Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 08 Jun 2006

08 Jun 2006 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Regulatory Framework

May, Christine Lab Central Fife Watch on SPTV

Some—although perhaps not all—members know that subordinate legislation is not used in every legislature. In fact, some of our European colleagues are shocked that we give ministers powers to make rules and regulations that implement primary legislation without any effective scrutiny by the Parliament. They believe that we are foolish—it happens in the Commonwealth nations, too—to allow our ministers such powers.

Jamie Stone referred to the Henry VIII principle, which involves the power to amend primary legislation by using secondary legislation and therefore gives ministers enormous power.

We have heard about the number of instruments that come before committees and the Parliament. I venture to suggest that—apart from members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, or members who are particularly interested—nobody reads those instruments. Nobody knows what they say, what their impact is, who they will affect, or whether they make a major change to primary legislation.

Subordinate legislation is important: it puts the flesh on the bones of laws; it says what is allowed and what is not; and it deals with sanctions such as criminal penalties. In evidence to the committee, the Federation of Small Businesses said that it believes that subordinate legislation is extremely important, and I think it supported the committee in its view that changes should be made.

Regulation by subordinate legislation is one of the things business complains about most. I and some others in the chamber were lambasted at a Hansard Society event by representatives of the chemical industry about the plethora of regulations and the frequent and minor changes that are made and that are not explained to the industry in an understandable way. Such changes are sometimes like the amendments to motions that we consider in this chamber: one word, as many of us know, can make a great difference. Is it "may" or "shall", or "could" or "would"? The choice can wholly change the focus of a piece of legislation.

In 2003, when I came to the Parliament, I began on the Subordinate Legislation Committee—and I did not regard it as the gulag. In my previous life, I had worked with such rules and regulations and I knew how important they were. I knew how difficult life could be when they were wrong or not as effective as they might have been, or when they clashed with other regulations. We have all despaired over trying to implement policy when there is conflict between two sets of regulations, perhaps for two different pieces of legislation.

Regulations affect more people than just those in business. They affect the voluntary sector, public agencies, the environment and, ultimately, every person in Scotland. It is therefore important, in this second phase of the work of the committee—which, of necessity, focuses inwards on the technicalities—that we keep our eye firmly on the external effects on business, on the public agencies, on the voluntary sector and on our communities.

In 2005, the Hampton review into better regulation in Westminster said that

"different regulators find it hard to join their systems or operations"

and that that could

"result in missed opportunities".

The report also highlighted the inconsistencies in regulation that I have referred to.

With such points firmly in mind, the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered what might be good for Scotland. The major recommendation in its report is that the system should be simpler. Members have spoken of the complexities, of the different forms of instrument, and of the terminology. John Swinburne is quite right to talk about the acronyms, but it is not only the acronyms; it is all the terminology.

From my time on the committee, I remember Alasdair Morgan showing off his Greek.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 08 Jun 2006

In the same item of business