The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions.
I ask Joe FitzPatrick to move motion S4M-12334, on referral of a bill, and motions S4M-12335 and S4M-12336, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees under Rule 9.7.1(b) that stage 2 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill be taken as follows:
(a) the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to consider (in the order set out by, or by virtue of, Rules 9.7.4 and 9.10.8):
(i) amendments to, and sections within, Part 4 (including any amendments inserting a new schedule to be introduced by Part 4), and
(ii) any amendments not falling within Part 4 (including amendments to Part 9, schedules 4 and 5 and the long title) that relate primarily to provisions within or introduced by Part 4 or that otherwise relate primarily to land reform,
(b) the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to consider (in the order set out by, or by virtue of, Rules 9.7.4 and 9.10.8):
(i) amendments to Parts 1 to 3, Parts 5 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3; sections within those Parts, and schedules 1 to 3,
(ii) any amendments not falling within those Parts and schedules (including amendments to Part 9, schedules 4 and 5 and the long title), other than those to be considered by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and
(iii) sections within Part 9; schedules 4 and 5, and the long title (consideration of any provision mentioned in this sub-paragraph to be completed only after the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has completed consideration of any amendments to that provision that fall to be considered by it);
with amendments to be considered by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee being numbered in a sequence starting with 1 and amendments to be considered by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to be numbered in a sequence starting with 1001, each sequence being published separately.
That the Parliament agrees that the Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2015 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Land and Building Transaction Tax (Addition and Modification of Reliefs) (Scotland) Order 2015 [draft] be approved.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
I call on Joe FitzPatrick to move motion S4M-12337, on approval of the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice be approved.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
Patrick Harvie has indicated that he wishes to speak against the motion. You have up to three minutes, Mr Harvie.
16:55
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to be briefer than that.
Back in 2013, when the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill, as it was then, was being scrutinised, my colleague Alison Johnstone was a member of the lead committee, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. She consistently advanced the argument that it is inappropriate to make central to the role of regulators, including environmental regulators, what I have come to regard as the Government’s central contradiction, which is sustainable economic growth. A regulator’s duty is to consider what it has been charged with regulating and not to advance the Government’s economic policy for it.
Alison Johnstone advanced that argument in relation to the bill. Given that the Government has proceeded with that course of action, we have advanced the argument again in relation to the strategic code of practice. The first version of the code was presented to the committee on 3 December last year. Having resumed my seat on the committee by that point, I actually welcomed that first version. I was all set—I was ready, geared and primed—to congratulate Fergus Ewing on having understood some of the arguments that had been advanced.
Paragraph 9 of the first version of the code made it clear that
“The duties to have regard to the Code in determining and applying general policies or principles do not apply to the exercise by a regulator or its staff of any specified regulatory function in individual cases.”
I was looking forward to the opportunity to congratulate the minister on understanding some of the arguments that had been advanced, so I was disappointed that he immediately withdrew it and promised to bring back a worse version.
Mr Ewing has now done that, and the new version makes it clear that the code applies in exercising regulatory functions. Under questioning at the committee, it seemed clear that the intention was a complete reversal from the first version of the code as presented back in December, which I would have welcomed.
I will not rehearse the whole argument on the bill but, for those reasons, the Greens will not support the code of practice. I urge the Government to recognise that its economic policy, whether or not I agree with it, should not be the central function of regulators. They have their own job to do, and advancing the Government’s economic policy is not it.
16:58
Patrick Harvie is right that he has made those arguments before. He has made them on many previous occasions, so I suppose that this is a kind of parliamentary version of “Groundhog Day”.
Let us cut straight to the chase. The definition of sustainable economic growth that is contained in the code is as follows:
“Sustainable economic growth means building a dynamic and growing economy that will provide prosperity and opportunities for all, while ensuring that future generations can enjoy a better quality of life too.”
Whatever party members are in, it seems to me that we are all able to unite behind that as a fairly simple and desirable aim for society.
Of course, economic growth is somewhat better than economic contraction, especially from the point of view of people who currently face losing their jobs. As the minister for business, I know that, sadly, there are all too many businesses in my constituency and others in which people face the real threat of losing their job and redundancy. If there is economic growth, and it delivers opportunities for new work, new business and new employment, that will create opportunities for people to get back into work, to get the self-respect of work and to look after their families properly.
I make no apology for saying that the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the code, which I hope we will pass today with the support of all the other parties that were broadly in favour of the measures in the bill, will make a modest contribution. What it will not do—which Patrick Harvie failed to mention—is supplant the primary duties of regulators. They are not supplanted by this code of practice: the legislation makes it absolutely clear that that is so.
The code was developed with and by regulators and business, and it was subject to open, public consultation. The correction to it—this is my last point—was made as a result of the diligence of Nigel Don and the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, who spotted an error to the effect that the general duty set out in the bill was not to be applied in practice. Surely if Parliament sets out a general duty, it is utterly illogical to have a code that disapplies the principle that Parliament has accepted. I would have thought that Patrick Harvie, as a democrat, would recognise that that would be a parliamentary absurdity.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionsNext
Decision Time