Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08745, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I ask the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
Many thanks. I call Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion in Fergus Ewing’s name. Minister—technically you have 10 minutes, but we are incredibly tight for time, so shorter would be better.
15:03
I would like to begin the formal stage 3 debate by thanking the members and clerks of the committees that were involved for their careful consideration of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill. I also thank the external stakeholders who have taken the time to engage in the bill process and have shared their knowledge and views during scrutiny.
As members will, I am sure, highlight, regulation is essential in order to protect our people and environment and to help businesses to flourish and to create jobs. The critical issue is how we best deliver those necessary outcomes. Regulatory reform is a cross-Government agenda that makes a key contribution to the Scottish Government’s purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth, as expressed in the Government’s economic strategy. I am pleased to be at a point where we have a bill that will truly make a difference to Scotland, and will bring benefits to our environment, businesses and communities.
In contrast to the approach in other jurisdictions, where deregulation may be an objective, the purpose of the bill is to streamline regulation and make it more effective. The bill deals with four distinct but connected themes. Part 1 of the bill will help to reduce unnecessary burdens on business. Business has provided examples of growth being constrained by inconsistent application of regulation across Scotland through different forms, different fees and, in some cases, different timescales. The bill includes provisions to define and implement national standards and systems, and will introduce a duty on regulators to contribute to the achievement of sustainable economic growth through their mainstream regulatory activity.
Regulators will be required to take account of sustainable economic growth where appropriate, and be more accountable for decisions. I will at this point quote section 4(1), which states:
“In exercising its regulatory functions, each regulator must contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth, except to the extent that it would be inconsistent with the exercise of those functions to do so”.
I make that point because regulators will be supported in that by a new statutory code of practice that will be consulted on shortly.
It is right to place on regulators the duty to contribute to sustainable economic growth alongside existing or balancing duties. As is made clear in section 4(1) and, specifically in respect of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in section 38, the bill does not prioritise sustainable economic growth over other regulatory objectives. There is no conflict; instead, there are potential opportunities. The move will ensure greater transparency, and will provide a line of sight to the Scottish Government’s purpose, which is essential if we are to have consistent delivery across all regulators.
The Scottish Government’s economic strategy includes a commitment to better regulation in recognition of the fact that, although regulatory outcomes in themselves contribute to sustainable economic growth, how regulators carry out their work in practice, and how they interact with those whom they regulate—and vice versa—can also make a significant contribution to supporting business, and hence contribute further to sustainable economic growth. Good regulators seek to understand those whom they regulate by, for example, taking economic and business factors appropriately into account when they carry out their regulatory activities.
Part 2 of the bill will support SEPA’s transformation programme and improve the application of environmental regulations in practice across Scotland. The bill will introduce the first statutory purpose for SEPA that is focused not just on the environment, but on health and wellbeing and sustainable economic growth in support of the Government’s purpose, which is a simplified and integrated framework for environmental regulation to help to unwind complexity, and to give SEPA and the criminal courts new enforcement tools that will have real teeth. Such measures will allow SEPA to target its activity where risk and potential benefits are greatest.
The way that SEPA works with business and other stakeholders can make a direct contribution to a favourable business environment. I realise that there has been much debate about the point, but I must stress that a good environment is integral to a good economy. As the First Minister said at the world forum on natural capital in November,
“Natural capital is one of the ways in which we can tell whether our economic growth is truly sustainable. You can’t do that if you’re only thinking about taxation, spending and GDP on a year to year basis, without considering the resources and assets which underpin our prosperity and promote our wellbeing.”
Indeed, only this week we had a very constructive discussion at the Scottish biodiversity committee about the natural capital assets index, which of course is a valuable addition to our efforts to go beyond gross domestic product as a measure of success, and to augment the national performance framework.
Equally, the health of Scotland’s communities and environment contribute to, are interlinked with and are dependent on the achievement of sustainable economic growth. Economic growth that exceeds the limits of our environment or which damages social and community cohesion is ultimately unsustainable. There are initiatives such as the development of a circular economy that can deliver growth while reducing our resource take.
Part 3 of the bill further demonstrates the value of achieving the balance in helping to improve the performance of planning authorities by establishing a legislative link between planning fees and performance. On the one hand, we want to be sure that increased funding leads to improved planning performance by authorities; on the other, we recognise planning’s contribution to protecting and enhancing Scotland’s natural and built environment to ensure that Scotland’s people can enjoy a better quality of life.
By speeding up the process of resolving legal challenges, part 3 will also potentially reduce delays to offshore marine energy projects and will, as a result, help Scotland to achieve its 2020 renewables targets and help to promote growth in that vital industry. The Scottish Government is committed not only to maintaining a business environment that supports sustainable economic growth, but to enhancing Scotland’s natural and built environment as an asset for growth.
During parliamentary scrutiny of the bill, we have faced some questions about transparency and accountability. Following amendments at stage 2 and 3, all directions, guidance and codes will be published and, thanks to an amendment that has just been agreed to, Parliament will also have the opportunity to consider an annual report on the operation of part 2 of the bill. That welcome parliamentary input will add value to the Scottish Government’s better regulation programmes and will help to ensure that future regulation can be proportionate, consistent, transparent, accountable and targeted.
As well as working closely in partnership with our stakeholders on delivery of better regulation, we are also sharing knowledge and experience across the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations. Through that partnership approach, we can drive best practice here in Scotland, where our views and experiences can inform others and help to shape future agendas—for example, in Brussels, where so many regulations are set.
Presiding Officer, I hope that, in bringing my speech to a close, I have helped with the time for debate. This Government is fully committed to developing better regulation to support sustainable economic growth and to improve protection of our precious environment. The bill will make a vital contribution and its success will depend on on-going partnership working and stakeholder engagement.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Thank you, minister. Your brevity is helpful, but we are still incredibly tight for time across the whole afternoon. Jenny Marra has a maximum of seven minutes.
15:10
It was with a sceptical eye that Labour viewed the bill at stage 1—to my mind, with good reason. We must always resist the slow creep of centralisation, in particular through framework legislation such as this bill, unless we are absolutely certain that centralisation is the best option. So, at stage 1, when we examined the central component of this bill—namely the new powers for Scottish ministers over regulations and the bodies that fulfil regulatory functions—we made it clear that we could not vote in favour of the bill unless we were satisfied first, that there was proper scrutiny to complement the Scottish Government’s new functions; secondly, that those new functions did not adversely impact on the ability of local authorities to adapt and adjust to local circumstances; and, thirdly, that the duty called “sustainable economic growth” would not have unintended consequences for regulators that would result in their prioritising one consideration over all other essential functions.
I turn first to our third concern. Today, Labour voted again for Alison Johnstone’s amendments seeking either to remove any reference to sustainable economic growth from the bill or to change that duty to sustainable development. As I said in relation to the debates on the issue during stage 1 and stage 2, we did so because of the wealth of evidence that was given to the committee that pointed towards legal difficulties with the Government’s proposed duty—in particular the evidence that was given by Professor Andrea Ross of the University of Dundee, which bears repeating. She wrote:
“Regardless of how this government interprets sustainable economic growth, there is no guarantee that a future government or the courts will not interpret it to mean a stable economy with no mention of its impact on ecological and social sustainability.”
The provision on sustainable economic growth remains, at best, a legal grey area. However, the Government has sought to reassure us—on three separate occasions—that there are adequate provisions in the bill to safeguard the other functions, such as the hard-won health and safety laws that this party has campaigned for over the years.
We are debating hypotheticals and discussing future scenarios that we hope do not arise. As we debate this issue for—according to the minister—the third time, I can see that the minister is not going to budge. Therefore, I can say to the Government only that I hope that its assurances throughout the debate—that the pursuit of sustainable economic growth for regulators will not come at the sacrifice of their other functions—are followed up by close scrutiny of the bill after it is passed today.
Will Jenny Marra give way?
I am sorry, minister, but on this occasion I will not, as I know that we are tight for time.
On the first and second of the concerns that I outlined earlier, around the need for transparency and accountability, and the need to protect local authority discretion, I am pleased that the minister has listened and has sought to improve the bill on both counts.
After stage 2, I was grateful to receive a letter from Mr Ewing reiterating his commitment to utter transparency when the Government is exercising its new functions that will result from this bill. I was pleased again when the Government lodged amendments at stage 2 that will ensure publication of any direction for variation in regulation, of guidance on the sustainable economic growth section and of the code of practice. In that regard, I note today’s amendment from Paul Wheelhouse, which will see the Government report to Parliament on its environmental regulation. Those are welcome developments that will aid our future assessment of the effectiveness of the law.
Similarly, the amendments that were lodged at stage 2 by Fergus Ewing that will exempt local authorities from the sustainable economic growth duty are also to be welcomed. We believe that the fact that the duty will not apply to them will allow them to prioritise their regulatory functions according to the varying and changing circumstances that they find themselves in locally. Again, that is to be welcomed. However, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept Margaret McDougall’s amendments, which had sympathy across the chamber and which, I believe, would have increased that flexibility further in the planning process.
In summary, Labour will vote for the bill despite having enduring concerns around the future operation of the sustainable economic growth provision. I urge the minister to monitor and to reflect regularly on the duty’s impact on Scotland’s regulatory system, and not to let it erode some of the other very important functions of our regulators.
15:15
Lack of consistency is clearly in the air this afternoon, but the Scottish Conservatives are consistent in our view. We welcome the bill and will vote for it at decision time, although we have one concern, which I highlighted earlier and will return to. Overall, it is a good bill that will make it easier for businesses in Scotland to operate, and will enhance the performance of SEPA in particular.
As the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I reiterate the thanks that I expressed at stage 1 to my fellow committee members for their assistance in dealing with the bill, and our thanks to our ever-efficient and supportive team of clerks. We considered a number of substantive issues at stage 2—as we did again this afternoon—and had a good debate where that was required.
The genesis of the bill was the Scottish Government’s regulatory review group. Too often, such Government-appointed committees are no more than talking shops, so it is good to see some positive changes emerging from the work that has been done. At the core of the bill is the introduction of an economic duty on public bodies. That is an ambition that the Scottish Conservatives have had for many years—it was in our manifestos in 2007, 2010 and 2011—so I am, therefore, delighted to see it now becoming law. As my good friend the late David McLetchie once commented in the chamber, the next best thing to a Conservative Government is an SNP Government delivering Conservative policies. I look forward to many more aspects of our manifestos becoming the law in due course.
Throughout the passage of the bill, we have heard concerns from some that the duty on regulators to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth is inappropriate. The only real concern that I had was about the definition of sustainable economic growth, but that has now been resolved following an undertaking from the Scottish Government that the definition will be explicitly stated in guidance.
I appreciate that there are those in the chamber—not least in the Green Party—who take a different view from that of my party on the bill, and I respect their stance. However, I believe that the promotion of sustainable economic growth is in everyone’s interests. I am not surprised to hear that the Green Party takes a different view, but I am slightly surprised by the attitude of the Labour Party this afternoon. We know that the actions of successive Labour Governments have had the effect of destroying economic growth in our country—not least of which was the ruination of the public finances by Gordon Brown—but I am a little surprised to hear Labour being so open in admitting its opposition to economic growth.
The one concern that I had with the bill was the introduction fairly late in the process of measures that will allow the implementation of a plastic bag tax. As I said earlier—I will not rehearse all the arguments—I am not convinced that a plastic bag tax is appropriate or that it will have the consequences that its promoters intend.
Perhaps more important than the substance of the issue is the way in which that change was introduced. There was no opportunity at stage 1 for committees of the Parliament to scrutinise the proposal, to take evidence, to quiz ministers or to hold the proposals up to the light because it was only at the very last moment, just before the stage 1 debate, that the intention to introduce the measures was signalled. There was a very short debate on the matter at stage 2 and equally short consideration of it this afternoon. I do not believe that that is how legislation of this nature should be dealt with. There are concerns in industry about the impact of the tax; it should have been given proper parliamentary scrutiny and it is regrettable that that was not allowed.
I will be brief. We have debated before the reasons for introducing the proposal at that stage. I reassure members that we are learning a lot from what has happened in Wales, where there are similar provisions in place—indeed, there are fixed-penalty notices in Wales. It is something that we have studied. We are reasonably confident that the measure works in practice and that the number of businesses that are being charged penalties is fairly low.
I am interested to hear that from the minister—although, to be frank, it would have been better if that evidence had been brought to Parliament so that we could all have debated it in committee and in Parliament. I am sorry that that opportunity was lost.
The concern that I have raised will not prevent me and my colleagues from voting for the bill today, because we feel that, overall, it will be beneficial. Over the years, I have heard a great many concerns from businesses about how regulation impacts on them. Often, the problem is not regulations themselves but interpretation of them, which can be a particular problem when many of the 32 local authorities in Scotland interpret the same regulation in different ways. As we heard at stage 1, that can give rise to a particular challenge for mobile food retailers who sell their products in more than one local authority area.
We also regularly hear concerns from businesses about the planning system, which the bill will go some way towards addressing. I hope that the threat of reduced planning fees will be enough to ensure excellent performance and I genuinely welcome the constructive language that has been used by ministers in relation to how they will engage with local authorities and planning departments.
We are going to get a better system of regulation, a faster and more responsive planning system and a requirement for public bodies to promote sustainable economic growth—that is what the bill will deliver and that is what the Scottish Conservatives wish for our public agencies. That is why we will be pleased to support the bill at stage 3 this afternoon.
Thank you. We are incredibly tight for time. If members take their full four minutes, I will not be able to call everyone who wishes to speak in the debate.
15:20
It is difficult to imagine who would be against regulation that aims to be transparent, proportionate, consistent and accountable. Who would be against regulation that is appropriately targeted when and where it is required? That is what the bill aims to do and to my mind, it is a useful step towards achieving that purpose.
I welcome the Tory support for the bill, as articulated by Murdo Fraser. Perhaps the Tories are not better together with Labour after all.
I believe that a more consistent, efficient and effective approach to regulation can enhance economic growth, so I was pleased to hear Professor Russel Griggs, who chairs the regulatory review group, say in committee that the bill will, in his opinion, enhance sustainable economic growth.
I assume that all members are in favour of sustainable economic growth—not least because enhancing the economy is one of the main tools for tackling poverty. I simply do not accept that the twin aims of improving sustainable growth and improving the environment are mutually exclusive. The debate over the semantics of economic growth as against economic development has been to my mind a false one, and despite my repeated requests, no one who gave evidence to the committee was able to demonstrate what they meant by referring to a real-life example.
The Federation of Small Businesses gave ample evidence of the increasing burden of compliance and of the confusion, difficulty and costs that arise when different approaches to regulation are taken in different areas—sometimes even within the same area—often for no apparent good reason. It is important to heed those complaints. Not only are small businesses important in terms of the amount of employment that they create in aggregate, but some of the small businesses of today will become the big businesses and big employers of tomorrow. One of the problems in our economy is that that progression of small businesses growing into big businesses happens all too rarely. The economists call it a lack of churn. Today’s fat cats need to be constantly challenged by tomorrow’s fat cats—today’s lean and hungry cats. That is how we will drive innovation and improve productivity and how we will remain competitive. If we want to provide higher quality employment, tackle unemployment, and improve the fortunes of the working poor we need to listen carefully to and support small businesses.
A further misconception that has featured in our discussions is the apparent belief that most businesses wilfully break regulations and wish to damage the environment. I believe that the opposite is true and one of the improvements that the bill offers is a greater ability on the part of SEPA to properly tackle real environmental crimes and problems.
I believe that the bill is a step in the right direction and I look forward to our having full powers over regulation, when we will be able to do so much more.
15:23
As Murdo Fraser said, I have been dogged with regard to the varying of planning authority fees, having pushed my amendments at stage 2 and stage 3. I am disappointed that the Government was not persuaded to support the amendments, because I believe that they were sensible and responsible amendments that either added safeguards where none currently exists or sought to remove section 41 if additional safeguards were not introduced.
Will the member take an intervention?
If I have time.
It is fair to say that some of the member’s points were fair and reasonable—those regarding what the Government was going to do anyway—but the member missed the point in some of her amendments. This is not a centralising Government; the Government already has the power to set planning fees, subject to parliamentary scrutiny—
Briefly, minister.
And that has not changed in any way.
However, the issue is the varying of fees as a sanction against planning authorities.
Democratically elected councillors already sit on planning authorities and I am confident that they understand their responsibilities. Audit Scotland already monitors planning authorities’ performance and makes recommendations to address any concerns that it has, so why is the Government so intent on penalising them?
In a response to my stage 2 amendments, the Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek Mackay, stated that section 41 would
“improve behaviour and outcomes, and there will be no loss of income because planning authorities will step up to the plate.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 11 September 2013; c 3187.]
That is a glib remark, which implies that planning authorities will do better if they are threatened with sanctions. As a former council leader, the minister knows that delays can occur for all sorts of reasons. As Unison Scotland indicated,
“Delays are due to underfunding and heavy workloads … there is a range of community planning partners involved in the process”,
such as Scottish Water and SEPA, but
“There are no proposals to introduce carrots or sticks for these organisations.”
The proposal is a clear attack on planning authorities if no other organisation is being taken to task. That is why I believed that it made sense for the Government to be required to lay a statement before the Parliament before any action was taken so that the issue could be scrutinised. However, the Scottish Government does not support that move.
Surely more transparency and scrutiny of Government decisions should be welcomed. Are we to assume that the Government’s priority is quantity rather than quality? What happens to local accountability if the Government will step in when it decides that a planning authority is underperforming?
Despite all that the minister has said about the high-level group working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, when I spoke to COSLA yesterday it was still of the view that there is fundamentally too much ministerial interference in the operations of a specific council service and that it would be counter-productive to reduce fees.
COSLA also believes that, before the section is enacted, there must be agreement between it and the Government on what counts as good performance. I reiterate the calls for that to be made clear so that planning authorities know exactly what is considered satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance. It should not be left up to one person’s subjective view.
I am disheartened that the Scottish Government decided not to support my amendments because, even if section 41 remained, the other amendments would have introduced more transparency in the process, allowed for greater scrutiny and oversight of decisions and made clear to local authorities exactly what was expected of them.
I would be grateful if the minister could address in his closing speech some of those concerns and offer reassurances that the Scottish Government will work closely with COSLA and other stakeholders to get an agreement regarding the issues that are still outstanding in section 41.
15:27
As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I am happy to support the bill.
Change is a constant. No doubt those who are directly impacted by, and are close to, the issue feel that change is not necessary. They may argue that there is no need for change, but there is. They may assert that our existing processes for protecting our people, our businesses and, above all, our environment are already secure, but they are wrong.
Mr Brodie, is your microphone up?
I beg your pardon. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
They may aver that our current regulatory system is consistent, appropriate and accountable, but it is not. That is why I believe—I say this with not a little compliance and commercial background—that our regulatory framework, particularly in planning, is, to be frank, antediluvian and inconsistent in some cases.
If we are to address the malaise and problems in economic distribution to which Mike MacKenzie referred, the bill is important. It places a stake in the ground. That does not mean that a strangulation of environmental protection is necessary—far from it. If handled carefully and consistently, sustainable economic growth and sustainable environmental development are twins that can be joined at the hip. The bill and the code of practice that is provided for therein strengthen that.
Across our nation, that means consistent and better regulation. That means overcoming the unnecessary hurdles that could get in the way of desired and essential economic success. It will not lend substance to the claim that the bill will necessarily confuse existing and specified regulators.
If we are to grow economically and successfully, we must rid ourselves of the obstacles that stand in the way of efficiency, effectiveness and the securing of environmental protection. Along with our local authorities and our planners, we must embrace more fully those three Es. I propose that in the hope that there is no naivety in the statement that, given the Government’s commitment to ensuring that communities and consumers will be involved in deliberations on the future application of the bill through the code of practice, the bill will be seen in that light and not as an amber light for those who would traduce its principles as they skip along to the nearest tribunal or court.
The bill is a three-legged stool. First, it encourages consistency of application while contributing to sustainable economic growth. Secondly, it develops and enhances environmental regulatory powers. Thirdly—this is long overdue—it allows regulations to be developed whereby planning fees can and will be related to performance. In that respect, the bill is solid. Today, all of us—consumers, planners, environmentalists, business and Government—will take a major step forward for Scotland’s growth and its environment as they are enshrined in the bill. I support it.
15:31
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill. The fact that I have 17 years’ experience as a local councillor and chair of development and regeneration services means that I have seen the planning process up close and appreciate that reform was needed.
I agree with the bill’s intention of securing more favourable business conditions in Scotland and delivering benefits for the environment. As always, there have been disagreements on how to achieve that. At stage 1, serious reservations were raised about the proposed duty on regulators to contribute to the achievement of sustainable economic growth. In handing regulators conflicting remits, that provision is, at best, unhelpful. Since then, the Scottish Government has given reassurances that the duty will not prioritise sustainable economic growth over other important regulatory objectives such as health and safety.
Many of my concerns stemmed from the lack of clarity about the meaning of the term “sustainable economic growth”. Therefore, I welcome the Scottish Government’s intention to provide definitions of sustainable economic growth and sustainable development in its guidance. Although I supported Alison Johnstone’s stage 3 amendments that sought to address the issue, the Scottish Government has provided sufficient reassurances and concessions to allow me to feel reasonably confident in supporting the bill as a whole at decision time.
On the issue of penalising poorly performing local authorities, Derek Mackay confirmed to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that the Scottish Government would provide a planning authority with assistance before removing resources from it. Unfortunately, my colleague Margaret McDougall’s amendments to make that undertaking part of the bill were not fruitful, but I will be interested to see how that measure is implemented when already cash-strapped councils are struggling to make ends meet.
The member makes a helpful point. This financial year has seen an increase in planning fees of some 20 per cent, which is the largest increase since the Parliament was created. If we want to continue to invest in the planning service and to continue to raise planning fees, I must have a guarantee that we will get improved performance. Improved performance and increased fees to do the resource job that Mr Malik has requested be done go together.
I do not disagree with the minister about improved performance, but I have reservations about the cost, which is important to local authorities.
I thank Murdo Fraser for his captainship of the committee. He has done a marvellous job during consideration of the bill. His chairmanship has been helpful in the short time for which I have been on the committee.
I call Christian Allard, who has up to four minutes—less would be more, please.
15:35
I welcome the stage 3 debate on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill. I read with interest the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill, which was published on 8 October last year. Unfortunately for me today, I joined the committee a month later, in November.
The bill’s purpose was clear from the outset—it is to improve the way in which regulation is developed and applied across Scotland, to protect people and the environment and to help businesses to flourish and create jobs. Much work has been done at the committee level by our Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
I read in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s report that the Scottish Government adopted the five key principles for regulatory functions that the regulatory review group proposed. They are that regulatory functions should be
“exercised in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and ... targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.
The intention is again clear. The Government has a distinctive better regulation agenda to create a more successful country through increasing economic growth. The bill will not only improve the public sector’s efficiency and affordability but provide a more supportive business environment.
I will give three examples of how the bill will achieve that. The first example is that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be given a new statutory function and a broader role to reflect the sort of environmental regulator that Scotland will need in the future. The way in which SEPA works with businesses and other stakeholders has already changed beyond recognition, but the bill will provide a simpler legislative framework for SEPA, to reduce the administrative burden on businesses and make it easier for them to understand SEPA’s role in protecting them and communities from environmental harm.
The second example is from how the bill will bring transparency to policy development and decision making in offshore energy development. The seas around us have the potential to bring sustainable and renewable energy to levels that many countries would love to reach. With 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal power and 10 per cent of its wave power—and with the potential that we have in offshore wind—Scotland needs better and quicker mechanisms in place to deal with the concerns of the people who would be affected by such decisions and the concerns about lengthy delays for the people who are behind such vital projects for our country.
The third example relates to part 3 of the bill, which will bring consistency and transparency to the regulation of mobile food businesses and, when possible, reduce the cost of operation for those businesses. I worked all my life in the food industry before coming to Parliament, and I celebrate any good news to help food businesses to cope with regulation better. I cannot wait for the new food body to be established in Scotland, to ensure that Scottish food is safe to eat and to improve the diet and nutrition of people such as me who overindulge.
More important, that agency will be an effective and proportionate regulator that supports the Scottish food and drink industry in growing its strong international reputation for safe, quality food. I know that ministers are preparing a bill to create the new food body early this year. As I said, I cannot wait to see that launched. I will support it as I support the bill, to protect people and help businesses to flourish.
15:38
A common complaint from businesses of all sizes is that there is too much regulation and that the burden of red tape is too great. After the bill is passed, I am sure that it will remain a common complaint that there is too much regulation and that the cost of complying with it is too high. However, I hope—as most of us in the Parliament do—that that complaint will become a little less common.
Red tape comes from various sources. Much of it comes from Brussels; some comes from Westminster and from here; and some comes from councils. We must focus on what we can do and the bill is right to do that. We are focusing on the legislation that will flow from this place and on the regulators that were in broad terms set up by this place.
It is not just the regulations that are passed that cause angst to business; often it is the way in which they are enforced and the inconsistency with which that is done in different parts of the country.
We welcome the bill. As my colleague Murdo Fraser said, we welcome the better regulation agenda as a whole, and all the work that the regulatory review group has done since it was set up. The policy memorandum states that the bill seeks
“to improve the way regulation is developed and applied, creating more favourable business conditions in Scotland and delivering benefits for the environment.”
We can sign up to those suggestions and ideas. The bill deals with the flow of regulation passing through Parliament.
The issue that attracted most attention today and during the stage 1 debate, and in the committee’s work, was the duty of regulators in respect of sustainable economic growth. As I said earlier, the Government has called this right. There is a fine balance to be found and good points have been made, even by those who are against that provision. However, the way in which the provision has been framed was the right way to do it, and it makes it clear that the regulators will not have to sacrifice their core and other functions. The requirement is additional to those functions.
Some members have worries about the requirement becoming the overall priority against what the regulators were set up to do, but I do not share those fears and I have not done so since stage 1. The original section made it clear that the regulators had to
“contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth”;
that was correct, as was the caveat
“except to the extent that it would be inconsistent with the exercise of those functions to do so.”
That was set up from the start. The additional security that was given by the Government, through the committee, about the way in which the code and guidance will be set up, strengthens that and reduces the risks; while those risks were quite rightly pointed out, they have been dealt with fairly well.
The FSB pointed out in its written submission that how the code is monitored and reported on will determine its effectiveness in changing practice. Producing legislation is one thing, but in many ways the hard work is about to begin for the Government and the Parliament. Setting out a framework is one thing, but what will matter most is what goes into the guidance and code of practice. That is harder to define and put together than the primary legislation. The work is far from complete and it is incumbent on us all, particularly the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and the Government, as well as parliamentarians across the board, to ensure that we get the code and guidance right so that the legislation does in practice what it was set up to do. That is why we will support the bill come decision time at 5 o’clock.
I now call Jenny Marra. You have up to six minutes—less would be more.
15:43
I begin by dealing with the amendments that Murdo Fraser spoke to earlier this afternoon, which sought to remove the Scottish Government’s stage 2 amendment inserting enforcement provisions for the carrier bag charge that the Government is in the process of introducing. During stage 2 and again today, Mr Fraser argued against that Government amendment on two counts: the first was to do with the substance of the policy; and the second concerned the way in which the Government has sought to introduce the policy at a late stage. I agree with Mr Fraser that it was a bit of a surprise when the Government amendment came out of the blue at stage 2, and I share his concern about the lack of consultation on the amendment, which was not discussed at all during stage 1. It is a shame that we were not able to take evidence and give the policy more consideration at that point.
I will recap some of the points that have been raised today. I put on the record again our continued unease about the section on sustainable economic growth and the insertion of a sustainable economic growth duty in the bill, and our support for Alison Johnstone’s amendments. I accept the Government’s assurances that it will do its utmost to ensure that regulators are not forced to compromise on their other, equally important, duties.
I again welcome the minister’s drive towards greater transparency in the bill with the amendments that he lodged at stage 2. However, I remain disappointed that he did not see the value, as COSLA and others did, of accepting the amendments from my colleague Margaret McDougall, which in our opinion would have bolstered the planning process in Scotland.
As I argued earlier, the fact that the bill exempts local authorities from the need to pursue sustainable economic growth is a welcome step, and I think that members know why. COSLA and Unison gave evidence to the committee that made the case for maintaining the status quo in that regard. We need to ensure that our local authorities are empowered to adapt to local situations, which can vary widely throughout Scotland. If COSLA and others tell us that it is happening now, we should listen, and I am glad that the minister chose to do so at stage 2.
Because of the focus on part 1, an issue that has been a little lost in the debate is that of the powers that the bill gives to SEPA. The steps to ensure better safety measures for SEPA officers are of course welcome. The bill widens SEPA’s remit extensively, and I am confident that the organisation will take on its new responsibilities with vigour. I have had the pleasure of meeting Professor David Sigsworth on a number of occasions and I have seen at first hand the benefit of his experience and expertise.
We believe that the bill gives the Government the opportunity to bring about better regulation for Scotland. Ministers are giving themselves new powers, and they must realise that with them comes great responsibility to keep those powers under review and ensure that the concerns that have been raised from across the Parliament in today’s debate and throughout the passage of the bill are taken into proper and serious account.
Many thanks for being so brief.
15:46
I thank all members who have participated in the debate. I also thank Murdo Fraser, who has taken the office of Captain Fraser this afternoon, although I do not know whether that is a promotion. More seriously, I thank the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its members for their work, which has helped us to improve the bill throughout its passage. We are grateful to them and of course to the clerks to that committee.
A number of hard-working officials have been involved, and I would like to slightly break with precedent and say who they are. They have done a considerable amount of work on what is a comprehensive bill that covers a wide range of areas, which poses particular challenges. I therefore give my most sincere thanks to Joe Brown of better regulation and industry engagement; Ian Black of planning modernisation; Stuart Foubister of marine licensing in the licensing division; Bridget Marshall and Richard McLeod of better environmental regulation; and Neil Watt, the bill manager. Also, Sandra Reid, who serves with the regulatory reform group, has done a power of work on the bill, which has made our task as ministers somewhat easier. This afternoon, we have the unusual occurrence of a trio of ministers. I suspect that this will be our one and only public performance—I assure members that, unlike Frank Sinatra, we will not make a comeback.
I will touch on a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. Gavin Brown made the good and solid point that the hard work has not yet really begun, because the work that Derek Mackay, Paul Wheelhouse and I will do with our respective portfolio responsibilities will be substantial and demanding, and parts of it will not be easy. We take extremely seriously the duties to come forward with guidance and codes of practice and to engage with stakeholders, and the onus on the Scottish Government to proceed in a transparent, open and fair way. That underpins the approach that we have taken on the bill and it will also underpin the approach that we will take in implementing it and making it work. Mr Brown made that point well, and it is apt to repeat it.
It is important to say that it is not correct that local authorities are exempt from the bill, as I think Jenny Marra said. Section 1 is clear that the planning functions of local authorities are exempt from the bill, but local authorities themselves are of course included in the list in schedule 1 of bodies that are covered by the generality of the bill. That relates to section 1, on duties in respect of consistency of application of regulatory functions, and section 4, on the duty to have regard to sustainable economic growth.
We have had useful debates, and I must be fair to Alison Johnstone and say that she led them. I have not agreed with her, but she has made her arguments in a reasonable fashion throughout and I thank her for that. I understand her perspective, and although the Government does not share it, I hope that we can implement the bill in a way that will, in most cases, secure her agreement.
On the plastic bag tax, we listened extremely carefully to Murdo Fraser’s trenchant remarks. We will let the Parliament know, through a letter from cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead at the end of the stage 1 process, as soon as we are aware, regarding the points that Murdo Fraser raised. I wanted to respond to that.
Will the minister repeat what he said? It did not make sense to me at all. He said that he would write to me at the end of the stage 1 process. Will he perhaps reflect on and correct what he said?
I think that the point that I am being asked to make is that we let the Parliament know what we intended to do, through a letter from Richard Lochhead at the end of the bill’s stage 1 process. Murdo Fraser made the point that the Parliament should be properly consulted in the progress of any legislation, which is a point that I made a great deal—especially, I may say, when I was in opposition. [Laughter.] It is right that one puts into practice what one preaches, even if it was preached in a past life, long ago.
What the bill does will be enhanced by COSLA’s co-operation. In that regard, I mention Stephen Hagan and his officials. I have been hugely heartened by the positive and constructive approach that we have been able to take together.
Mike MacKenzie mentioned the Federation of Small Businesses. The FSB and other business organisations, such as Scottish Chambers of Commerce, have taken the lead in driving the process forward. It was as a result of engagement with business organisations that I became aware of the difficulty that mobile food vans encounter, which Mr Fraser mentioned. I was at a meeting that was hosted by the Confederation of British Industry, one of whose members had encountered the problem. I mention that because today we are putting right an inconsistency, which seemed to me to be manifestly unfair, and engagement with the business organisations—the Institute of Directors and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, as well as those that I have already mentioned—and trade associations helps us to find out what is happening on the ground out there in the business world. We have shown that we can respond to what businesses want when they raise issues with their organisations. The point is well worth making.
More recently, the Scottish food enforcement liaison committee has provided us with a draft set of national standards for mobile food businesses, on which we will consult later this year. In September, I attended a meeting at COSLA at which local authority regulators discussed where it might be appropriate to introduce national standards, to increase consistency. As a result, COSLA and local authorities are considering, first, whether a more consistent and transparent approach to setting fees can be agreed in respect of civic and miscellaneous licensing, and, secondly, how to streamline the process, procedures and fees that relate to food export certificates.
I do not expect either matter to engage the public on the front page of newspapers, but that does not mean that they are not important. The level of fees, the need for consistency and so on are extremely important to businesses, especially small businesses, as Mike MacKenzie said.
Presiding Officer, you indicated that I should come to a close early. My speech was considerably lengthier, but I will not have the opportunity to read it all out. I thank everyone involved and commend the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Thank you for your brevity.