Official Report 703KB pdf
Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 2025 [Draft]
Item 3 is consideration of a draft statutory instrument, on which the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment in its report. I welcome Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic, and the Scottish Government officials who join her: Michael McLeod, head of the marine nature enhancement programme and the joint environmental accelerator programme—that is a long title; and Stewart Cunningham, a solicitor in the marine planning and natural resources division of the legal directorate.
The draft instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to recommend that the instrument be approved. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not under the next one.
I invite the Deputy First Minister to make a short opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I will take advantage of the opportunity to set out what the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 2025 does and does not do, because I imagine that people will have quite a lot of strong views as soon as they see anything relating to electricity and energy. I am pleased to be here to present the draft order, which will transfer certain regulation-making functions to ministers under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
I think that it is quite important to provide the context before I get into the specifics of the draft order. Through the 2023 act, the United Kingdom Government created powers to introduce a new system of regulations on environmental outcomes reports to replace environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments. Currently, environmental assessments for electricity works are undertaken under the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which are executively devolved to the Scottish ministers and are the basis on which they process, consult on, consider and determine applications for renewable energy projects, generating stations and onshore transmission infrastructure.
09:30However, as a consequence of the UK’s exit from the European Union and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the Scottish ministers no longer have the ability to amend or replace the 2017 regulations, nor can the Scottish Parliament pass primary legislation to reinstate, amend or change them. As such, the Government sought reinstatement of powers to amend the 2017 regulations under the 2023 act as part of our negotiations with the UK Government regarding environmental assessment provisions. However, the UK Government instead committed to this draft order and the transfer of powers to the Scottish ministers.
The UK Government has stated that environmental outcomes reports are intended to set the scope of assessments in a targeted way, with the focus predominantly on the outcomes that are relevant to a given project, plan or programme. That regime is likely to depart from the EU-derived procedural approach to some extent. To date, little information is available on how the new regime will operate, but we expect the UK Government to set out more detail on the proposed approach in 2025.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 gave the Scottish ministers powers to adopt environmental outcomes reports across a range of devolved areas in which environmental assessment is required. The draft order transfers the same powers to the Scottish ministers under the 2023 act in relation to electricity works. It transfers functions to the Scottish ministers to make environmental outcomes reports regulations relating to environmental assessment in connection with applications for consent or approval for offshore renewables projects in Scottish waters, onshore generating stations and associated overhead line infrastructure. Those functions may be exercised concurrently with the secretary of state.
Detailed policy consideration will be required for the environmental outcomes reports approach and how it may be used by the Scottish ministers in the future. Without clear information from the UK Government on how environmental outcomes reports will work in practice, we have stated our preference for retaining the existing well-understood environmental impact assessment regime in Scotland.
Although the existing regime could benefit from some improvements, the case for total replacement has not been made. Nevertheless, it is better that Scotland has the ability to choose a path for ourselves, which is what the powers help to provide for.
I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the draft instrument, and I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. The deputy convener will ask the first questions.
Good morning. It would be helpful to clarify the scope of the powers that the Scottish ministers can exercise under the regulations. The environmental outcomes reports regime is the mechanism that is being pursued to replace the environmental impact assessments that were previously provided for. What scope is there for the Scottish ministers to take their own approach to environmental outcomes reports? Is there scope for ministers to vary the powers that apply under the regulations at present?
That is a complicated question with a complicated answer, and I will rely on support from my colleagues.
The environmental impact assessment system continues to operate in relation to relevant projects and plans in Scotland, and we have no current plans to adopt an EOR approach to environmental assessment. However, the UK Government is considering such reporting as a new approach for environmental assessment to replace the EU-derived system, using powers in the 2023 act. The UK Government consultation document, which was provided in March 2023, implies that the new EOR system will result in more efficient and effective processes for environmental assessment, but it does not set out details of how that would be achieved in practice.
The new UK Government has yet to confirm—or reconfirm, as it were—a commitment to making the change to EOR. We expect it to set out its proposed approach in 2025, and we will then consider that new approach.
Transitioning to a system of environmental outcome reports would be a long-term and complex change, and a decision to contemplate such change would, therefore, require careful consideration.
There is still some uncertainty as to what differences there might be between the system that we currently use and the potential implementation of an EOR system. We await further information from the UK Government. We are here today because Mr Michael Gove, through the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, made a commitment back in 2023 that when the bill that became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 was passed, it would include essentially the return to the Scottish ministers of a power that was equal to the original power that we had through the EU to make changes if we chose to do so.
I make it clear, for the benefit of the committee, that if we were to begin the journey to EORs, which I imagine would depend in part on what the UK Government might do, there would be a huge amount of engagement and consultation with stakeholders in the development of such an approach.
After all that complexity, I guess the simple answer is that, with regard to the difference in approach, there are elements on which I cannot give an answer right now. The question that the committee could put to me, therefore, is this: why are we pursuing order under the Scotland Act 1998 when EORs are not yet fully developed?
First, the process needs to follow that sequence so that the discretionary power is available for the Scottish ministers to use, should they wish, once EORs are fully understood. Secondly, that is the design by which the UK Government and the Scottish Government decided to devolve and transfer those powers, and the new UK Government has essentially agreed to pursue that approach. There would have been some doubt as to whether the new UK Government would have followed in Michael Gove’s footsteps.
I hope that that answer is not too long-winded, but I imagine that, to an extent, the committee might look at the order before it and ask what the implications are. The answer, I would say—unless my colleagues tell us otherwise—is that, at present, it essentially transfers the discretionary power, subject to extensive consultation if that power were ever to be used.
I will phrase my question in another way. This power is “to be exercisable concurrently” with UK ministers. What does “concurrently” mean in practice?
Under the Scotland Act 1998, it is possible for the UK Government to transfer functions so that the Scottish ministers use the function “instead of” or “concurrently with” the secretary of state.
When the power to make regulations on environmental assessment for electricity works was first transferred, back in 1999, that was done concurrently. The rationale at that time was that the power was about implementing EU obligations. The UK was the member state of the EU, so UK ministers wanted to retain the ability to also make regulations—for example, if the Scottish ministers did something that was in breach of EU obligations. That was how the power was initially transferred.
Obviously, that situation no longer applies because we are no longer an EU member state, but the UK Government wanted to retain the ability to exercise the functions concurrently, and the Scottish Government has no legal power to challenge that. It was essentially a decision of the UK Government, and it simply means that the UK Government also has the power to make regulations in this area in the same way that the Scottish ministers do.
In exercising the function, if you were to take an approach that was in conflict with the UK Government’s approach, where would the power reside to make the final decision on that?
If the Scottish ministers want to exercise the power, they must consult the secretary of state, but they do not require the consent of the secretary of state. We could still exercise the power, even if that was in conflict with the UK Government, but it could potentially use the power to cut across what the Scottish Government was doing. I imagine that there would have to be some degree of dialogue and negotiation.
In short, it is like saying, “Proceed until apprehended.” The Scottish Government can exercise the function, but if you reach a point where that function is being exercised in a way that UK Government ministers do not agree with, they ultimately have the power to overrule on that matter. Is that correct?
I think that that is correct.
My final question is on the use of EORs. If the UK Government is keen on a UK-wide regime for the use of EORs, what scope is there for ministers to resist that and prevent it from happening in Scotland? Could you take a completely different approach? That goes back to my previous question. If the Scottish Government does not take the approach that the UK Government wants, the UK Government could ultimately decide to overrule the way in which regulations are being exercised. Is that correct?
Essentially, that is correct. We have the complication that the Scottish offshore area is reserved. Although the order gives us the power to make regulations in the Scottish offshore area, it is essentially a matter that is reserved to the UK Government. The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 work in combination with the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, and the UK Government has full reserved power over the marine works regulations.
Therefore, the UK Government could introduce an environmental outcomes regime offshore, and it would then be a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how to respond to that. However, the Scottish Government certainly would not be able to completely override that decision. We would have to look at the regulations that apply in the inshore area and in Scotland to figure out how best the two systems could work together. We certainly would not be pushed into adopting an environmental outcomes regime wholesale, but there would have to be consideration about how to respond to that.
Okay—thanks.
If I might be so bold, I suggest that there is a certain amount of confusion in the drafting of the SI—although my mother will be turning in her grave if I am picking somebody up on the use of English. Article 3(1) says that the function is to be exercisable “concurrently”, and then article 3(2) says that that is “after consulting”. I think that that is where the confusion has arisen.
I will leave it at that, as an observation, and move on to Kevin Stewart and then Bob Doris.
Quite often, such instruments do not make much sense to the layman or woman. People might be watching this at home and listening to the complexity of your opening statement, Deputy First Minister, and of Mr Matheson’s questions and the answers to them, and thinking, “What the hell is going on here?” We need to tease out some of the key elements.
This was a power that we had before, which was taken away and which we are getting back. One of the key things that you said in your opening statement, which I will ask about again, was that our intention is to retain the “well-understood”—your term—environmental impact assessments, and that if there is to be any change and a move to EORs, that would require a huge amount of consultation. Is that fair to say?
09:45
I am happy to repeat it once again. The order does not fundamentally change the underlying regulations, which, as I said in my opening remarks, are well understood. If we were to begin the journey to EORs, there would be significant engagement and consultation with stakeholders on the development of such an approach. That is not up for discussion in this meeting.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 and the legislation that forms the EIA regimes are key frameworks that underpin the important environmental protections and assessment processes in Scotland on land and sea. Having lost enabling powers that were available to the Scottish ministers before EU exit, it is vital that we have a future-proof mechanism to ensure that those frameworks remain fit for purpose and can adapt to future circumstances. It is the issue of enabling us to be flexible in the future that is currently up for discussion.
At the moment, in some quarters, there is some controversy about electricity as a whole. You have made it quite clear that the regaining of powers does not change how matters currently stand in relation to environmental impact assessments.
That is not up for debate in this conversation. Perhaps to prove the point, I do not have responsibility for electricity and energy. I am responsible for the economy and Gaelic, but I am here as Deputy First Minister because what we are discussing today is the Scotland Act 1998 and the transfer of powers to the Scottish ministers to right a wrong that took place on EU exit. If and when there is to be any change to the core consenting procedures, I would expect Gillian Martin to be here.
Thank you. That is very clear.
I apologise, Deputy First Minister, as I think that we are scrutinising the hinterland of this order rather than its core, but it is important that the committee understands how it fits in.
My understanding is that the order deals with environmental considerations in the consenting of electricity generation and infrastructure and the requirements around that. You said that the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 allowed the Scottish Government to adapt and change that as appropriate. What happened before that?
Prior to—
Prior to the 2017 regulations.
You are asking how it operated prior to 2017.
Yes.
Prior to the 2017 regulations, there would have been other environmental impact assessment regulations. I cannot think of the precise title off the top of my head, but we have had environmental impact assessment regimes for a long time.
I am not trying to catch anyone out, but I am asking whether they sat at a European level or a Scottish level.
The environmental impact assessment regulations that we have domestically implement the obligations that sat at EU level. There was an environmental impact assessment directive, and as a member state, we had to implement that directive through domestic legislation.
Pre-2017, we implemented decisions made at a European level. We did not make our own decisions.
The EU directive sets the standards for environmental impact assessments, and we implement them. However, no decisions are made at the EU level about—
There is an EU principle, and we build our framework for compliance around that.
Exactly.
Thank you. That is helpful.
We know that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 meant that the 2017 powers failed to exist any more. What is the current situation? If a large wind farm developer was seeking consent right now and wanted to do all the right things in relation to environmental considerations, what regime would they be operating under?
The 2017 regulations are still in force. That is still domestic law. What we have lost is the power to amend those regulations, which came from the European Communities Act 1972. The current regime is the 2017 regulations.
Okay. The policy intent, then, is by and large to stay compliant with those regulations but to take the power to amend them as appropriate to changing circumstances. Have I got that right, Deputy First Minister?
That is correct. Obviously, any decision to deploy that discretionary power would be subject to extensive consultation and engagement. For now, yesterday and tomorrow, irrespective of what the committee does, the 2017 regulations are in force.
And my understanding is that there would be no lowering of the bar in relation to those consultation requirements, because we are sticking with the 2017 requirements, as previously outlined.
My only other question is about the concurrent operation of powers. It is quite reasonable for the Scottish Government to wait and see how environmental outcomes reports and regulations work in practice, and then decide whether to endure with environmental impact assessments for the longer term or to see whether there is better practice elsewhere and adopt that. However, the key point would be that the Scottish ministers would be in control of that decision. Would that be correct, Deputy First Minister?
To an extent. We would be in control, because that is the purpose of this instrument, but we are also watching carefully to see what the UK Government might do in terms of transitioning to EORs. If it were to transition, that would be a long-term and complex process. As far as I know, we do not have final confirmation from the UK Government on what it intends to do along the lines of EORs.
Sorry, convener—I have one final, final question.
I have given you a fair run, Mr Doris—one more question, and then I must move on to other committee members.
I will just make the point that this can be quite simplistic when the legalese is taken out of it, so I appreciate the answers.
Is it possible that the UK Government could pivot to environmental outcomes reports, which then became requirements on the Scottish consenting regime, as would environmental impact assessments? Is it possible that the Scottish regime could have two sets of standards that developers would have to comply with? That would concern some developers.
That is a possible scenario, particularly in relation to the offshore and the inshore, because the Scottish ministers have devolved authority over the inshore region. We could maintain the environmental impact assessment regime inshore, which is 0 to 12 nautical miles, and the UK Government could impose an environmental outcomes report system covering 12 to 200 nautical miles. We would then essentially have two systems.
Is it the view of the Scottish Government that the adoption of this kind of simpler environmental outcomes report regime knocks us out of alignment with the European Union, or is it too early to tell that at the moment?
The Scottish ministers have a settled position on seeking to align with the EU as far as possible. That is why I am stressing in this conversation that seeking the passage of the instrument is not a request for fundamental changes. For example, we have already set out that the 2017 regulations remain in place.
However, completely independently of this conversation, we have been consulting on how to ensure that, for example, the 1994 habitats regulations are fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of and accountability for those areas. As is set out in this year’s programme for government, the powers will be included in a natural environment bill, which will be introduced in this parliamentary year.
It is not that there is a settled position and we are not constantly thinking about how to improve in order to ensure that our regulations remain fit for purpose, but it is the Scottish Government’s default position to seek to align as closely as possible with the European Union.
I see that Michael McLeod wants to come in.
I just want to add that, in the absence of any clear information at this point from the UK Government, what we are talking about could be as simple as changing the name of the existing regime from an EIA regime to an EOR regime. If that is the case, there is no question but that you would still be largely in line with the EU. Clearly, however, if a more fundamental change were imposed, you would have to give consideration to how far the change would move you from alignment.
Clearly, everything that we are talking about comes from EU law, which we have implemented into our own law. However, EU law does not stand still. What engagement will there be with the European Commission on the changes to environmental assessment? As the years go by, refinements will be made—for example, there are now enhanced commitments on nature at a European level. I am interested in what that conversation looks like. I understand why we have been focusing on the discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but the origin of what we are talking about is in European law, which is why I am interested in what the engagement with Europe will look like in future in relation to alignment and reform.
Independently of the process around this instrument, the Scottish Government keeps a close eye on what changes are happening at an EU level.
Stewart Cunningham will keep me right on this, but the non-regression clause in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—the act that gives rise to this transfer of powers—includes a safeguard that means that any environmental outcomes report regulations must not result in a lower level of environmental protection than existed under environmental law when the 2023 act was passed. The 2023 act also says:
“EOR regulations may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of the international obligations of the United Kingdom relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents.”
So, although the proposal does not represent a like-for-like replacement, it captures a moment in time—the 2023 point—and it is for the Scottish ministers to ensure that, where we have the power to make changes, concurrently with the Secretary of State or otherwise, we can do so.
If this instrument does not pass—in other words, if the power is not transferred—we are, essentially, at the mercy of a situation in which we have to either accept or reject whatever EOR regulations the UK Government makes in future in relation to electricity works in the context of environmental assessments, and so on. There is more scope for divergence if this instrument passes than if it does not because, if it does not, we would have to accept whatever the UK Government does in terms of EOR regulations.
Thanks. My last question is on strategic environmental assessment, which relates to plans and programmes. I know that, in its second session, the Parliament passed an act to establish SEA, on the back of EU directives. If EORs are adopted, will SEA continue to apply to plans and programmes in relation to energy developments under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 act? If we are looking at a programme of offshore wind development, will the whole plan of multiple developments remain subject to SEA?
10:00
Yes. The act that applies SEA in Scotland would continue to apply. It does not apply in Scottish offshore waters. There are SEA regulations at a UK level that apply in the offshore region, and they are clearly included within the scope of the overall powers under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. That means that the UK Government could change the approach that would apply for the Scottish offshore region. For Scotland’s inshore waters and on land, however, the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 remains the approach to strategic environmental assessment.
So, there remains consistency across the UK for the strategic assessment of plans and programmes, regardless of where the constitutional boundaries are drawn.
Yes, but if the UK transitions SEA to some kind of environmental outcomes approach, we will clearly have a split system between inshore and offshore waters. That would be rather like what Stewart Cunningham described for the marine works regulations: there would potentially be the same risk of having different approaches.
I wish to follow on from Bob Doris’s questions and to work out how things could work in practice, Deputy First Minister.
Let us say that either the present Government or a future Government wanted to have a policy of having all power lines offshored or put underground, for instance. Would what we are putting in place through the SI make it easier for a Government to change the regulations to put that policy in place?
We get into tricky territory when using specific examples, because of a number of points. I cannot argue whether the draft order would make it easier or harder, because it really depends, first, on what the UK Government might do in introducing EORs. What we know about EORs so far is based on what the previous UK Government initiated on consultation. It published a consultation seeking views on a new system of environmental assessment to replace what had previously been an EU-derived environmental assessment processes. We have no information beyond that as to when or how the UK Government might move to an EOR system, or what that would look like. As my colleague said, it might be EIA by another name. It is impossible to say at this point whether the order will make a certain outcome easier or more difficult, as you have outlined, because we do not know what changes will be made at a UK Government level.
Turning to a second element, I have stated openly in this meeting that we have no intention in the short term of making any changes to the well-understood environmental impact assessment system. If the instrument passes, there is an opportunity to consider how we future-proof and improve the consenting processes. Of course, environmental impact assessment is only one element of the much broader consenting regime.
In your question, you talked about the sea and whether that would make some things easier or harder.
No—I was actually just talking about onshore.
Onshore—sorry. If we are talking about onshore, that is easier to answer, because it does not have the issue of the 12 nautical mile cut-off.
If we ever wanted to change to EORs once we have seen what the UK Government might do and what information is forthcoming, because of the concurrent point, which is very relevant, we would engage and consult. At that point, however, it is a question of what is coming back to us by way of suggestions for improvements that need to be made. Your question whether the instrument would make things easier or not is almost redundant, because we are talking about changes to who controls the process, not what is included in the process.
Would bringing back that power not allow you to have a separate assessment, to align with the Government’s political priorities?
As I said, we are already consulting on the 1994 habitats regulations. We consult on the most effective regulations within the current powers. However, the example that you put to me is a significant change, which would be subject to heavy engagement and consultation before we got to that point.
As I said, the move to EORs would be long term and complex. If you are asking whether the Scottish ministers will be back here next week to suggest substantial and widespread changes to the consenting scheme, the instrument does not enable that to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case.
But does it enable a route to having separate policies from the rest of the UK?
Essentially, it means that the Scottish ministers do not have a like-for-like replacement of the lost function of making EIA regulations. The order does not reinstate the Scottish ministers’ ability to amend the 2017 regulations but transfers EOR regulation-making functions to ministers, to replace the lost function of making EIA regulations in the same respect. Sorry—that paragraph from my notes was confusing.
The order does not completely reinstate what we had previously, because the UK Government does not have the power to do that—because we are out of the EU. Instead, it follows through on the consultation that Michael Gove initiated to look at how a new system of environmental assessment, which would not result in a lower level of environmental protection, might replace the EU-derived environmental assessment process. It is one of the many mop-up things that are required to deal with lost functions post-Brexit.
I was going to say, “It’s as simple as that,” but I have made it sound quite complicated. [Laughter.]
Thanks, convener. I will leave it there.
“Clear as mud,” is the expression, I am sure, Douglas. Monica Lennon wants to come in.
I will try to keep it simple. I was interested in Mark Ruskell’s line of questioning, particularly around EU alignment. I would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has had discussions with, or taken advice from, Environmental Standards Scotland in relation to these matters.
Which organisation did you say? I did not quite catch it.
It was ESS—Environment, Environmental—oh no, now I have got it wrong! [Laughter.]
It is Environmental Standards Scotland.
Yes, it is Environmental Standards Scotland. There are so many acronyms.
In the drafting of this order, we have not done so. If we were ever going to utilise the powers that come with the order, we would absolutely consult and discuss with Environmental Standards Scotland.
I emphasise that this is a Scotland Act 1998 order, so it is very much about where powers lie. It has nothing to do with the substance of those powers, which would be the point at which we would consult widely on what environmental assessment should look like.
You have explained that distinction well. However, as we know, things sometimes move at a fast pace. A lot has happened in the EU space on nature and environmental protection—one example is ecocide law. I shamelessly plug my intention for a member’s bill on that. ESS has been a useful advisory body for the committee.
Deputy First Minister, I understand that you do not want to reach into other colleagues’ portfolios, but the EIA regime is of national interest—Scotland’s marine environment is a crucial part of our biodiversity, and how well those systems operate has an impact on our economy. I was interested to hear that you—I do not want to put words in your mouth—seemed to be defending the status quo, if I picked you up right. You seemed to be saying that the EIA process is well understood and that people know what they are getting.
I am interested to hear what discussions the Government is having about where potential improvements could be made. It was interesting to read the commentary on the situation in England, in which practitioners and communities have identified some of the shortcomings of the current regime. There are concerns that the data is not always complete and robust, and that the non-technical summaries are not always easy for communities to understand. If there are opportunities to inject some clarity and improve confidence, would the Government be open to that? Where do you see potential improvements being made?
Yes. The reason why I have been at pains to distinguish between the substance and the transfer is that I was concerned that there might be confusion about what was up for discussion today.
I mentioned to Bob Doris that we recently consulted on proposed powers that would allow the Scottish ministers to make future amendments to the 1994 habitats regulations and to the various EIA regimes in Scotland. We are carefully considering the responses to the consultation in order to identify the best way to proceed with those powers.
Nothing stands still. We want to ensure that the regulations and the legislation that form the EIA regimes, which are the key frameworks that underpin the important environmental protections and assessment processes in Scotland on land and sea, are fit for purpose and are achieving ministers’ aims of protecting the environment, reducing biodiversity loss and meeting our climate change targets. We want all those to be fit for purpose.
I have already referred to the fact that this year’s programme for government set out our intention to include those powers in a natural environment bill, which is to be introduced in this parliamentary year. Therefore, you are absolutely right—that work is on-going.
As you mentioned the natural environment bill, I will turn to that. Clearly, the Government has to do a lot of things at the same time, so it is great to hear about the on-going consultation in relation to EIAs and the habitats regulations. Will that inform some of your thinking on the natural environment bill? How will the Government ensure that a joined-up approach is taken to the environmental regime, as we understand it, and the forthcoming legislation, so that, when it comes to national outcomes, we get the best that we can achieve?
Those issues dominate the Scottish ministers’ discussions, and I know that they feature high on the agendas of Gillian Martin and Alasdair Allan. The fact that we constantly consider those issues is partly why I made the point in my opening remarks that the regulations process is tried, tested and well understood. There is an argument that we should ensure that the substance of the regulations is in line with ministers’ objectives, rather than going back to the beginning and completely changing the process. What we are discussing today is whether ministers have the power to fundamentally change the regulations.
The argument that I made in my opening comments was that we will consult on what the substance should be, but we have no intention, in the short term, of making fundamental changes to the processes.
It is always the short ones that cause the problem when it comes to legislation. I think that I am right in saying that, basically, the Scottish Government is reserving its right to use EIAs if the UK goes with EORs, that there is no intention of dumbing down the process or making it easier, and that the standards will remain the same. That is what I take away from what you have said. Have I got that right?
10:15
Yes. I go one step further and say that, although it is not for me to defend the UK Government, the 2023 act, which I referenced in my answer to somebody, stated that EOR regulations must not result in a lower level of environmental protection than existed under environmental law at the time of the 2023 act being passed. It is not the Scottish Government’s intention to lower protections. Either way, the 2023 act is quite clear.
Okay. I will not dwell on that any more. However, the matter is quite complex and intricate, and I am not sure that I would have used the words “concurrently” and “after consultation” to make it easier to understand. I have made my point.
The next item on the agenda is a debate on motion S6M-15261, which calls on the committee to recommend the approval of the draft order. I remind the committee that only the cabinet secretary and members may speak in the debate.
Deputy First Minister, I invite you to move the motion and to speak further to it if you feel that you would like to.
Motion moved,
That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2025 be approved.—[Kate Forbes]
As no member wishes to make a contribution, I will move straight on and ask whether the committee agrees to motion S6M-15261, in the name of Kate Forbes.
Motion agreed to.
The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite committee members to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft report for publication. Are you all happy?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, First Minister, and thank you to your officials for attending for a somewhat longer—[Interruption.] Did I say First Minister?
Yes. [Laughter.]
Oh, well, there you go. I must correct the record. Thank you, Deputy First Minister, and thank you to your officials. In the interest of time, I ask you to leave quietly while we move to our next item.
Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (West Dunbartonshire Council) Designation Order 2024 (SSI 2024/270)
Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (West Dunbartonshire Council) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/271)
We move to item 5, which is consideration of two negative instruments.
The purpose of the two SSIs is to jointly introduce a decriminalised parking regime in the West Dunbartonshire council area. They are laid under the negative procedure, which means that they could come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee had no comment on either of those instruments in its report.
No member has any comments on either instrument. I note that the policy note that goes with the instruments could have been simpler and easier to read.
I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (West Dunbartonshire Council) Designation Order 2024 (SSI 2024/270). Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I now invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (West Dunbartonshire Council) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/271). Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the item. I briefly suspend the meeting.
10:18 Meeting suspended.