 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 29th meeting in 2014 of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Can I welcome members? Welcome the minister of witnesses who I'll come to in a moment. I can remind everyone please to turn off or at least turn to silent all mobile phones and other electronic devices. We have some changes on the committee. First of all, I would like to pay tribute to the members who have departed on to higher things in some cases. I would like to congratulate Marco Piaggi on his appointment to government and thank him and the other members, Alison Johnson and Mike Mackenzie for their contribution to the committee over previous years. I would like to welcome three new members. Welcome or welcome back Patrick Harvie and welcome Gordon MacDonald and Richard Lyle to the committee, looking forward to working with you all. Item 2 on the agenda, I would ask the new members if they would declare any relevant interests. Start with Patrick Harvie. Thank you, convener. Nothing additional to the interests that are declared at the beginning of the current session of Parliament when I was previously a member of the committee and a member of several organisations that are likely to give evidence to the committee or which have an interest in energy and economy policy, including Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance. I'm also a director of a company with charitable status, Gala Scotland Limited, which runs the Glasgow Arts Festival. It's an unremunirated post, but the organisation applies for small, I would say pitifully small grants that have a relationship to tourism policy. Gordon MacDonald, I've got no declarable interest. However, I would like to say that I'm a member of the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland. Richard Lyle, I refer members to my register of interests. I also wish to record, while I believe that there is no need to do so, that my son holds a senior position in a major investment bank involved in the oil and gas sector in Aberdeen. Thank you for that. Item 3 on agenda are members content that we take item 7 in private. Item 4 supporting legislation. We have to consider the Scottish Regulators strategic code of practice, SG2014-236. I'd like to welcome the minister. New title, Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism. Fragusun, new title, same face. Jo Brown joined this morning by Joe Brown, Head of Better Regulation and Industry Engagement and Sandra Reid, Better Regulation Policy Advisor at Scottish Government. Welcome to you all. Minister, do you want to introduce the code of practice? Yes, thank you convener for the opportunity to speak to the committee today about the Scottish Regulators strategic code of practice. As the committee is aware, provisions for the code come from the Regulatory Reform Scotland Act, which seeks to deliver proportionate and consistent regulation and promote in all regulators a broad and deep alignment with the Government's central purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. A strong economy is essential to our success and we must provide the environment that allows business to succeed. The Scottish Regulators strategic code of practice, which has been laid before the Scottish Parliament, sets out a high-level strategic approach to encourage and support regulators in applying regulatory principles and building good practice in order to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth while concurrently delivering other core functions. Underpinning the duty for regulators to contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth, the code will provide a clear line of sight between regulatory activity and the Scottish Government's purpose. It will also provide greater transparency, which is essential if we are to have consistency of delivery across all regulators. The code was developed with and by regulators in business and I acknowledge and value the contribution from members of the short-term working group. The draft code was subject to consultation to seek to ensure that it meets the requirements and expectations of the regulator and the regulated. It builds on existing good practice and seeks to support and enabling approach to drive further performance improvements. It is important to recognise this when considering the DPLR committee's specific comments in paragraph 9, which I will come to shortly, as I have indicated to the committee informally earlier this morning. The code provides greater clarity to regulators as to what is expected of them and to business of what they can expect from regulators. In recognition of concerns raised during stage 1 scrutiny of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the code includes the Scottish Government's definition of sustainable economic growth. The approach set out in the code requires regulators to take a risk-based enabling approach to communicate clearly and effectively and to understand who they regulate. Given the wide range of regulators and regulatory activity covered by the code, it is purposely set at a strategic level. The code should be underpinned by regulator-specific guidance through which each regulator will provide greater detail required by their staff and stakeholders to reflect their own circumstances. However, having noted the concerns raised by the DPLR committee regarding the wording in paragraph 9, I am minded to take the views of Parliament fully into account. I will revisit the section of the code with the working group that helped to develop it. There is no need for a further formal consultation and, as such, convener, I would expect to come back with a revised form of wording relatively early in the new year. Delivering better regulation by carrying out regulatory functions in transparent, proportionate, accountable, consistent and targeted way alongside the duty to contribute to sustainable economic growth will play an important role in making Scotland a more successful country and providing a favourable business environment in which companies can grow and flourish. The code builds on our existing better regulation toolkit to deliver better and effective regulation and make Scotland a leading country in Europe in terms of better regulation and an attractive destination for business. To conclude, convener, I withdraw the motion, but I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has at this time. I might ask the minister about the comments that we received from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. I do not know if you have seen their submission to the committee, but they have raised some concerns around innovation and specifically whether enough emphasis is being put on the need for regulators to work with individual businesses or organisations in order to help innovative and beneficial technologies and processes to comply. They are concerned that opportunities might be missed because of simple unfamiliarity with what might be new and innovative products or procedures. Is that something that you are able to look at when you take the code back? I am very happy to do that at your specific request, convener. I have got the submission in front of me now. It is fair to say that it is couched in high-level general terms. It does not seem to give specific examples of areas of innovation that have hitherto not been the subject of adequate proper consideration. To be fair to the regulators, I would say that at present, we expect that they generally behave in the way that we wish them to behave when the code comes into place and the act is being respected at present. We work with regulators rather than in conflict with regulators. Many of them are working extremely closely with us in areas of innovation such as renewable energy, for example, to achieve the Government's objectives but I will, at your request, take that point specifically away and revert to you when we bring back the revised code early in the new year. Good morning, minister. I note that you said that there is no need for further consultation. I accept that. Are you content that, with the timeframe that you have available to you, to go back with the working group and then to come back to the committee in the early part of the new year? Well, I am reasonably confident that that should be the case. Those on the working group include CEPA, SNH, local authorities, the FSA, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, the Scottish Charity Regulator, the Fine Rescue Service, the Housing Regulator, the Accounting of Bankruptcy in Visit Scotland, so it is quite a comprehensive group of stakeholders. We will see what they have to say plainly, but given that the Delegated Powers Committee has focused on one specific aspect of this, I think that the focus will be narrow in scope and therefore we would hope to revert early in the new year on these matters. Good morning, minister. I was going to raise the issue about SDI as well in terms of individual businesses, but of course that has been preempted. Can I just get an observation? This is a circumstance that shows, despite what others may say, that the committee works as does its relationship with ministers. Seeing this today is an indicator of just exactly how the DLP has worked. We will work and the ministers will work. I think that everybody should recognise that with that willingness, the committee system working with the appropriate ministers is very effective and we should recognise that. I am not sure if that is a question for you, minister, or just a statement. No, it is a question and an observation. I am happy to agree with what Mr Brody has said. We do and have listened very carefully to the delegated powers and law reform committee's 67th report, session 4, in paragraphs 12 and 13 in particular. It was as a direct result of making this one narrow, specific criticism that I felt that the correct thing to do was, rather than fire ahead, regardless of what Parliament has said, to go away and give further thought to it carefully with the relevant stakeholders, which encompass a very wide range of Scottish society, and then to come back to the committee after having thought it through. The amount of time involved is relatively modest, but the value of the committee's contribution, as Mr Brody says, is substantial. If there are no other questions that members have, that will conclude item 4 on the agenda. Minister, as you previously indicated on item 5, you do not therefore intend to move the motion in your name. That therefore concludes item 5, and we will move to item 6, and I will suspend it for a moment to allow a change over of officials. I can reconvene item 6 on the agenda. We have a legislative consent motion in relation to the infrastructure bill. UK Parliament legislation is LCMS434.1, and joining the minister we have Joyce Whittock, who is the Heat Policy Manager and Suzanne Lamire, who is Head of Heat Policy at the Scottish Government. Welcome to you both. Minister, do you want to introduce this item? Well, I haven't got a formal opening statement to convener, but I can say, having prepared for the committee today, that the amendments to the infrastructure bill were added to the UK bill in the House of Lords, tabled on 29 October. Those will basically allow four things, which I can briefly summarise for the committee and then answer questions probably with the assistance of my officials. First, to enable the appointment of an alternative administrator to deliver the renewable heat incentive, along with the introduction of a new appeal mechanism. Secondly, the assignment of payments made under the RHI to a third party nominated by the owner of the renewable heat plant. Thirdly, to allow for some elements of existing secondary legislation to be changed using the negative resolution procedure. Fourthly, other minor technical changes necessary for the administration and delivery of the requirements under the RHI scheme. The Scottish Government is satisfied that there is merit in each of these four measures, and therefore, because that is the case, we believe that the LCM is required and is appropriate. Thank you minister. Members wish to ask questions on this. Mr Brodie? I mean, it won't necessarily affect the LCM, but just looking at the proposals under the RHI in terms of, first of all, an alternative administrator of the RHI along with the introduction of a new appeal mechanism, the appeal mechanism is still to be controlled by Ofgem, and yet we are likely to have an alternative administrator. Do you believe that in the consideration of this, you have looked at the actual possible conflict that might arise between the new administrator and Ofgem as the appeal forum? We don't think so. We believe that the new appeals mechanism will operate irrespective of any change that might be made to the administrator and will also allow the flexibility to modify those appeal processes that are currently managed by Ofgem. Are there any other questions from members? No. If not, can I ask members if we are content to recommend to Parliament that he gives his consent to the relevant provisions of the infrastructure bill that is set out in the LCM? We agree. Are members content to delegate to the convener and clerk the production of a short factual report detailing the committee's considerations and arranging for its publication? Thank you minister, and to you and your officials for coming along, and we'll have very short suspension and go into private session.