Official Report 112KB pdf
Gordon Jackson has something to tell us. It is show and tell.
Last week when I was ill, the report from the red tape conference that I attended on behalf of the committee in Toronto was on the agenda. I do not want to say much about the report. I am conscious that it is not exactly bedtime reading. Alasdair Rankin has helped to make it as readable as possible, but I am not sure how successful that process has been.
It is teachers who tell us that. Head teachers do not teach.
I take that point. We are constantly having debates about the number of police officers on the street. Police officers tell us that half their problem is that, every time they do something on the street, they have to spend about three days—I exaggerate a little—in the police station filling out forms. The whole business of regulation is important, but the idea that we can just abolish it does not work either, because there would not be proper accountability and proper systems would not be in place.
Phil Wynn Owen.
It is clear that Westminster is serious about the issue, but it is not entirely clear how much the Executive is up to speed on the matter. It might be that work is being done really well and we do not know about it, but I do not think that the Executive is nearly serious enough about the business of red tape and regulation. I believe that when we suggested that someone from the Executive should attend the conference, the answer was: "Somebody from Westminster is going and they will tell us what we need to know."
I thank Gordon Jackson and the clerk for the report, which is excellent. Mind you, I started out by thinking that the measures discussed at the conference had Reaganesque origins.
There is always a danger of people thinking that.
Exactly. I read through your report, which makes a good case. Obviously, it is for the Executive to make policy decisions. The committee's job is to test whether, by the time the tape reaches us, it is truly red or merely pinkish.
We might be too late in the day.
Perhaps we are too late for this session of Parliament.
I suspect that the issue is for those members who will still be here and interested in the matter in the next session of Parliament. There is a lot of legislation to get through and, given that we have only nine weeks remaining, perhaps a debate is not realistic.
The issue would be a good subject for a members' business debate.
It might be hard to raise interest. We would have to engage the Executive.
You could get the interest.
The debate would have to be about red tape.
Accessibility is also an issue.
If I am still here, I would like to raise the issue in the next session, but I have doubts about what can be done at this late stage in the session.
The issue has two distinct legs, from my reading of the report: one is that we cannot deregulate business and services; the other is the effect that red tape has on service delivery.
It strikes me that the committee is running out of time and that initiating a debate on the matter, rather than simply issuing the conference report, would take a bit of considered thinking. I am not sure what the committee's precise remit is and whether it has any powers to initiate an inquiry or to appoint a reporter specifically to consider the matter. If it does not, perhaps the way in is for an individual member to investigate the matter—I am not sure which subject committee could do that, as the interest extends beyond business.
For the committee's information, we have a general responsibility in all matters pertaining to subordinate legislation. However, my colleagues would probably behead me if I suggested that we investigate red tape as well as get through the work load that we have now grown used to.
However, as Jackie Baillie makes out, there is a case for a committee—it is hard to know which one—eventually to address the issue. That committee should perhaps initiate an inquiry into our regulatory structures that involves the stakeholders, such as the police and the schoolteachers, who say that there is far too much regulation and form filling. Interestingly, although the subject seems rather dull—and it is—once we get the message across, it becomes a populist subject.
Exactly. It is the very essence of what people expect from us.
We had a good presentation from the Florida people. We heard that, eventually, the subject becomes extremely popular among the voters. If people, whether they are small businessmen or policemen, see the burden of regulation being cut, they say, "Hey—this is useful."
If the committee puts the matter in a legacy paper, a successor committee can consider how best it or another committee could address the issue, perhaps by appointing a reporter from among its number to do something about it.
That is a good idea. Perhaps we should leave the issue to be considered by the successor committee.
I agree. That is why I was anxious to pursue the matter. Politically speaking, Gordon Jackson's last points are highly relevant. If the public understand better what the Parliament does, they will perhaps learn to love it a little more.
While we are looking for those, I will make a comment. I agree totally with the drift of the conversation. Can we, when we send the report to the Executive, draw ministers' attention to the Official Report of our discussion? Gordon Jackson said that the conference report may appear to be a rather dull account of various speakers, but the discussion that we have had shows its relevance and the Executive ought to be made aware of it now.
As part of that, we will incorporate the suggestion in paragraph 35, which is that the Canadian Red Tape Commission's work
The next recommendation is that the Parliament consider seriously hosting a red tape conference. Do we agree with that recommendation?
David Mundell went to the first such conference in Sydney. I think that he suggested that the Parliament host one. When we got to the conference, delegates mentioned that to us. It was already an issue. We did not raise it from scratch.
I agree. It would be useful for the future committee to tie up its work on red tape in the lead-up to the Parliament hosting a conference, because that would make a connection with what we are doing at a Scottish level.
The publicity for a red tape conference preceded by some kind of inquiry by our successors would provide a sequence that the public could grasp.
It is important to say that such an inquiry would not be technical work. A lot of the committee's work is technical. The Parliament has a wee smile at us because it thinks that we are just technocrats. However, there is a very popular and populist line to changing how regulation is done. The issue would really matter to people outside the committee—it is not merely technical.
The accessibility aspect is as important as anything else is.
Can we remove the typos before we issue the report? I am conscious that the report says "draft" at the top, but there are quite a few typos.
They have been expunged from the version that I hold in my hands.
You are fortunate.
Yes. I am the convener.
Meeting closed at 12:01.