Hansard

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.