Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2015
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.