Official Report 350KB pdf
Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice (SG 2014/236)
Item 4 is subordinate legislation. We have to consider the Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice.
Fergus Ewing, who is now the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism—new title, same face—is joined by Joe Brown, who is head of better regulation and industry engagement in the Scottish Government, and Sandra Reid, who is better regulation policy adviser in the Scottish Government. Welcome to you all.
Do you want to introduce the code of practice, minister?
Yes. Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice.
As the committee is aware, provisions for the code come from the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which seeks to deliver proportionate and consistent regulation and to promote in all regulators a broad and deep alignment with the Government’s central purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. A strong economy is essential to our success, and we must provide the environment that allows business to succeed.
The Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice, which has been laid before the Scottish Parliament, sets out a high-level strategic approach to encourage and support regulators in applying regulatory principles and building good practice in order to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth while concurrently delivering other core functions. Underpinning the duty for regulators to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth, the code will provide a clear line of sight between regulatory activity and the Scottish Government’s purpose. It will also provide greater transparency, which is essential if we are to have consistent delivery across all regulators.
The code was developed with and by regulators and business, and I acknowledge and value the contribution from members of the short-term working group. The draft code was subject to open public consultation to seek to ensure that it meets the requirements and expectations of the regulator and the regulated. It builds on existing good practice and seeks to support an enabling approach to drive further performance improvements. It is important to recognise that when considering the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s comments on paragraph 9 of the introduction and overview to the code, which I will come to shortly, as I indicated informally to the committee this morning.
The code provides greater clarity to regulators as to what is expected of them and to businesses on what they can expect from regulators. In recognition of concerns raised during stage 1 scrutiny of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill, it includes the Scottish Government’s definition of sustainable economic growth.
The approach that is set out in the code requires regulators to take a risk-based enabling approach, to communicate clearly and effectively and to understand who they regulate. Given the wide range of regulators and regulatory activity that it covers, the code is purposely set at a strategic level. It should be underpinned by regulator-specific guidance through which each regulator will provide the greater detail that its staff and stakeholders require to reflect their circumstances.
However, having noted the concerns that the DPLR Committee raised regarding the wording in paragraph 9, I am minded to take the Parliament’s views fully into account. I will revisit that section of the code with the working group that helped to develop it. There is no need for a further formal consultation and I therefore expect to come back with a revised form of wording relatively early in the new year.
Delivering better regulation by carrying out regulatory functions in a transparent, proportionate, accountable, consistent and targeted way will, alongside the duty to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth, play an important role in making Scotland a more successful country and providing a favourable business environment in which companies can grow and flourish.
The code builds on our existing better regulation toolkit to deliver better and effective regulation and to make Scotland a leading country in Europe for better regulation and an attractive destination for business.
I will not move the motion but am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.
I do not know whether you have seen the Scottish Council for Development and Industry’s submission to the committee. The SCDI raised some concerns about innovation and specifically about whether the code places
“enough emphasis on the need to work with individual businesses or organisations in order to help innovative and beneficial technologies and processes comply”.
It is concerned that opportunities might be missed because of simple unfamiliarity with new and innovative products and procedures. Will you consider that when you take the code back?
I am happy to do that at your request, convener. I have the submission in front of me now. It is fair to say that it is couched in high-level, general terms. It does not give specific examples of areas of innovation that have not hitherto been the subject of adequate and proper consideration.
To be fair to regulators, they generally behave in the way that we expect them to behave when the code comes into place. Therefore, the 2014 act is being respected at present. We work with regulators rather than in conflict with them. Many of them are working extremely closely with us on areas of innovation such as renewable energy to achieve the Government’s objectives.
However, at your request, I will take that point away and revert to you when we bring back the revised code early in the new year.
Thank you.
Good morning, minister. You said that there was no need for further consultation and I accept that. Are you content that, with the timeframe that you have, you will be able to go back to the working group and then come back to the committee in the early part of the new year?
I am reasonably confident that that should be the case. Those on the working group include the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, local authorities, the Food Standards Agency, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish Housing Regulator, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and VisitScotland, so it is quite a comprehensive group of stakeholders.
We will see what those stakeholders have to say but, given that the DPLR Committee has focused on one specific aspect, I think that the focus will be narrow in scope and therefore we would hope to revert early in the new year on these matters.
Good morning, minister. I was going to raise the concerns that the SCDI raised in relation to individual businesses as well, but that has been pre-empted. I will make an observation. This is a circumstance that shows that, despite what others may say, the committee system works, as does the relationship between committees and ministers. What has happened today is an indicator of how the DPLR Committee has worked, how we work and how the minister works. With that willingness to make things work, the committee system, working with the appropriate ministers, is very effective and we should recognise that.
I am not sure whether that is a question for you, minister, or just a statement.
It was an observation.
I am happy to agree with Mr Brodie. We listen very carefully to committees. In this case, we listened very carefully to the DPLR Committee. As a direct result of the committee making that one, narrow, specific criticism in paragraphs 12 and 13 of its 67th report in 2014, I felt that the correct thing to do—rather than firing ahead regardless of what Parliament said—was to go away and give further careful thought to it with the relevant stakeholders, which encompass a very wide range of Scottish society, and then to come back to the committee after having thought it through. The amount of time involved is relatively modest, but the value of the committee contribution, as Mr Brodie says, is substantial.
That concludes item 4. As the minister has indicated that he does not intend to move the motion in his name, we will move to item 6.
Next
Infrastructure Bill