Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

On the practicalities of local authority partners implementing elements of the bill, one issue relates to supervision or guidance for those over the age of 18 and aftercare for those leaving secure care. As has been mentioned, COSLA gave evidence to the committee last week. Ben Farrugia and Jillian Gibson highlighted the difficulty of costing aftercare support. Ben Farrugia said that local authorities have to find a way to fund aftercare packages, because that is a statutory duty for them, and that that sometimes leads to overspends, which means that savings and cuts have to be made elsewhere. Jillian Gibson, from COSLA, said that the bill will expand aftercare support to more 16 and 17-year-olds but, as has been mentioned, there is no way to know what support needs those young people will have and, therefore, what the costs will be. Do you have any ideas?

I thank the witnesses for their useful information, which will help us going forward. Speaking of going forward, the work that you all do helps in the development of young people so that they can become better and stronger adults.

On the terms of supervision or guidance post-18, the committee heard at stage 1 that there is a need to ensure that young people do not face a “cliff edge” of support at the age of 18. To what extent can the updated costings—to come back to those—enable that issue to be addressed?