Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

The instrument was made under powers in the Trade Act 2021. The United Kingdom is a party to the international agreement on Government procurement—the GPA—which is negotiated by members of the World Trade Organization.

North Macedonia will shortly accede to the GPA and its suppliers will then be entitled to the same treatment as UK suppliers bidding for public contracts in the UK, which are subject to the GPA. The instrument amends Scottish procurement legislation to enable that.

Under section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, instruments subject to the negative procedure must be laid at least 28 days before they come into force, not counting recess periods of more than four days.?The instrument breaches this requirement, as it was laid on 18 October and came into force on 30 October.

In correspondence with the Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government stated that it was not possible to meet the laying requirements, because officials were informed only on 2 October that North Macedonia had deposited its instrument of accession to join the GPA on 30 September. The GPA enters into force for a new member 30 days after the instrument of accession is deposited, which for North Macedonia is therefore 30 October.

The Scottish Government highlighted that, taking account of recess, there was insufficient time to prepare and lay the instrument to meet the laying requirements and comply with the international obligation to have the instrument in force by 30 October. The correspondence also indicates that the UK Government is in a similar position.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (j), for failure to comply with laying requirements, as it was not laid 28 days before it came into force?

Members indicated agreement.

With that, I move the committee into private.

Welcome to the 29th meeting in 2023 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We have received apologies from Oliver Mundell. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone to switch off or put to silent mobile phones and electronic devices.

The first item of business is to decide whether to take items 5, 6, 7 and 8 in private. Is the committee content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

In relation to regulation 3(2)(c)(iv), does the committee wish to welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to address the issue in the next amending instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

In relation to regulation 3(2)(i)(ii) and (iv), does the committee wish to invite the Scottish Government to consider addressing the issue in the next amending instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Also under this agenda item, no points have been raised on the following instruments.

Under agenda item 4, we are considering one instrument, on which no points have been raised.

I welcome our second panel: Rachel Wood, executive director of regulation at the Law Society of Scotland, and Morag Ross KC, from the Faculty of Advocates, who is joining us online.

I remind witnesses not to worry about turning on their microphones during the meeting, because those are controlled by broadcasting. If you would like to answer a question, please raise your hand or catch the clerk’s eye. There is no need to answer every question if you do not feel the need to respond, but please feel free to follow up in writing regarding any question after the meeting, if you wish to.

We move to questions. Section 5 of the bill gives the Scottish ministers a power that would allow them to modify the regulatory objectives and professional principles for legal services that are set out in sections 2 to 4. What is your view on the delegation of that power, and its scope? Is it reasonably foreseeable that the objectives and professional principles set out in the bill will require to be added to, amended or removed over time? If so, is it your view that that should be done by primary legislation?

The delegated powers memorandum that the Scottish Government has produced states that the power is required

“to enable the Scottish Ministers to respond strategically in light of ... changing circumstances”,

and that regulations would be a more efficient way of achieving that in comparison to primary legislation.

Rachel Wood touched on consultation. A wide variety of individuals and organisations would need to be consulted, including the Lord President, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the independent advisory panel of the commission, the Competition and Markets Authority, each category 1 and category 2 regulator, and each approved regulator of licensed providers. The bill proposes that a detailed level of consultation would take place. Do you agree that all those relevant organisations and individuals would put forward proposals and suggestions that would assist the legal profession rather than potentially having the opposite effect?