Subordinate Legislation Committee, 25 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Official Report 100KB pdf

---

Proposed Regulatory Framework Inquiry

Item 7 is on our proposed regulatory framework inquiry. The main paper in front of us has been developed by the Scottish Parliament information centre.

I apologise for having to leave. I have to attend another meeting.

Okay, Murray.

SPICe has summarised the background leading to the proposal for an inquiry, which stems from the previous Subordinate Legislation Committee's legacy paper. The information has been gathered from conferences and from experience that has been gained in various countries, notably Australia and New Zealand. That information could serve as a good basis not only for our regulatory framework inquiry but for later, when we consider drawing up a statutory instruments bill.

What are members' ideas on the information that has been collated? How might we bring the proposed inquiry and the proposed SI bill together over the next two years or so? Members will recall that we discussed a time frame for those two pieces of work at our away day. There is also the matter of a review of chapter 10 of the standing orders. That is a relatively minor piece of work compared to the inquiry and the proposed bill, but we might also bring that in.

The first question is whether we should hold a single, large inquiry with a number of parts, one of which leads to the next. I think that that makes sense. The second question is whether we should start that reasonably soon. I think that we should, because it is evident from the amount of legislation currently going through the Parliament that the committee will become busier as technical issues around all that legislation come before us. The next question is whether we should construct our inquiry broadly around the contents of the SPICe briefing paper. I think that the paper is extremely interesting, and that we should do so.

We ought to place on record our thanks to SPICe for producing the briefing paper, as it brings together for us a lot of material.

Christine May is quite right to suggest that it is impossible to separate an inquiry into the regulatory framework from the proposed bill and from the possible changes to chapter 10 of standing orders. Although it was previously mooted that we might hold separate inquiries, I think that there is no alternative to enmeshing the three aspects into one large, single piece of work. The task will be enormous. It will take at least a couple of years, but the three areas are so closely linked that it is difficult to imagine how they could be separated out entirely. I think that we should proceed with the regulatory framework inquiry, but we must view it as the basis for an SI bill, as well as doing the chapter 10 work.

The SPICe paper is very detailed. You mentioned the work concerning Australia and New Zealand, convener; there was also a lot of interesting stuff about Canada. We should do all three things, but I think that they can all roll together.

The papers suggested certain exciting possibilities. We should also remember that, at our away day, we suggested holding a conference here, at which we could try to draw together some of the ideas that we will be developing with regard to an SI bill. We might wish to decide soon exactly when we want to hold that conference, which will obviously take quite a bit of time to organise. It would be worth while, however.

I agree with that. I assume that we are talking about a committee bill.

Yes.

What are the current arrangements for committee bills? I was involved with a committee bill during the first session of the Parliament and the non-Executive bills unit dealt with it. Is that still what happens?

Yes.

At what stage do we get involved in bidding for NEBU's time and resources?

We can flag it up to NEBU very early on and once we get to our draft report, we can focus on getting time slots. We will be flagging it up quite early, so it is important for the committee to get to the stage of setting the terms of reference and outlining the time scale for the inquiry and the chapter 10 review, so that we can alert people. Alasdair Morgan made an important point about the SI bill being a committee bill, so it is important that we tell as many people as possible what we are doing. There is also an obvious link with the Procedures Committee and other bodies.

The technical aspects of legislation rarely set the heather on fire; regulation annoys most people, if they show an interest in it at all. Nevertheless, I take it that the committee is willing to go through what the Parliament has to do to make things work in Scotland, with a view to informing the public and businesses at an earlier stage of proposals that might affect them, reducing the number of hoops that people have to jump through, putting legislation into as plain an English as possible, and making sure that the regulatory agencies that enforce the legislation do so in a way that causes the least disruption to public life and to business. If that is not what the inquiry is about then there is no point in our doing it.

I hope that Alasdair Rankin was taking notes—although it will certainly be in the Official Report—because that will fit nicely into the context and the terms of reference for the proposed bill and the regulatory framework.

I also believe that this work resonates with that of the Enterprise and Culture Committee on the nature of the constraints on business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

Okay. After Christmas—doing it before might be a bit of a rush—we can come back with the terms of reference, a time frame and suggestions for a possible adviser for the inquiry.

Would it not be possible to take a first pass at it before Christmas?

Perhaps there would be time to prepare a rough draft, yes. It will be as comprehensive as possible, but it will be a broad overview, rather than detailed. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank SPICe for the scoping paper; it was very helpful.