Chamber and committees

On that basis, although Scottish Government ministers would be making an intervention, that would be to redirect the powers to the Lord President. Is that correct?

Thank you for your responses so far, minister. I want to ask a question about making changes to regulatory functions.

Paragraph 23 of schedule 2 provides that where a regulator has acted or failed to act in a way that has had, or is likely to have, an adverse impact on the observance of any of the regulatory objectives, and the matter cannot be addressed adequately by the Scottish ministers taking any of the measures mentioned in the bill, such as setting performance targets or imposing a financial penalty, the Scottish ministers may make regulations to change or remove some or all of the functions of the regulator. That sounds quite dramatic. Additional requirements must be met before such regulations may be made, including sharing them with consultees and laying them in draft before the Scottish Parliament.

Stakeholders who appeared before the committee have suggested that schedule 2 should be deleted in its entirety, given that they are also calling for the deletion of section 20, to which schedule 2 relates. Do you have any further reflections on the matter?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following on from that, under section 49(1), the Scottish ministers will have powers to intervene. Section 49 provides that the Scottish ministers may establish by regulations a body with a view to its becoming a category 1 regulator. The section also specifies circumstances under which the Scottish ministers may directly authorise and regulate legal business. The bill states that ministers must obtain the consent of the Lord President before making such regulations and, even then, may make them only if they believe that doing so is necessary as a last resort.

Again, stakeholders have called for the removal of the provision, asserting that it interferes with the rule of law and threatens the independence of the legal profession, which is quite a serious issue. What are your reflections on those assertions? Is the Scottish Government considering removing the provision? If not, is it considering making an amendment to it?

So that is still being brought up?

Will you remain in consultation with the Law Society and so on over that, given what you have said about the fact that you are still looking at how those provisions might develop?

I have a question on reconciling different rules. Section 46(3) allows the Scottish ministers to make regulations making further provision about reconciling regulatory conflicts, with a requirement to obtain the Lord President’s consent before doing so. The Law Society has questioned the need for that section. Will you expand on your explanation of why the Scottish Government requires the power? How foreseeable do you consider it to be that the power will be utilised?

Okay—thank you for that.

Thank you. That response was very helpful, as I was also going to ask how the Scottish Government will monitor spending on aftercare costs. Obviously, as you have said, that will be very important, given the effects that this could have on other local authority budget areas. Is the Scottish Government taking that into account?

Thank you for that.