Seòmar agus comataidhean

The 2020 act that created Consumer Scotland gave it three broad primary functions: providing advice and information to policy makers on consumer issues; carrying out research and investigations into consumer issues; and providing or securing the provision of advice and information to consumers.

You have a budget of £3.9 million to spend, but only £444,000 is spent on direct consumer advice. My question has two parts. First, why did you choose to go down the route of outsourcing consumer advice rather than doing it directly? Secondly, given that it is one of your primary functions—indeed, many of your answers have emphasised your view that you are a consumer advocate—I wonder how you view the fact that only 11.4 per cent of your budget is dedicated to direct consumer advice. Is that the right balance, and are you placing the right emphasis on direct consumer contact?

Thank you very much.

After a great deal of deliberation, I would like to nominate Colin Smyth.

Colin Smyth was chosen as convener.

Thank you for unmuting me, convener. The minister will be relieved to hear that the committee requires me to ask my questions from a cupboard in an undisclosed location.

My first question relates to reports from the Scottish Law Commission, to which the minister referred in his opening remarks with regard to the introduction of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill. As he will be aware, the Government set out in the programme for government its intention to introduce a new leases (automatic continuation etc) (Scotland) bill. What is the timescale for the introduction of that bill? What was the basis for choosing to bring forward that bill from among those issues covered in the SLC’s reports?

I thank the minister for that answer; we have all the more reason to look forward to Christmas now.

Can the minister elaborate on the degree to which the proposed bill meets the criteria and objectives that are set out in the relevant Scottish Law Commission report?

The Scottish Law Commission has been looking at other legislation, including the proposed reform of legislation around tenement maintenance, in which I take a great deal of interest. Does the Government have a view on when it might look to introduce a bill in that area?

I am not asking you to explain each one. It is about the broad principle of leaving the scope and process so open in the primary legislation. Will you explain why that is necessary?

Potentially, this legislation would make things easier for a future Government, as it would not need primary legislation to do something that was almost the 180-degree opposite of the intent that you are setting out here.

I will ask a very narrow question and then I have some questions that follow on from it. Presumably, the Government thinks that this will be a substantial and permanent change and one that will take land reform on a particular direction of travel. Would that be a fair thing to surmise?

You set out the need for consultation and flexibility. Can you explain why primary legislation would frustrate that? The process might take longer, but fundamentally it would still enable you to make changes. You have said that there is a general obligation on the Government to consult, but the degree to which we have an open and transparent consultation process is enhanced by Parliament. Indeed, it is Parliament’s primary function. Why do you think that Parliament is not the right place for considering future changes or undertaking the consultation that might be required on such changes?