative consent motion, which Labour members—who consider LCMs on the basis of the practical measures to which they relate and who judge each LCM on its merits—have decided to support. We think that it is important that we take the opportunity to illuminate some significant issues for the Parliament—members know that my every instinct is philanthropic.
Members of the Local Government and Communities Committee felt that it was important for all members to receive an explanation from the Scottish National Party of why it is no longer opposed, in principle, to LCMs. On numerous occasions in the past, SNP members voted against entirely rational and logical LCMs on the basis that it was a point of principle for them to do so. Of course, that was then and this is now. We can only surmise that the memory banks of SNP back benchers have been entirely wiped and that that point of principle has been forgotten.
The principle on which we operated was that, whenever possible, we would seek an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to legislate and that we would use the LCM process only if the prospect of new Scottish legislation was not imminent. The problem for the SNP, of course, is that it appears that the prospect of legislation on anything at all is not imminent. That makes it even more bizarre that the minister claimed to the committee that use of the LCM process was
"a proportionate and efficient use of parliamentary time."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 5 March 2008; c 724.]
He might wish to talk to his business manager about that.
Of course, the broader question is why no suitable legislative vehicle is available. A big decision has been made to abolish Communities Scotland and yet the bill before us relates to regulation in England. There is no coherence on the issue of savings for Communities Scotland or how housing and regeneration fit into the community planning framework. What will happen now that individual housing association grant decisions will be micromanaged from the centre? How will the regulator fit into all of that? We have had no discussion of those issues. Given that we are going in an entirely opposite direction to that taken in England, it would have been nice for the Scottish Parliament to have been given an opportunity—whether in relation to legislation or otherwise—to have had that discussion. We could have dealt with the issues raised in the LCM in that way.
In order to be helpful, I direct the minister to his own words. In July last year, I asked him whether abolishing Communities Scotland "would require legislation". His reply was:
"Ministers are currently considering the most effective organisational structures for the future delivery of Communities Scotland's functions. That process will involve consideration of any legislation that might be necessary to support the transfer of Communities Scotland's functions, although legislation would not of itself be required to abolish Communities Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 July 2007; S3W-1797.]
Given that we do not need legislation to abolish Communities Scotland, it would have been helpful if the Government had looked for legislative opportunities that would have allowed the Parliament to debate what will now happen to Communities Scotland's functions.
The LCM is an indicator that the SNP has abandoned the principles that it used to apply. It has not even applied the test that we used to apply. The Government is unable to explain why it has not brought to the chamber a debate on the future of Communities Scotland. Perhaps the minister will tell the chamber what other legislation might be necessary and what Communities Scotland's future is. I welcome his interesting response.
The provision in Westminster's Housing and Regeneration Bill to which we are being asked to grant consent this evening will end the statutory powers of Scottish ministers to enter into agreements for services that relate to housing regulation. No doubt, the minister will argue that the power is superfluous and redundant. Indeed, it is true that neither the present Government nor its predecessor—nor, indeed, the Conservative Government of happy memory before then—exercised that power.
Even if one accepts the argument—as the Conservatives accept it—that the power should be excised from the statute book, it would not be appropriate for the Conservatives to allow the occasion to pass unnoticed and unmarked in the chamber. However minor the matter, SNP members will vote this evening to permit our mother Parliament in Westminster to end a statutory power that is presently exercisable by Scottish ministers by virtue of the division of responsibility that is set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Accordingly, today is a red-letter day. The motion is a mark of co-operation between the SNP Government, the Parliament in Scotland and the Government in Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thank you.
Would that this red-letter day signalled a new maturity in the relationship between our two Parliaments and a retreat from the tactical position of trying to promote and ferment conflict and division at every turn that has been the hallmark of the SNP Administration to date.
Let us hope that this legislative consent motion heralds a new era of co-operation. Let it mark a willingness on the SNP's part to recognise that some powers are indeed redundant and that Westminster can spring-clean the statute book just as effectively as the Scottish Parliament can—and, indeed, that Westminster may be the appropriate legislature to do that. Furthermore, let us resolve to scrutinise the statute book more closely in order to repeal even more of the powers and regulations that are clogging it up—powers that contribute nothing to our society save bureaucracy, delay and expense.
I remain highly sceptical of Mr Maxwell's willingness to do that, given that he is the minister who is forcing the home report on to our property market just as it is starting to decline. I also remain sceptical of the Government in general. No sooner had Mr Mather slipped into the back of his ministerial limousine than he did a U-turn on better regulation policy. The SNP has failed on those measures, but it is right in this one, small instance. Accordingly, I trust that SNP members will vote for the motion with the same degree of enthusiasm and delight as members on the Conservative and Labour benches.
I call Stewart Maxwell to wind up the debate.
I will do my best, Presiding Officer.
Johann Lamont mentioned several things that it would have been nice if the Government had done. Well, it would have been nice if Johann Lamont had actually discussed the LCM that is before us. In the three minutes of her speech, she failed to mention it at all, but instead spent her time railing against a range of issues. However, we have come to expect the scattergun approach, not only from Johann Lamont, but from other members on the Labour benches.
Section 33A of the Housing Associations Act 1985 is a minor power that reflects pre-devolution ideas about the operation of housing regulation throughout the United Kingdom, which, as it turns out, have never been realised. The intention is to repeal section 33A in England and Wales, as it will be wholly redundant once the Housing Corporation ceases to exist. The Scottish Parliament could repeal the provision, but no suitable legislative vehicle is currently available to do so.
I will try to address the several concerns that have been expressed previously and during this short debate.
Will the member take an intervention?
It is suggested that the LCM impacts on the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence or is tantamount to our handing back powers to Westminster. Let me be clear: only through changes to the reservations in the Scotland Act 1998 can powers be handed back to Westminster or the legislative competence of our Parliament altered. Individual motions, such as the one that we are discussing, represent no more than a one-off agreement by the Scottish Parliament for Westminster to legislate on our behalf on a specific aspect of a devolved matter.
Will the member give way?
Comments about powers being taken back by Westminster are out of touch with the mood of Scotland, the national conversation and the clear demand from all sides for the Scottish Parliament's powers to be extended. [Interruption.]
Order. Excuse me, minister, but there is so much background noise that I am not sure whether you can hear the requests for interventions.
For your information, Presiding Officer—
Will the member give way?
I can hear them all clearly, Presiding Officer.
It has been suggested that the motion will mean that ministers cannot enter into contracts for regulation services in the future. That is not true. Whether or not the power is in place, the Scottish ministers can enter into legally enforceable agreements with other bodies. It has been suggested that a non-statutory memorandum of understanding, rather than a legally binding contract for services, is not a suitable basis for housing regulators to work together. I do not agree. A memorandum of understanding is a sensible and proportionate approach to the management of cross-border regulation issues. Housing regulators north and south of the border have never made use of the statutory power, which is evidence that it is not relevant to effective regulation.
Johann Lamont stated in her opening remarks that the SNP has always opposed LCMs or Sewel motions. I will give her a short list of cases in which that was not true, although it does not cover them all—the motions on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Police and Justice Bill, the Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc Bill, the Compensation Bill and the Serious Crime Bill. The SNP takes a pragmatic approach and works closely with the UK Government for the benefit of the people of Scotland. It is therefore very sad indeed to see the Tory party focusing on narrow constitutional wrangling.
I welcome the unanimous support for the LCM from the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee, including Johann Lamont and David McLetchie, and I ask Parliament to support the motion this evening.