 Welcome to the 30th meeting in 23 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We have received apologies from Mercedes Villalba this morning. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to please switch their mobile phones and other electronic devices to silent. The first item of business is to decide whether to take items 5 and 6 in private. As a committee, content to these items in private. Moving to agenda item number 2, today we are taking evidence on the regulation of legal services at Scotland Bill from Sean Brown MSP, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The minister is accompanied by two Scottish Government officials, Jamie Wilhelm, who is the legal services at regulation reform manager from the Justice Directorate and Leanna McLarty, who is a solicitor from the legal directorate. I remind all attendees to not worry about turning on the microphones during the session, because broadcasting will be dealing with that. We will move to the session about what we do. I invite the minister to make any opening remarks. Good morning, convener and committee members. I welcome this opportunity to make a brief opening statement about the regulation of legal services at Scotland Bill 2023. As set out in the Delegated Powers memorandum, the overarching policy objective of this bill is to provide a modern forward-looking legal services regulatory framework for Scotland that will promote competition, innovation and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective and independent legal sector. The bill seeks to implement a number of key recommendations from the independent review of legal services regulation in Scotland by Esther Roberton, the Roberton report. That report's primary recommendation of a single independent regulator resulted largely in polarized views from those in the legal and the consumer landscape. Despite that, there were many areas where there was broad agreement between the stakeholders, including a common aspiration for any future model to be transparent, open to public scrutiny and efficient to ensure that justice remains accessible to all. The bill is designed to take a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of all stakeholders. With each and every bill, and as the committee will know, the Scottish Government always considers very carefully the rationale for the inclusion of delegated powers. For example, to provide flexibility and to be able to react and be responsive to future events without having to resort to amending primary legislation. The bill therefore seeks to take a proportionate approach with regards to what is provided for on the face of the bill and what is provided for by the way of delegated powers. That said, I accept that there are certain delegated powers within this bill that have caused concern amongst some stakeholders. Therefore, and reflecting carefully on the discussions that we have had with stakeholders, including the senior judiciary, it is my intention to bring forward amendments at stage 2 intended to address concerns raised in respect of the role placed on Scottish ministers within the bill. I recently wrote to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 27 September to inform the lead committee of my intentions and I provided further information on 27 October. Finally, convener, I would like to reiterate that the Scottish Government has committed to continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders in respect of these reforms and throughout the parliamentary passage of this bill. I am happy to take any questions. Section 5 of the bill gives the Scottish ministers the power to allow them to modify the regulatory objectives and the professional principles for legal services set out in sections 2 to 4 of the bill. The committee heard evidence in both law society and the Faculty of Advocates that the provision should be removed from the bill. The reasons for calling for its removal include that it is in their opinion unforeseeable as to why or when the objectives and principles would require to be modified. If that was necessary, such objectives and principles are too important to be modified by secondary legislation. What is your consideration thoughts about the observations that this committee has heard? Can you give the committee any examples of when it may be necessary to modify the objectives and the principles? We recognise the importance and commit to maintaining the regulatory objectives and the professional principles. In order to strengthen the safeguards here, we intend to introduce amendments that would require the Lord President's consent to be gained before any changes may be made to regulatory objectives or professional principles or how they apply. We are also considering amendments that would limit the scope on how any such changes may be sought by limiting this to be done by the request of certain bodies like the regulators and the consumer panel. The regulation making power is an important mechanism to future proof the regulatory framework in recognition of the fact that the regulatory best practice may change over time. Since the introduction of the regulatory objectives and professional principles within the Legal Services Scotland Act 2010, it has become apparent that they can be strengthened by the inclusion of consumer principles and better regulation principles as recommended by Esther Robertson. The Scottish Government also views the human rights panel principles as an important addition. In the next 10-year period, it may be apparent that further refinement may be required and therefore the bill allows for such flexibility. It may be possible that the consumer principles or the better regulation principles will be updated in the next decade and we would wish the bill to respond to any such changes. That also shows in the eight years between the first introduction of interlegislation and Esther Robertson's report that there was a need to update them. With those potential amendments, will your officials or yourself hide any further dialogue with the faculty and law society in preparation to bring those amendments forward? Yes, we have been having conversations about bringing my officials. The conversations are on going. Jeremy, do you want to come in? Sure. Throughout the development of this bill, the Scottish Government has committed to working in collaboration with all stakeholders. We continue to engage in the development of amendments and we will do so during the passage of the bill's passage through the Scottish Parliament. As we are altering the delivery of certain provisions so that they move from ministers to the Lord President, our discussions in the main have been predominantly taking place with Lord President's office. As those discussions advance, we will be able to engage further with whether stakeholders such as the law society and the faculty and the other key stakeholders. We will move on to section 85, which is the regulatory categories. Section 85 gives the power to the Scottish ministers, which would enable them to reassign legal regulators between category 1 and category 2, which would change the requirements that a legal services regulator is currently subject to. The law society suggests that this power should be subject to a statutory duty to report on the outcome of the consultation and that the Lord President's consent should be required. The faculty of advocates does not agree that there should be a power to reassign regulators from one category to another through regulations. How do you respond to those differing considerations, Minister? Is the Scottish Government planning to make any amendments or considering to remove this particular power? The bill seeks to take a risk-based and proportionate approach. The categorisation of the regulator has implications in respect of the operation of its regulatory functions. For example, a category 1 regulator must delegate its regulatory functions to an independent regulatory committee and establish a client protection fund, whereas category 2 regulators would not have such duties. It is considered important for the bill to have a mechanism to alter the category of an existing or new regulator should there be a significant change on how a regulator meets the relevant criteria at section 86. In order to strengthen the safeguards here, we intend to introduce amendments that will require the Lord President's consent to be gained before any changes be made to the regulatory category of a regulator. We are also considering amendments that would limit the scope on how such changes may be sought by limiting this to be done by the request of certain bodies such as the regulators or the consumer panel. In addition, there may be scope for a new regulator to enter the market that may require consideration of its categorisation or a change to that categorisation in respect of changing circumstances. If I could just give one example, convener, the association of construction attorneys only has six people in it, so we do not feel that it would be appropriate for them to be category 1 and all the duties that are put on category 1 as of category 2. I wonder on that general point of giving this power to the Lord President. There did seem to be some concern, both from the Law Society and from the Faculty of Advocates, of the role of the Lord President in this. In your conversations with stakeholders, is there concern within even the judiciary that we are giving power to the Lord President, which could be seen as having to make him or her make political decisions, which clearly is not what the Lord President is there to do? Had there been concern raised that it is inappropriate for the Lord President to be doing this type of work? I do not think that there has been on-going engagement with both stakeholders and the legal sector. I might bring in Jamie, if I can, to give an update on that. Of course, the judiciary's response to the lead committee for the call for views highlighted the oversight that the role of the Lord President plays in the framework is considered important. There is a check and balance for making such changes for the Lord President to have that kind of role. The Lord President's consent is intended to act as a veto. If that consent is not achieved, the measure of steps that is being considered would not be progressed further, where consent is required before regulations are laid in Parliament, which means that Parliament makes the ultimate decision on whether the regulations would be passed into law. The requirement for the Lord President's consent already exists in legislation in relation to alternative business structures in the Legal Services Act 2010. The Lord President gives consent to the authorisation of the Law Site of Scotland as an authorised regulator of licensed legal services providers. The Lord President is happy with the extension of each powers. Is the Lord President judiciary happy with him? Engagement is continuing in respect of the provisions, and we hope to reach consensus as to the way forward. The feeling that I am getting from my answer is that they are not happy with that at the moment and want further negotiations around that. Is that fair to me? No, I wouldn't think that's fair. Early negotiations are ongoing regarding this. As we move forward, we will be taking forward and considering all the recommendations of this committee and the lead committee as well and also the legal sector. Engagement is ongoing regarding this. Thank you, Minister. I am deeply concerned by the start to this morning's session. I had hoped off the evidence that we had heard last week that you would be in a better position to tell us the way forward. I share concerns about what is a big change to the Lord President's role. I want to understand that you are clearly uncomfortable about the provisions in the faculty, in the law society and that there are ongoing discussions to put it in its most positive sense with the Lord President. What would prevent that from happening if the power was in the bill? What would prevent such negotiations and strong-arming happening to get agreement to changes to the principles or to regulations? I have to disagree with Mr Mundell. There is no people feeling uncomfortable here. I have been listening as before the bill was introduced and hence my reasoning with officials to be engaging with both sectors, stakeholders and the judiciary in how we move forward with this bill and bringing a balance to the issues that have been raised thus far. The Scottish Government is considering the options for amendments and reflecting the views of stakeholders, including the senior judiciary, with the intention of building a consensus regarding all this reform. While we have indicated an intention to make amendments, we are working on their development and we are aware of the importance, as I said previously, of the stage 1 parliamentary process in drawing out all stakeholders' views and of the committee's consideration. We have had constructive engagement with the senior judiciary and their officials to build consensus around the best approach to the detailed provisions. The plan changes to the bill will take time to work through. However, I will provide the committee as we go through the different sections on what our proposals are at the moment. Minister, I do not want to be a competition, but it appears that you are doubling down on the same strategy of making the law president's consent central to these provisions. Last week we heard from the two biggest legal stakeholders out with the judiciary that they were deeply uncomfortable with that, that it was in effect undermining confidence in the rule of law. That the powers were too broad and they were pretty serious concerns. They were saying that they were things that would embarrass Scotland elsewhere around the world, that they were concerns in the Commonwealth Lawyers Group. It was not just like concerns they had. You have come today to tell us that you are just continuing with that approach and adding in a few of what I would consider quite minor safeguards. It makes me concerned that the Government does not really understand the strength of feeling that there is in the legal profession. A convener, if I could just bring in some context of how things are done in England and Wales in what we are proposing as well. In England and Wales, the legal services board acts as an independent regulator on the front line regulators of solicitors, barristers and other branches of the legal profession in England and Wales. The LSB is accountable to the Parliament through the Lord Chancellor and is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. The Lord Chancellor, a UK minister, has a number of statutory roles in regulation to the legal services board and the regulation of legal services within legal services act 2007. Some of those are very similar to things that have been proposed in this bill. I just wanted to offer clarification there. I have been listening to the committee's views from last week and also officials have been engaging with the judiciary and stakeholders. That offers me zero reassurance. I am very proud of the Scottish legal system of our unique traditions. I do not think that aiming to model our legal system and what happens in England and Wales is the approach that we should be taking when we have a very different and distinct system. I am sad to hear that from a Scottish Government minister. Furthermore, I would be in favour and have spoken out in relation to Scottish law officers in politicians having less of a direct role in their involvement in the legal profession. I do not really think that pointing to the situation with the UK Government is helpful in that regard. Specifically, on section 26, which confers a power on Scottish ministers to make regulations specifying other measures that we make in relation to a legal regulator following a review of the regulatory performance, measures already set out on the face of the bill include setting performance targets, imposing financial penalties and changing the rules. Changing or removing some or all of the regulatory functions. Last week, stakeholders told us that they were fundamentally opposed to the provision and have called for its deletion. Is this something that there would be any movement on? I think that we discovered in practice that further additional measures would be helpful tools because of the existing suite of powers in section 20 are found to be insufficiently robust or extreme or disproportionately severe. The powers ensure appropriate tools to tackle any poor performance on part of regulators. This section is also intended to be used to give further details around the specifics of the measures that can be taken and the procedures involved. For example, it allows Scottish ministers to specify the maximum amount of financial penalty which may be imposed on a regulator in accordance with paragraph 13 of the schedule 2 of the bill. This power has already been written into legislation and approved by Parliament within the Legal Services Scotland Act 2010. I have indicated my intention to introduce amendments which will transfer the responsibility for carrying out the review under sections 19 and 20 to the Lord President. This regulation makes powers remain necessary despite the change but the provision already requires the Lord President's agreement before any regulations are made. That power acts as a veto against any new measures being introduced. If I could give you an example of where this delegated power could be used, whilst we consider the measures already provided sufficient, it may be that the Lord President would seek a power to remove a particular individual from the role within a regulator rather than take measures against the regulator as a whole. In certain circumstances, the Lord President may remove the chair of the SLCC just as an example. We took evidence last week from faculty and velocity and what became clear was that velocity seems fundamentally opposed to the provision in section 35, which would allow Scottish ministers to make replacement regulatory arrangements in circumstances where a regulator has or is likely to cease operating. I wonder again, could you address those concerns and do you think that it is appropriate that the appointment is of acting for sub-Norban legislation in an urgent situation rather than simply bringing primary legislation forward to the Parliament? It is considered that the new regulators run the greatest risk of encountering circumstances that render them unable to operate on short notice and create a need for Scottish ministers to step in and ensure that their members continue to be authorised to provide legal services to the public. While alternative arrangements have worked out, it was considered appropriate to separate those provisions from section 49, which also deals with situations of necessity in relation to any regulator allowing the Scottish ministers to take action as a measure of the last resort but maintaining the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny and approval in advance of such steps. However, given the similarity of the measures between section 35 and 49, we are exploring amendments that would bring them together in one provision, which would maintain the power to take action in urgent situations, transfer it, take it away from the Scottish ministers and transfer it to the Lord President. In regard to that, how would that be done? Do you foresee that that has been happening through regulation or on the face of the bill? The provisions on the face of the bill would require to be amended to make clear where the power to take this action lies, but we do consider that the regulation making power is still necessary to give effect to any exercise of the power that the Lord President might, when the Lord President might seek to use it, would still require power to make regulations. Is your Parliament then would have no involvement in regard to that? One of the would still be a regulation making power, so these are still, how it would operate in the details of how it would operate are still being explored. Amendments would be required to make clear to the provisions in the bill where the ability to use this power lies, but the regulation making power would still be required if the power is exercised to give effect to the changes being sought. I am slightly confused, so would the regulation making power be brought forward as the bill progresses or would there need to be, if there was that decision made, would there have to be a regulation made before Parliament at that specific time to allow the Lord President to act upon that? Yes, that is the current thinking, but the details of how it would operate are still being worked out, but that is the current thinking. In that case, and I suppose that I can come back to the final point of my question, obviously regulations have a lot less scrutiny by Parliament and we either have to say yes or no, there is no amending of them. If that was required, why would it be done by regulation rather than bringing primary legislation through an emergency basis, which we have seen can be done within two or three days? If I may just come in, Mr Balfour, as the officials have said, we are still working through the detail of that and, of course, we will give careful consideration to the recommendations from this committee and from the lead committee moving forward. I still am not quite sure why primary legislation can't be used. Section 35 in particular applies directly to accredited regulators, or any new regulators, which would enter the legal sector through the bill. The only regulator that exists at the moment, which came in through the system in the 1990 act, which these provisions restate, is the Association of Construction Attorneys, and they are a body that exists with six people at the moment. They have an existing regulatory scheme and it was considered that in such a case it would be possible to use regulations to ensure the continual operation of a very small body with a regulatory scheme that already exists. It was considered that that was possible to be done by way of regulations rather than requiring emergency legislation in the case of a body that was so small. If I can move on to section 41 subsection 2, which enables the Scottish ministers to specify other regulatory matters that must be dealt with within the rules. Again, in the evidence that we took a couple of weeks ago from the Law Society, they said that this was a very broad power and that it is an unwarranted extension of ministerial powers into the off-race in rules and practice rules for legal businesses. The Law Society said that no amendment would make this power acceptable in your view. So in that view, are you still wanting to keep section 41 subsection 2 in? The power in section 41 subsection 2 gives the Scottish ministers flexibility to expand upon the regulatory matters that will be covered by the regulatory rules, for example, to add clarity or to address unforeseen issues. For example, currently this will only apply to the Law Society as the only category 1 regulator, but if in the future there were more than one category 1 regulators and different regulators applied rules inconsistently, so it would have a negative effect on consumers or competition, it may be beneficial to make regulations so that there was a consistent approach by regulators. We've listened to the concerns and do intend to bring forward amendments which will narrow the scope so a change would be in a response to a request of bodies such as the regulators or the consumer panel and which introduced the requirement for the Lord President's consent and consultation with regulators and the other bodies in respect of regulations under section 41 and 2 that you mentioned. So just to be absolutely clear, you're seeking to amend but you want to keep section 41 subsection 2 in some form and you don't accept that this is an overreach of politicians into the legal world. Finally, section 41 subsection 6 contains a power for the Scottish ministers to make regulations to allow category 1 regulators to extend the scope of the ALB rules to capture other services provided by the business that they regulate, which is in distance to legal services. The law society again has questioned what other services the Scottish Government is thinking about and could be used to extend to cover not already covered by legal services as to finding a bill. It has suggested that it may allow ministers to change the definition of legal services by the back door. I wonder what is your response to that. Thank you. Section 41.6 has been criticized by the law society for preventing them from regulating legal businesses in terms of non-legal services, for example estate agents, accountants or tax advisers. This is not the intention of the bill and we're working with the law society to ensure that the introduction of entity regulation is as effective and beneficial as possible and currently we are exploring amendments which will make that clear. Thank you. Thank you very much, convener. Minister, can I just ask a question on reconciling different rules, please? Section 46 subsection 3 allows Scottish ministers to make regulations, making further provision about reconciling regulatory conflicts with a requirement to make the law society. We are aware that the law society has questioned the need for this section. Could you expand on your explanation as to why the Scottish Government requires this power and how foreseeable you consider it is that the power will be utilised? Thank you, Mr Kidd. The general approach is for the approved regulators to resolve regulatory conflict in discussion as appropriate with other regulators. However, should this prove to be impossible or unduly complicated, this power allows the Scottish ministers the flexibility to ensure that such conflicts can be resolved. As the provisions to be made will depend on the detailed circumstances of any particular conflict which may arise and address an issue which is likely to require quick resolution. Subordinate legislation is considered appropriate. As was raised with the law society during their evidence, they are already subject to the oversight of a number of regulatory bodies, for example the Financial Conduct Authority for the purposes of anti-money laundering and incidental financial business. The bill also seeks to expand the oversight of the Scottish Legals Complaint Commission to allow them to set minimum standards for the first time. The bill also introduced the regulation of legal entities for the first time in Scotland. We also have a system for the regulation of licensed providers, which we hope will be up and running soon. The law society will continue to be responsible for the regulation of individual legal practitioners and for some firms operate across the border with regulatory responsibilities in each area of their operation. As it has been acknowledged, this is a complex system and the delegation making powers provides a reassurance that any regulatory conflicts which may arise can be rectified. That is quite comprehensive. Are you still in talks with the law society over this because of the questions that they have raised? Yes, I am going with all stakeholders and all the legal sector. I am still being brought up. I just asked about following on from that, powers under section 49.1, powers of the Scottish ministers to intervene. Section 49 provides that the Scottish ministers may, established by regulations, a body with a view to it becoming a category 1 regulator and specify 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 only make them if they believe it 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 and, if not, is it considering making some other amendment to the provision? The provision is intended to ensure that there is always an appropriate regulator in place to regulate authorised legal businesses, should there be no other suitable regulator. That intervention may be necessary as the members of the regulatory may be involved in an on-going court case that might be disrupted or because of transactions that might put them into difficulty. To avoid this and to respond to it, the Scottish ministers may intervene to create a body to become a new regulator or have another regulator, like the Law Society, step in to take over the regulation of even regulate the providers themselves. Where this provision is intended as a measure of a last resort in specific circumstances and only in the event where a regulator finds itself unable to operate. This is designed as a measure if a last resort to cover situations where a regulator of an authorised legal businesses gets into difficulty and this may be a financial collapse or it may be a result of regulatory failures. Moving forward with section 49, as I mentioned, as we were discussing section 35 previously, given the similarity of the measures of section 35, we are exploring amendments that will bring them together in one provision, which would maintain the power to take action in urgent situations but transfer the power to the Lord President. Once again, you will still be in consultation with the Law Society and so on because of what you have said there. If you are still looking at elements as to where it might move forward. Yes, we are engaging with all stakeholders in the legal sector as well as we move forward through this bill. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. Over to Oliver Mundell. I want to ask about the guarantee fund. In relation to the proposed powers for ministers for the fund at schedule 1 paragraph 6, the Law Society suggested that the consultation requirement should be paired with a requirement to publish the outcome of that consultation. Does the Scottish Government have a view on that? Thank you, Mr Mundell. Having considered the feedback from stakeholders, we intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2, which introduce a requirement for the Lord President's consent before any regulations are made using this provision and which narrow the scope so that it be used in response to the request of the regulator of the consumer panel. Those provisions are necessarily brought to ensure the guarantee fund, which is established in now quite aged legislation, continues to be able to adapt to changes to the way the solicitors operate. I do not know if any of my officials want to come in here. Of course, as the guarantee fund relates to a key provision in respect of ensuring that there is a mechanism to support consumers, there is a public interest that consumers are protected in terms of legal services regulation. That measure is designed to ensure that there is a lever to inform any failures in the climate action fund. As the minister has pointed out, we are looking at amending that so that such changes could be introduced following a request made by a regulator or the consumer panel. For the Lord President to have a Lord President's consent to be required before this could be brought forward. I ask again for more clarity on how the Lord President's consent provision would work in practice. What would that look like and how would stakeholders and Parliament follow that process? I think that Mr Mendo will still be working through the detail on that moving forward. If we will be taking on board any recommendations from this committee, would you make any recommendations in relation to schedule 1 paragraph 6? We recognise that it is quite hard for individuals on the committee to come to a view on the scope of the Lord President's consent provision, which is now going to run through a substantive part of the bill without knowing how it is going to work in practice. What would the process look like? How would we know what discussions would take place around that? How would stakeholders know if there were concerns or what proposals? Is it going to be introduced to Parliament and then go for the consent or are they going to go for consent first and then come to the Parliament? Are there going to be ministerial level discussions with the Lord President in their office before Parliament? As the bill has been introduced, there have been on-going discussions with stakeholders, the Lord President and the judiciary on that moving forward. We are still at stage 1, so we have a bit to go as we go through the parliamentary process of the bill. As we move forward, we are happy to provide further detail, but at the moment we are still working on the detail. It is too fundamental to have got to this point in the process and still not be able to give a relatively high level explanation of how the procedure would work. I will bring in my officials, but since the bill has been introduced, we have shown a willingness and openness to work with the judiciary and stakeholders moving forward and consider amendments prior to the stage 1. As the minister has pointed out, I reiterate that the mechanism would exist in legislation with regard to the Legal Sciences Act 2010. That concept mechanism is a veto at the start of the process. It would be a statutory process whereby ministers would have to obtain that consent before they could bring forward regulations. We are looking at the scope of that, so that that consent could only be sought when a consumer panel or regulator makes a request to the Lord President and the Lord President could perhaps have the ability to make a recommendation to Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations. That is a broad mechanism that we are looking at, which already exists in terms of existing statutes. You would recognise that that is a significant expansion of that. What is in the current statute is a one-off incident, whereas that runs right through what is being proposed. The topics that it covers, the range of provisions and their potential reach is far wider. There are a range of mechanisms in existing legislation that require the consent of the Lord President in terms of the 1990 act, where the Association of Construction Attorneys is given the ability for rights of audience and rights of litigation. In relation to the 2010 Act, whereby a law site of Scotland is authorised to regulate alternative business structures, the centres of the colours of justice are set out in response to the lead committee. There is an overarching role for the Lord President in terms of legal sciences regulation, so we view it appropriately that that situation remains. I feel that it is a bit unfair to keep pushing the officials. I will stop there, convener. I am quite happy. Thank you for your responses so far, minister. Can I just ask something in terms of making changes to regulatory functions? In paragraph 23 of schedule 2, which is a bit narrowed down but there you go, it provides that where a regulator has acted or failed to act in a way that has had or is likely to act. There is 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 on the face of the bill, such as setting performance targets or imposing a financial penalty. Then the Scottish ministers may make regulations at this point to change or remove some or all of the functions of the regulator, which sounds quite dramatic. Such regulations have additional requirements before they may be made, including sharing with consultees and laying in draft before the Scottish Parliament. Stakeholders who appeared before the committee previously 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 in mind of this? The power allows for changes to the regulator's function, where that relates to a regulator whose regulatory scheme was approved by the virtue of the 1990 act or for future regulators who achieve accreditation by virtue of the bill. This may be done via direction. This is not considered possible for existing regulators whose regulatory functions are set out in primary legislation, for example the Law Society. It is considered in such a case that regulators are the most appropriate way to make changes. By way of an example, it is considered that the Law Society had failed to properly regulate convencing or executory practitioners that function could be used. Where this power also could be used, this power is designed to be applied when a category 1 or a category 2 regulator has not observed the regulatory objectives. As we are moving forward and having considered the feedback from stakeholders, we do intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to transfer the responsibilities at section 19 to 22, the Lord President. Therefore, we are also giving consideration to amending this section so that regulations may only be brought forward at the recommendation of the Lord President. As an additional safeguard, we are also giving consideration to the consent of the Lord President to any draft regulations before they can be laid to Parliament. I have listened very carefully to the concerns from the legal sector, and even Esther Robertson, who was at your committee last week or the week before, was she, even though she wanted the independent regulator, she did not feel that it was appropriate to have any ministerial government interference, and I am listening carefully, and this is why we are considering those amendments. On that basis, although the Scottish Government ministers would be taking an intervention, it would be to redirect the powers to the Lord President. Minister, there are 21 delegated powers in the bill as introduced, and we have certainly focused our questions on nine of them. Those are nine that have focused the minds and attentions of stakeholders in the sector. However, the committee will be reporting on all the delegated powers in the bill to the lead committee. The committee is committed to helping to inform its stage 1 considerations. As you will be aware of the additional written submission from the Law Society, we are giving additional views on some of the other delegated powers in the bill. Are there any final comments that you would wish to make on any of the other delegated powers contained in the bill? I thank the committee for their time and look forward to receiving your report. Minister, we are trying to future proof a bill that will probably last for several decades. Are you confident that the bill, not in regard to your Government or the next Government, but future Governments, gives too much power to ministers that could be misused in the wrong hands? I am confident, because you will see that we are trying to remove the role of ministers from the bill and assign it so that there will be no Government interference. I am confident in moving forward through the amendments that I have talked about today. Members, do you have any other questions? I have one, but anyone else? It is not a specific question for the committee as such. Are you aware of the McClure's solicitors situation? I am quite sure that colleagues from across the Parliament will have received emails from constituents about this. Clearly, there are a lot of unhappy individuals across the country and elsewhere in the UK. Some of the issues that have been raised involve trust and succession, but others involve legal services. Two bills that the committee is certainly looking at. Would you be content to meet me to discuss concerns raised by constituents with our view to potential amendments to either of the bills going forward? Yes, that has been raised with myself. As you know, it is not possible for Scottish ministers or the Scottish Government to intervene or comment on an individual legal matter, but I am happy to meet the convener to discuss this. I thank you for that. I think that, certainly, just regarding the law society submission that has come in the second one, I think that quite helpfully asked that in their submission, they reference sections 39, subsection 6, section 40, subsection 3 and section 45, subsection 2, which I think certainly could potentially be part of discussions. I am happy to meet the convener. With that, if there are no other questions, I thank the minister and her officials for their evidence this morning. The committee will follow up my letter with any additional questions stemming from the meeting. I thank you very much and I will suspend the session until the witnesses to leave the room. On agenda item number 3, we are considering three instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. An issue has been raised on one of these instruments, which is the draft retained EU law, revocation and reform act 2023, consequential amendments, Scotland regulations 2023. The instrument is made under section 191 of the retained EU law, revocation and reform act 2023, which enables the Scottish ministers to make any provision they consider appropriate in consequence of that act. The instrument updates various pieces of primary and secondary legislation to replace the terminology of an quote retained EU law and associated expressions with an quote assimilated law and associated expressions. In correspondence with the Scottish Government, which has been published online, alongside the agenda for this meeting, the committee queried paragraph 3 of schedule 1 of the instrument, which would amend the freedom of information Scotland Act 2002 by changing EU obligation to assimilated obligation in sections 26 and 45. In particular, the committee noted that those references to EU obligation appear not to have been updated previously to retained EU obligation and asked why the Scottish Government considered that the power in section 19 of the 2023 act enabled this amendment to be made. In response, the Scottish Government confirmed that the references to EU obligation in these sections have not been updated to retained EU obligation. The Scottish Government advised that this change could have been made following enactment of the European Union withdrawal act 2018, but it did not say why this was not done. The Scottish Government considers these amendments to be consequential, in particular on the establishment by the 2023 act of assimilated obligation, as a defined term within the body of assimilated law, including for the purposes of statutory interpretation. The instrument in front of us today now seeks to change those references straight from EU obligation to assimilated obligation, skipping the step of updating them to retained EU obligation. The committee notes that the term EU obligation is no longer a defined term. It appears to the committee that the provision in question may be addressing a failure to have updated these sections in consequence of the EU withdrawal act 2018, rather than making provision that is properly in consequence of the 2023 act. As such, it considers there is room for doubt that the provision in question is envisaged by and within the limits of the enabling power. Therefore, there appears to be a doubt whether it is intraverous. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground E in that there appears to be a doubt whether paragraph 3 of schedule 1 is intraverous? Also under the agenda item, no points have been raised on the draft colleges further education and regional strategic bodies membership of boards Scotland order 2023 and the draft quality meets Scotland amendment order 2023. Is the committee content with these instruments? Under agenda item number 4, we are considering two instruments subject to the negative procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2023, 300 and 308. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you and that concludes the public part of today's meeting. I now move the committee into private.