Official Report 167KB pdf
The third item on our agenda is evidence from Scottish Government officials. I welcome Andrew McConnell, who is a policy officer from the business competitiveness division; Tony Rednall, who is a policy officer from the criminal law and licensing division; and Peter Reid, who is a senior policy officer from the housing markets and supply division. I thank them for coming to the committee and for providing us with a helpful update, which is included in our papers. Members will recall that we received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on this matter and agreed that we would investigate it a little further, with a view to passing on any relevant information to other subject committees.
I will make a few opening remarks, if that would be helpful. The aim of the services directive is to open up the internal market in services, just as the market in goods has been opened up, and to do so through the removal of unjustifiable barriers to service provision. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the lead UK department in implementing the directive and we have worked closely with BIS on implementation in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary's letter mentions, the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to transpose the general provisions of the directive into law: that has been done and it took effect from 28 December.
On the point of single contact, is there simply a technical issue about ensuring that there is a link to Scottish local authorities, or are there additional issues about ensuring that the advice that is provided is tailored to Scottish businesses?
The point of single contact sits on the business link and business gateway websites, so general business advice is already provided for people who want to go into business in Scotland. Specific advice is being provided on which licences people require and how they go about getting them, and there are links to local authority websites. That is the information that is being put in place.
Are discussions on that on-going? You said that you expect the problems to be ironed out in the next three months.
As you will imagine, it is an enormous task. Every local authority has up to 40 licences that come within the directive and there are hundreds of local authorities in the UK. Links must be established not only to every local authority, but to every licence that each local authority provides. There is an on-going process to establish the links, test them and ensure that all the IT glitches are ironed out.
What happens in the interim?
In the interim, the existing procedures for companies applying for licences are being used. If a company goes through the point of single contact, it will find information on the licence that it requires and which authority it should contact to obtain it. In some cases, there will be a button allowing completion of the form online, but in other cases they will simply be pointed to the most appropriate local authority. The information is there but, over the next few months, we need to get all the links in place so that people can complete applications online.
Are there cost implications for local authorities? Have they had to buy new IT systems or employ more people? If there are cost implications, has the EU given extra funding to local authorities or the Scottish Government to give to local authorities?
The EU has given no funding—local authorities are having to do the work within their own resources. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has offered to create a lot of the standardised forms for the local authorities because it realises that it would be an enormous task for 32 different Scottish local authorities to create their own forms. The local authorities can use the standardised forms if they wish, and they can be hosted within the point of single contact. The other option would be for local authorities to create their own forms and host them on their own websites, but that would have major cost and time implications.
I raised the point because we said that we would pass any information on to other committees. Perhaps the Local Government and Communities Committee should be made aware of cost implications for local authorities, given that their budgets are so tight at the moment. Thank you for that answer.
Thank you Sandra; that was helpful.
My point is particularly about how the directive will affect social housing. The paper that was provided by the Government's social housing division has left me a little bit confused about how the directive might affect social housing. I am aware that that is still being considered, so I do not know whether the witnesses are able to answer the point. The submission says that some social landlords might fall within the directive's scope, and some might not. How will that work? If the service is social housing, then either they all will or they all will not come under the directive's remit. It does not make sense to me, so can you explain it?
If it is found that some social landlords fall within the scope of the directive, the whole service will be found to be within its scope, so that service provision will have to comply with the directive.
That is much clearer, thank you.
It appears that there are two acts that might not comply with the directive. If amendments are required to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 or to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, how quickly do you envisage their having to be made? Obviously any timeframe will depend on the Parliament.
We are consulting lawyers at the moment, and we are looking to instruct shortly, so Tony Rednall and I expect progress on a section 2(2) order under the European Communities Act 1972 shortly.
What discussions are you having with the Scottish Parliament and internally within the Government to ensure that any bills that the Government or members might introduce are compliant so that nothing need be done retrospectively to provisions that they might put in place?
We have raised general awareness of the provisions in the Scottish Government. Over the next few months in particular, we will examine legislative proposals from the Scottish Government to ensure that they are compliant.
Has there been liaison with Parliament about members' bills?
Thank you for that point: we will ensure that we do that.
I asked the question as I have a vested interest—I have a bill proposal before Parliament at the moment and I am particularly interested to know how the directive will impact on it. I am sure that other members will be in similar situations. I can think of at least one other bill that is currently making its way through Parliament—the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill—on which the directive might impact.
I work in the division that liaises on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. We are aware of what is going on and we are examining the bill in terms of the EU services directive.
Patricia Ferguson has raised a valid point. In writing to our various subject committees, we should highlight some of the implications of the directive.
Can we bring the directive to the attention of the non-Executive bills unit? We could even ask the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body to advise members on it.
Yes—that would make sense.
I spoke to Patricia Ferguson about the matter earlier and am concerned about it in relation to her bill proposal, which I have signed and which falls under the housing aspect of the directive.
In relation to the business that is currently going through the Parliament, has there been any assessment of whether the directive has implications for any proposed bills or amendments?
We have not undertaken a formal trawl of what is happening, although that is something that we would want to do. Solicitors in the Scottish Government are well aware of the provisions and will advise officials who are progressing Government bills. We definitely need to raise general awareness of the directive, so that everyone is aware of the implications.
Two bills are at stage 2, and amendments to them are being lodged this week and next week. I am lodging amendments to both bills: it would be worrying to find that the work that has gone into drafting amendments—not just members' amendments, but Government amendments—had been wasted.
If the committee agrees, we could write to the corporate body to highlight the issue.
Members indicated agreement.
Most of the directive has been transposed. Given the outstanding issues, are we compliant with the transposition elements of the directive or are we liable to a European fine or infringement proceedings because we are not fully compliant? Are those issues so minor that they do not infringe on transposition?
I hesitate to answer, because I am not a solicitor. The directive has been transposed into UK law by statutory instrument and we have an on-going responsibility to ensure that all legislation is compliant. I would say that we have on-going work to ensure that we are always compliant and that everything is as clear as it can be under the directive.
If the directive has been fully transposed, I would say that we are not liable to infraction proceedings; however, if it has not been fully transposed, we may be. We should seek clarification on that, if you are not absolutely sure.
There is no message coming from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the moment about any danger of infraction proceedings.
Is there anything that we have not drawn to your attention or are there any matters that you want to raise with us?
I think that Andrew McConnell has picked up on this already, but we are in close liaison with local authorities, because there are a lot of implications for them. We want to ensure that the implications of our amending the legislation and of local authorities amending their own processes and procedures are not unduly onerous for them.
Thank you for coming along today. We have highlighted areas that you are going to look at and the committee has agreed to write to the SPCB and the subject committees about our deliberations with you today.