Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, it does not. It is consultation, which can encompass a broad spectrum from something that is very deep and meaningful to a superficial tick-box exercise. The lack of consultation and detail in advance of the bill does not bode well for how UK ministers intend to consult if the bill becomes an act.

Our approach to planning, regeneration and building community wealth is about collaboration and engagement, in recognition of the fact that in trying to achieve the outcomes that we want, no one agency or body can do it all alone. We need to work together—that is very important when we are designing policy. The UK Government’s approach does not seem to be like that. The levelling-up agenda seems to be more a soundbite that it is now chasing to invent a policy programme to justify it.

If the UK Government genuinely desires to engage seriously on these issues and with respect for the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers, we would, of course, be happy to engage. That is the responsible thing to do. However, as has been said this morning and as you will have inferred from the contributions of stakeholders last week, the UK Government has not taken that approach.

There certainly has not been direct engagement at ministerial level.

Good morning. Thank you, convener, for the invitation and opportunity to address the committee on the UK Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This morning, we will talk about the planning data provisions in chapter 1 of part 3 of the bill. I am conscious that the committee has recently heard evidence from key stakeholders.

Before I turn to part 3 in detail, I reiterate the Scottish Government’s fundamental concerns about the bill. As members will know, we have recommended that the Scottish Parliament not provide legislative consent for the bill as drafted, given that it absolutely poses a threat to a wide range of devolved responsibilities and fails to respect the role of this Parliament and the Scottish Government in legislating for devolved powers. We remain concerned that the Westminster Government will ignore our collective role and simply legislate without our consent.

Turning to part 3, I am not surprised that evidence has pointed to a lack of available information on how the planning data provisions in the bill will operate in practice. I would like to set out on the record my frustration that we received little advance sight of the draft bill before its introduction. That lack of meaningful prior engagement from the UK is sadly all too typical of the current Westminster Government’s approach to legislation. It contrasts with our own work in Scotland on the digital planning strategy and transformation programme, and on our collaborative approach to planning reform as a whole. Therefore, although I recognise and support the need for planning data standards in principle, the lack of detail on how the provisions will be implemented leaves unanswered questions.

With so many unknowns, there is also the potential for conflict with the work that is being undertaken already in Scotland as part of our digital planning transformation programme, with a £35 million capital investment initiative already under way. That is an ambitious programme that is led by the Scottish Government, working in partnership across the public sector. It will put data and new digital technologies at the heart of Scotland’s planning system, thereby helping to achieve the wider planning reform aim of delivering an open, streamlined and inclusive planning system that is fit for the future. Our work on the programme is making real progress, with the first new digital services expected to be rolled out next year. We are building those new digital services and products on solid data and technical foundations, working in collaboration with our partners.

At last week’s evidence session, members heard stakeholders give strong support to the direction and approach that we are taking in collaborating across the sector, rather than mandating a way forward. In Scotland, we are taking a comprehensive approach to improving planning data. Our data strategy will set out a road map to provide easy access to high-quality data for use across planning and place-based work.

Therefore, I have real concerns about the UK Government’s intention to legislate in areas of devolved and executively devolved competence without any real knowledge of what we are doing in Scotland, nor any interest in accommodating that in the bill. We could find ourselves in the unhelpful situation of having Scottish planning authorities being subjected to conflicting measures, with one imposed on them through a UK bill and the other agreed through mutual collaboration in order to improve our planning system in line with our own domestic legislation and priorities.

As currently drafted, part 3 provides one of many reasons why the Scottish Government cannot recommend that the Scottish Parliament consent to the provisions as they stand.

Thank you, convener.

There is nothing, at this stage. I come back to the point about the degree of uncertainty that makes it difficult to come to a rounded judgment. I do not think that there would be any direct impact on NPF4 and certainly not on the timescale for Parliament to consider it.

Looking beyond that to implementation and delivery, we are, of course, discussing an exceptionally important part of the planning process, so an impact on data could have an indirect impact on delivery of NPF4. However, I do not want to indulge too much in speculation; ultimately, we do not have enough clarity from the UK Government to come to a fully informed view.

I highlight the difference between the approach that Liz Pringle has very elegantly articulated and our having a provision bounced on us in a bill by the UK Government. The UK Government’s approach is not consistent with that collaborative spirit. It ignores the reality of devolution and has the potential to cause confusion at the very least, and ultimately to significantly undermine and frustrate the shared ambition that we are working towards collaboratively.

The Scottish Government’s position is very clear: we are completely opposed to consent not being sought. If you remember, for the UK Government, the word “consent” took on a perverse meaning in the context of the legislation pertaining to Brexit and the definition that was applied to consent decisions.

The reality is that we have clear devolved competencies and relevant clauses of the bill—from memory, clause 80 in particular—recognise that. Ministers are happy to engage with the UK Government to discuss any areas of shared interest. There are forums in which I engage with ministerial counterparts on a range of issues. For example, through the British-Irish Council, I took part in discussions on spatial planning and I have had discussions about social enterprise and such like. That is productive collaborative engagement in which we share experiences, and it is based on mutual respect.

What we have here is the UK Government seeking through legislation in effect to undermine and go against the spirit of devolution. We are now 25 years on from the referendum that established this Parliament and, as the Scottish social attitudes survey data that was published recently shows, a clear majority of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government as institutions and want the Parliament to have the lion’s share of the decision making that impacts on their daily lives. There is no popular support and no mandate, political or otherwise, for those powers to be undermined or removed from the Scottish Parliament.

The UK Government talks about having a respect agenda but that needs to be shown in action, and not just in words. In reality, there are areas in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that clearly fall within devolved competence. UK ministers should not be seeking to grant themselves powers to start legislating in devolved areas without the express agreement of the Scottish Parliament, which they do not have.

Ultimately, this is about the implementation of an act that was passed by Parliament, so I think that it recognises that this is a decision that Parliament has taken to set up an independent body, Consumer Scotland, which is a non-ministerial office. We have engaged carefully and listened and we have worked through the TUPE process to ensure that Consumer Scotland is now operational. As I said, the instrument completes the journey. It is a technical instrument that is fundamentally about implementing the legislation that Parliament has passed.

The reporting requirements are set out in the legislation, but I want to stress that this is set up as a non-ministerial office, so it is directly accountable to Parliament. Indeed, this committee as the lead committee in this area in Parliament can directly engage with Consumer Scotland on these matters. I am conscious, with it being an NMO, that I do not want to overstep my mark as a minister.

Yes. The role is around advocacy. Neil Ritchie might want to explain the distinction between the two bodies.