Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for lodging her amendments in the group. I support them all. However, I put on the record the comments that we have all received from the SSDT. It welcomes the changes and acknowledges that they are a product of many positive conversations, but it has pointed out that, because the changes are being made at this stage, some people may not have been able to fully assess the impact of the amendments.

Will the minister agree to have conversations about that with the SSDT and the committee before stage 3? I suggest that, once we have the bill as amended at stage 2, the committee ensures that all stakeholders that are affected by the amendments have had time to explore them in advance of stage 3, because we are making some significant changes.

I understand what the minister is saying about the complexities and potential challenges that could be produced if the register were made mandatory. However, she said that, with a voluntary register, consumers would have choice in selecting a provider from that register. How should the existence of that register be communicated to consumers so that they are aware that there is a kitemark? I do not see that as an automatic consequence of having a voluntary register.

I thank the minister for the engagement that we have had on my amendments 539 and 540 in this group. The substantive amendment is 540, and amendment 539 would enable it to happen. I also thank the consumer panel and the SLCC for their correspondence on the issue, and I note their strong support for the amendments.

The consumer panel remains concerned that there is not always clarity about what would be sufficient resourcing, and it is looking to similar panels elsewhere that have funding and where there is administrative and secretariat support. There needs to be an on-going conversation between the SLCC and the consumer panel to ensure that there is a shared understanding on that. I would welcome hearing the minister’s view on that in her closing speech.

Amendments 539 and 540 will help to ensure that there is funding for the consumer panel to do the work that it needs to do. We need to ensure that the funding is sufficient and transparent. The panel is concerned that it might be seen as optional and discretionary, so we need a clear statement on that this morning. We have heard from the minister that it is the Scottish Government’s intent that the panel be adequately funded to do the job that it needs to do, and that is the committee’s intent, too.

I ask colleagues to support the two amendments in my name. I will support the other amendments in the group, which are in the name of the minister.

Good morning, minister. With regard to amendments 40, 41 and 42, the named regulatory authorities need carry out their regulatory duty only so far as practicable. Can you say more about the general understanding of the term, “so far as practicable”, so that we have clarity on that point?

Thank you. I thought that it would be helpful to have that on the record.

I echo Paul O’Kane’s comments. In the evidence that we gathered for stage 1, we heard people’s very real concerns about the intention or otherwise to mislead people by using certain titles. As Paul O’Kane indicated, the amendments in the group satisfy those concerns and give the protections that we wanted for consumers. I therefore thank the minister for lodging them and I, too, will support them.

I thank Tess White and Paul O’Kane for the discussion, because it is useful for us to air our views.

I ask the minister to talk specifically about the concerns that the committee raised in our stage 1 report because of the evidence that we received, which Paul O’Kane referred to, on the complexity of the matter and how the minister’s proposals in the bill will achieve what she says they will, given the complex nature of streamlining the arrangements. I do not think that we have the overall picture when we look at the amendments in the group, so it would be helpful if the minister would respond to Tess White’s questions and clarify why that complexity cannot be dealt with in the way that the amendments suggest.

Jan, do you want to say something about the historical use of litigation and where it might be useful in the coming months or years?

That is helpful. In some ways, there is quite a big conversation around the litigation powers, particularly if the non-overlap remains, because obviously there need to be mechanisms of communication and information-sharing with other organisations, whether they are commissions or have responsibility to check or bear duties. There is quite a complex system that we maybe have not got to grips with yet, so that is an on-going conversation.

My next question is about Scotland’s national action plan 2. I know that Scotland’s national action plan for human rights runs to 2030 and that the Scottish Government owns that. Tell us a little bit about what role that plays. You have spoken already this morning about ensuring that you are responsive and that you scan potential issues. How do your strategic priorities fit in and dovetail with SNAP 2? Where are the points of friction, if points of friction exist? I do not know who wants to take that first.

The opportunity for reciprocity is quite exciting—not overlapping, but using each other to the benefit of citizens in those targeted groups across Scotland. I will leave it there, thank you.