���˿���

I will ask Liz Pringle to come in in a moment. First, data is one of the key missions in our digital strategy for planning. I think that we all recognise the wider importance of data. For example, this morning, Audit Scotland put out a release on the importance of data in policy design.

The bill sets out the definition of planning data in clause 75(2). Planning data is said to include

“any information which is provided to, or processed by,”

the planning authority

“for the purposes of a function under a relevant planning enactment”.

A relevant planning enactment would include any enactment made by the secretary of state under part 5 of the bill, which applies UK-wide and contains provisions on environmental outcome report regulations. There is also a lack of information about how provisions on environmental outcomes reports would operate.

That, combined with the lack of detail on implementation and practice in relation to the planning data provisions, means that it is unclear what the wider implications would be for the handling of planning data in Scotland. That speaks to the point that I am making about the uncertainty and vagueness that comes with the bill.

It is important that we give some examples of what we are doing more broadly around planning data. I ask Liz Pringle to come in on that.

It is important to recognise that the approach that we are taking in Scotland is one of genuine collaboration. I think that such an approach is vital if we are to get the most out of planning and fully realise planning’s potential to deliver across many areas.

The risk, and our concern, relates to conflict. Planning has always been a devolved competence. In 75 years of the town and country planning legislation, there has always been distinct Scottish planning legislation. The one time an attempt was made to combine those acts, in the 1950s, it became a bit of a mess, I think, and they had to be separated again. That has always been the nature of planning. It is a devolved competence and it is for this Parliament to take an approach.

If the UK Government wants to engage constructively, recognise the competence of this Parliament and not stick to acting in a way that means that it can legislate without the agreement of this Parliament, of course we are very happy to engage, recognising the value of a consistent approach being taken across Scotland. We are working towards that through our broader work on digital transformation in planning.

However, the key issue is that that cannot be mandated by the UK Government, and that the approach is somewhat distant from the reality of the work that we are doing in planning in Scotland. We have to have the space to continue what we are doing, which is developing an approach in collaboration with planning authorities and other partners.

I cannot comment on that specifically. However, in my opening remarks I touched on the risk of confusion when we are developing an approach in collaboration with planning authorities in Scotland and the UK Government then mandates something UK-wide. That is, as you described it, a recipe for a dog’s breakfast. At the very least, it can create confusion and it is not an efficient way to do things.

One of the benefits of devolution—as we all know from our experience as constituency and regional representatives—is that we can be far more responsive and attuned to the circumstances of the places and localities that we represent; so it is with the Government and how we design our devolved public services. We take a collaborative approach to planning, built on deep and sustained engagement. That has informed the range of work that we are taking forward in planning reform. Equally, it informs how we are taking forward our approach to digital.

Liz Pringle can talk about partnership work and how we engage with others in development of our approach to digital planning.

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.

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

Again, I would not want to get into the territory of commenting specifically on the work programme and the work that Consumer Scotland will undertake, but clearly, as Scotland’s independent consumer advocacy body, it can play an important role in working with other stakeholders and working in partnership with others to maximise coherence and accessibility within the consumer support landscape. I do not know whether there is anything that Neil Ritchie wants to add.

Good morning to the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations. The regulations are, in effect, the final piece of the jigsaw in implementing the Consumer Scotland Act 2020. Earlier sets of regulations have already been through Parliament, as has a United Kingdom Government order pertaining to reserved aspects.

The regulations in their simplest form will add “Consumer Scotland” or replace references to “Citizens Advice Scotland” with “Consumer Scotland” in Scottish acts to allow the transfer or sharing of functions between the two consumer bodies. This is a technical instrument, which brings transparency around the transfer of functions and also recognises Consumer Scotland as Scotland’s independent consumer advocate. The functions that are being transferred relate to the devolved policy responsibility for water. Without the transfer of functions from CAS to Consumer Scotland in the areas of consumer advocacy and general advice, Consumer Scotland would not be able to carry out its duties.

You may be wondering why we are not transferring all functions to Consumer Scotland. Consumer Scotland and CAS, although they are both consumer bodies, have extremely different roles to play in the consumer landscape. CAS will continue to provide advice via its network of bureaux and the extra help unit. Consumer Scotland, as part of its statutory functions, has the ability to provide advice, along with making proposals on consumer matters to the Scottish ministers and public organisations in Scotland, and to other organisations where needed.

Consumer Scotland has now been up and running since July, carrying out a wide range of activities, influencing and adding value where it is needed most. For example, in relation to water policy, Consumer Scotland is already a key player, campaigning for a fair deal for customers and assisting with policy development. As a member of strategic stakeholder groups, Consumer Scotland scrutinises the delivery of Scottish Water’s investment programme to ensure that ministers’ objectives are being delivered. I welcome this engagement as an assurance that customers and communities have high-quality representation. Consumer Scotland will also be carrying out its own research to identify the potential impact that future increases in water and sewerage charges may have on low-income households.

This legislation is an opportunity for us to ensure that consumers have a voice, that their interests are represented, and that their own capacity to drive change is harnessed. The cost crisis that we find ourselves in now has revealed how important it is that customers have access to the information that they need and are mindful of the impacts of their own behaviour.

We began this process of establishing Consumer Scotland because we recognise that consumers are the life-blood of our economy and, in the months ahead, consumers will be vital for rebuilding our economy and supporting businesses. We will continue this process and one of the ways of doing this is for the committee, I hope, to agree to recommend the approval of the draft regulations. On that, convener, I will conclude. I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have.