Chamber and committees

As a committee, we should have been told, in just the same way as the cabinet secretary was told two days before, of the issues that were looming. I think that that would have just been a courtesy to the committee. I will leave it there, convener.

So it would have been just after April that you received the rejection of that document and you informed CMAL and Transport Scotland at that time.

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.

Have the hated HPMAs been ditched—yes or no?

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank Emma Harper for taking my intervention. She mentioned the figures—it sounds as though almost a third of people are getting the test but not doing it. Does she have any ideas about how we can increase the figures to get them nearer to 100 per cent?

We are happy to support the legislative consent motion if not the tone in which the minister has presented it to the chamber this afternoon.

It is heartening to see a good level of co-operation between the Scottish and Westminster Governments, which is much needed but seldom found. This is an issue that the whole of the UK should be working together on, as it affects us all. Ensuring our energy supply and sustainability is key to us achieving our net zero targets, and exploring and legislating for new technologies is vital to our energy security.

We also thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for the time that they have taken to consider the matter and their careful scrutiny of the lengthy and complicated bill. I was happy that the work was done by the net zero committee before I joined, because I can see how much was involved. With more than 300 clauses, there was a lot to get through and, clearly, there are many areas that require a UK-wide response that also includes powers that are delegated to the Scottish Government.

I welcome the consultation and, obviously, the detailed conversations that have happened between civil servants and ministers across both Governments. It is refreshing to see both of our Governments working together on this.

Many of the concerns that were raised by the net zero committee—and its report of 17 March—have now been addressed, which is reflected in the report that it published on 26 September.

I am also grateful to my fellow committee members and the clerks for bringing me up to speed so quickly on a complicated and detailed bill.

Throughout the clauses that are before us today, there is reference to the ministerial forum that will address many of the issues of contention in the bill. I ask the minister for clarity—if she has it—on the frequency of the meeting for the forum, the process for agreeing the agenda and how the minister proposes to update this chamber on those discussions. It might also be helpful to the minister if the relevant party spokespeople could meet her before and after the meetings to discuss progress. It is important that the process be as transparent as possible, given the implications for business and communities throughout Scotland and in the north-east, in particular.

It would also be helpful if the minister could share the details of the memorandum of understanding that is to be established between the Scottish and UK Governments on how they will work together on the policy relating to the economic regulation of CO₂ transport and storage. That will be a new market, and any information would be appreciated.

Those points are picked up in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament must be given the means by which to scrutinise and hold

“ministers to account for their position in any agreement with the UK Government.”

Perhaps the minister would like to update us now or in her closing remarks.

The fact that a key area of the bill concerns the relatively new industry of carbon capture is really exciting for our Acorn project. I say “new”, but I think that certain parts of the world have been doing carbon capture for a while now. With its deep underground depleted oil and gas wells, Scotland is uniquely well placed to store huge amounts of carbon deep underground. The carbon capture industry is, we hope, one that can bring huge economic benefit for the whole of Scotland.

It is vital that we all see the benefits of the move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. Businesses and communities in the north-east are eager to play their part—that is a topic that I spoke about just last week—and the measures in the bill will assist with that. They will ensure that we have clear and consistent policy from both Governments on carbon capture, hydrogen, the reduction of emissions from industry and transport, and the provision of low-carbon power.

I also welcome the bill’s focus on the offshore wind environmental improvement package, as well as the habitats assessment process for offshore wind projects. The bill as amended now also imposes on the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets the express mandate of supporting the achievement of net zero, which will be key to ensuring that everyone, at all levels of government and in associated bodies, is focused on that goal.

District heating systems, too, are covered in the bill. I am convinced that district heating networks will have a huge role to play as we move away from traditional gas boilers, especially in large parts of our urban areas, where older, traditional flats may not be suitable for air-source heat pumps.

Without wanting to be too negative, one area that still disappoints me is this devolved Government’s stance against new nuclear. Wind power is great, but we need to understand that, on cold, still days, the wind does not blow and our turbines do not turn. We need to have a good, reliable baseload and not rely on imported electricity for our base. We have some great skills in nuclear and we have some great sites that are connected to the grid. I urge the Scottish Government to keep an open mind. Technology is changing, as is decommissioning. New nuclear could provide a real economic benefit to Scotland.

That said, I support the LCM before us today.

David Harley, your core budget is similar to NatureScot’s, in that it is reducing in real terms.

I was not trying to single you out; I hear the same about Crown Estate Scotland and Marine Scotland. It takes a lot of time for those organisations to give a view on new developments.

Back in 2020-21, £20 million was committed. If that money was not spent, I presume that it does not come to you, as much as you would like it to; it would probably just drift back into the Government’s coffers for it to spend on anything that it likes.