Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
We now move to the final stage 2 consideration of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, and his officials join the committee for this item.
Before I call the amendments, I tell the committee that I have received a letter from Karen Gillon, stating that she is unable to attend. She had some amendments, most of which were debated last year, that were consequential to the discussion that we had last week. Did I say last year? It just seems like last year.
I must call the amendments, even though Karen Gillon is not here to move them. It is up to other committee members whether they wish to move them.
Schedule 4
Miscellaneous provision
Amendment 6 not moved.
Amendment 64—[Peter Peacock]—moved and agreed to.
Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.
Amendment 65—[Peter Peacock]—moved and agreed to.
Amendment 9 not moved.
Amendment 66—[Peter Peacock]—moved and agreed to.
Amendment 67 is grouped with amendments 68 to 71, 73 and 74.
I will speak to amendments 67 to 71 inclusive, followed by amendments 73 and 74. I will then move amendment 67.
The amendments are on general conveyancing and executory services. Amendment 67 is a tidying amendment that simply substitutes an abbreviated reference to the "1990 Act" for the full reference to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which is found in paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to the bill. The full reference is unnecessary because a definition of the 1990 act is already contained in section 23 of the bill, which is the interpretation section.
Amendment 68 provides a power for the Scottish ministers to make grants to the council of the Law Society of Scotland towards expenses incurred or to be incurred by them in connection with its acquiring the functions of regulating the provisions of conveyancing and executory services.
The principle that we agreed with the Law Society is that its solicitor members should not in any way have to subsidise the society's new regulatory functions in relation to conveyancing and executry practitioners. Scottish ministers will meet the incurred costs. Amendment 68 will clarify that ministers may make grants to the Law Society for costs incurred in the exercise of its new function. Amendment 68's wording is simply intended to make it clear that not just transitional costs are intended—as the bill's existing wording might suggest—but continuing costs.
Amendments 69 and 73 will simply require the council of the Law Society of Scotland to give written reasons when it grants an application for registration that is subject to conditions. The two amendments will bring into alignment the procedures applying to conveyancing and executry practitioners. The final part of amendment 73 is a technical change whereby the word "him" will be substituted for the word "it".
The purpose of amendment 70 is to clarify the rule-making powers of the council of the Law Society of Scotland in relation to independent conveyancing practitioners. Amendment 70 will correct an oversight in the bill as introduced by deleting the reference to discipline from the proposed new section 17(11) of the 1990 act because it is covered by section 20 of the 1990 act.
Amendment 71 will simply correct a technical defect identified in the provisions of the original 1990 act, which omitted to extend duties to comply with relevant regulations to conveyancing practitioners as distinct from independent conveyancing practitioners. Amendment 71 will remedy that oversight.
The bill already gives the council of the Law Society of Scotland a power to make rules for employed executry practitioners. Amendment 74 will extend that power so that the council will also be able to make rules applying to executry practitioners who at present offer services, with the approval of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, direct to the public for fee, gain or reward. Such practitioners will be able to continue to offer services direct to the public after the transfer date. However, to provide necessary safeguards for the public, the council should have the power to make rules covering the various matters specified in amendment 74.
I move amendment 67.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Amendments 68 and 69 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 91 is grouped with amendments 72 and 75.
The purpose of amendment 91 is to raise the issue of the registration of independent conveyancing practitioners. It is an unfortunate consequence of the proposal to abolish the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board that the possibility of registering as an independent conveyancing practitioner will also effectively cease. I am not sure that that was the Executive's original policy intent when the proposal to abolish the board was brought forward.
The paper "Public Bodies: Proposals for Change" was published in June 2001 and it indicated the Executive's intention to abolish the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. However, the Executive did not say at that time that it intended to abolish the practice of independent conveyancing.
I am slightly unfortunate in being one of the MSPs who has one of the two registered independent conveyancers in their constituency. Obviously, I am perhaps a little more aware of this situation than others. I do not dispute the need to abolish the board and I accept the proposal to do so, but I do not think that it was also the Executive's intention to dispense with independent conveyancing practitioners.
Paragraph 3(j) of schedule 4 deletes section 17(7) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Section 17(7) allows for a qualified conveyancer to register as an independent practitioner. Essentially, the section relates to insurance claims against practitioners and states that a conveyancer may be registered if he
"intends to provide conveyancing services to the public for a fee, gain or reward and—
(a) satisfies the Board that he has made adequate arrangements for the satisfaction of any successful claims against him arising out of such provision by him of such services; or
(b) participates in the arrangements made by the Board for that purpose under subsection (13)(b) below".
Obviously, with the abolition of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, paragraph (b) would cease to apply, but I wonder whether it would be possible for independent conveyancers to continue to be registered if they satisfy the conditions in paragraph (a).
I have discussed the matter with the minister and I am aware that there are difficulties with my proposal, which, no doubt, he will go into in more detail. However, repealing section 17(7) of the 1990 act would be unfair to my constituent, who runs an independent conveyancing business. She would be unable to expand her business because it would not be possible to register anyone else to work with her. The two registered independent conveyancers will be able to continue working, but no one else will be able to register in Scotland.
The original intent behind the proposals in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 was to introduce competition into the conveyancing market. That has not worked in Scotland, although similar measures south of the border have worked to a greater extent, where there are around 700 registered practitioners. In Scotland, qualified conveyancing practitioners tend to work in solicitors' offices and not independently. Although competition has not appeared, I am slightly concerned that we are closing the door on it by saying that in future people will not be able to register as independent conveyancing practitioners. In effect, passing the responsibilities of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board to the Law Society of Scotland will mean that the Law Society will maintain its monopoly of conveyancing services, even though they are sometimes provided in solicitors' firms by conveyancing practitioners rather than qualified solicitors.
I am concerned that the policy intention will have unfortunate side effects. Therefore, I propose that we should amend the bill by deleting its repeal of section 17(7) of the 1990 act.
I move amendment 91.
I will pick up Iain Smith's points at some length and then deal with amendments 72 and 75. First, I recognise that Iain Smith is, properly, probing the Executive's intentions in the matter. Apart from any other reason, as he said he has a constituency interest to which he must have regard in his representations. That is why it is important that we should spell out clearly why we made the proposals.
The effect of amendment 91 would be to keep in force the existing duty on the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board to register conveyancing practitioners as independent if satisfactory arrangements have been made for insurance to protect the practitioner's clients. The council of the Law Society would inherit that duty on the date on which the transfer of regulatory responsibility took place.
It is helpful to consider amendment 91 in the context of what has happened since the 1990 act was put in place. As Iain Smith said, the aim of the 1990 act was to create competition to solicitors for the provision of conveyancing services. Only independent conveyancing practitioners could create such competition. However, after more than five years of that competitive environment being possible and there being the opportunity to register as an independent conveyancing practitioner, only two people have registered with the board. The 17 practitioners who are not independent are employed by firms of solicitors or local authorities. It is important that one of the reasons for our proposed change is that those practitioners are covered by their employers' insurance arrangements. I will return to that point in a moment.
Iain Smith mentioned the unintended consequences of the policy. The unintended consequence of the original policy has been that no one has benefited from it because there have been few registrations. The unavoidable conclusion that we have reached is that the goal that was set in 1990 of creating competition has simply not been achieved and the expectations of that time have not been realised. Yet we still have in place the public body and the expenditure to support what was expected to be a much more significant number of independent practitioners.
That is why the bill proposes an alternative way forward, which preserves the role of the employed practitioner under the regulatory supervision of the Law Society of Scotland. Ministers have identified in the Law Society of Scotland a regulatory authority that is well placed to assume responsibility in the light of its long-standing experience.
Having responsibility for employed conveyancing and executry practitioners will provide the Law Society of Scotland with opportunities to encourage skilled paralegal staff to develop by upgrading their qualifications and assuming greater responsibility as employed practitioners.
It is difficult to defend, on public expenditure grounds, a full board serviced by staff to regulate fewer than 20 practitioners, only two of whom are registered as independent. The transfer of responsibility to the Law Society of Scotland will therefore be a more cost-effective way of achieving the regulatory supervision of practitioners. We have also been concerned to protect the taxpayer against the future escalation of costs associated with the regulation of existing practitioners. Our particular concern relates to the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising the insurance needs of independent conveyancing practitioners.
The repeal of section 17(7) of the 1990 act will mean that the council of the Law Society of Scotland will not be able to register independent conveyancing practitioners after the date of transfer. Practitioners who have been registered by the board as independent will be able to continue to practise in that capacity. From the date on which the Law Society of Scotland takes over the regulatory function, the Law Society will only be able to register conveyancing practitioners who work in an employed capacity.
I will pick up one of the points that Iain Smith made. Existing independent conveyancing practitioners will be able to expand their business to the extent that they will be able to employ conveyancing practitioners, but not further independent practitioners. The amendment that Iain Smith proposes would, if supported, reverse that position in so far as independent conveyancing practitioners are concerned.
The amendment would place a duty on the council of the Law Society of Scotland to register as an independent conveyancing practitioner any conveyancing practitioner who had made satisfactory arrangements for professional indemnity insurance. The act requires independent practitioners to have such insurance to ensure that clients are adequately protected, should they receive inadequate or negligent services. Under section 17(7) of the 1990 act the practitioner would either have to make such arrangements himself or participate in arrangements made by the board, and subsequently the council of the Law Society of Scotland, for such insurance. It is also necessary for the clients of independent conveyancing practitioners to be insured against fraud on the part of the practitioner.
The Law Society of Scotland operates a guarantee fund, which provides cover for solicitors' clients who suffer loss due to fraud on the part of a solicitor. That means that solicitors, through the numbers that exist in Scotland, have a global insurance as a profession against fraud on the part of one of their members. However, and crucially, it is not possible for either an independent conveyancing practitioner or a solicitor, as an individual, to take out insurance against fraud that he or she might commit. Insurers, naturally, would not consider such a proposal. It is for that reason that the board has operated a compensation fund. However, the balance of the fund is extremely modest because of the low numbers who have registered with the board as independent conveyancing practitioners In fact, the balance stands at just over £1,000. For that reason the board has had to take out additional insurance to provide a realistic level of cover. Such insurance for the existing two independent practitioners will cost £16,000 from public funds in the coming financial year.
Those considerations have led Scottish ministers to conclude that the sensible way forward would be to prevent further registrations in an independent capacity. That restriction will protect the taxpayer against any possibility that insurance costs could increase substantially if further independent conveyancing practitioners were registered. Given the experience over the past five years of the demand for registration as an independent practitioner, it is most unlikely that the number of registrations would rise to the point where the compensation fund became self-financing in the way that the guarantee fund is among solicitors. However, it is conceivable that public expenditure would need to rise to support the operation of the compensation fund by means of top-up insurance if a limited number of further independent practitioners were registered.
It has been suggested that to meet such concerns section 17(7) of the 1990 act could be retained on the basis that new applicants would be required to make their own insurance arrangements. Such a basis is envisaged by section 17(7)(a), although it has not been applied. Were it to be applied, professional indemnity insurance might be available to individual practitioners, although the cost of the premium could be very high, even prohibitive. The real problem that would arise would be in relation to insurance against fraud, which would simply not be available because no sole practitioner—be they an independent conveyancing practitioner or a solicitor—can insure himself or herself against his or her own fraud. Self-financing arrangements by the individual practitioners could not apply in relation to insurance against fraud, meaning that the council of the Law Society would not be able to approve applications that were made on the basis that insurance costs could be self-financing. The council would be able to enrol solicitors, taking account of the protection provided by the guarantee fund, but unable to enrol those who applied to become independent conveyancing practitioners. The council would thus be placed in the position of appearing to make inconsistent decisions in relation to solicitors and independent practitioners.
The Executive has concluded that, in all circumstances, it is best to avoid the potential of raising the costs to the taxpayer and putting the Law Society in the difficult position of having a statutory duty that, in practice, it could not exercise if independent practitioners were to be required to meet the costs of their own insurance. We have concluded that, to avoid such difficulties, it is best to discontinue the ability to register further independent practitioners. Iain Smith said that that was an unintended consequence of the policy. However, it was made clear in a parliamentary answer that Jim Wallace gave in May that, after consultation following the proposal to abolish the board, we would include these provisions in the bill. We remain consistent in doing that, and we have consulted on that basis. We think that, on balance, it is better that everyone is clear about the rules that exist. No other body is as well placed as the Law Society of Scotland to take over the responsibilities of the board, and we are grateful to the society for agreeing to do so.
I have taken particular care to examine the issues that Iain Smith has raised with me over recent weeks, acknowledging the interest that he has shown in the matter. Had I felt able to accommodate his concerns, I would have done so. I hope that it has become clear over the past few weeks, during consideration of the last two bills that we have dealt with, that wherever it has been reasonable for the Executive to accommodate the position of members, we have sought to do so. However, on this occasion and on examination of the facts, I believe that there are real and practical impediments to doing what Iain Smith has suggested in his amendment 91.
Amendment 91 would potentially leave the public purse subject to a call to cover the costs of a small number of professionals although it would not do so in relation to their competitors. Further, it would not be a viable alternative to require independent practitioners to meet such costs themselves. Such an option would give the Law Society a legal duty that, in practice, it could not exercise because of the difficulties with insurance for fraud. In all circumstances, the Executive's approach remains the right one.
Amendment 72 is a straightforward amendment that is consequential on the restriction that is imposed by the bill on the future registration of independent conveyancing practitioners. The amendment simply tidies up the 1990 act by removing a residual reference to section 17(7) from section 17(20) of that act.
Amendment 75 makes the position of executry practitioners who provide services direct to the public for fee, gain or reward consistent with the position that applies to conveyancing practitioners, which is set out elsewhere in the bill.
On the basis of all that I have said, I invite Iain Smith to withdraw amendment 91. If Iain feels unable to do so, I invite the committee to reject the amendment. He said that the Executive should keep an open mind on any potential suggestions to address the issues that he has raised as we move to stage 3. As I have stated, we have considered the matter thoroughly already. However, if suggestions are put to us between now and stage 3, we will reconsider whether there are alternative ways of doing what Iain Smith suggests while making the progress that the Executive wants to make.
Iain Smith mentioned that there is more independent conveyancing in England than there is here. How do the English get over the problem of insurance cover?
I do not know the answer. I suspect that the arrangement in relation to the board is similar to the one in Scotland that we are about to abolish. Obviously, in England, the numbers will be greater, which perhaps gives the critical mass that is required to provide the type of compensation fund that operates for solicitors. The issue is whether there is sufficient mass here.
I acknowledge fully the points that the minister has made concerning the fraud issue. Between now and stage 3, we must try to see whether there is a way round that particular block. I would not want to leave members of the public exposed to risk, which would be possible if no compensation was available in cases of fraud. For that reason, I seek to withdraw amendment 91.
I am pleased that the minister has indicated that he will keep an open mind. I ask that we continue to examine whether there are alternative ways in which to address the problem. The intention of having independent conveyancing practitioners who can offer a service in competition with solicitors is not bad, and we would want to maintain the principle. If there is a way in which we can do that, we should try to do so. I will consult my constituent and others between now and stage 3 to see whether there is a way that we can do that.
Amendment 91, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 70 to 75 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 76 is grouped with amendments 77, 78, 92, 79, 93 and 94.
Amendments 76, 77, 78, 92, 79, 93 and 94 concern the functions of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal in relation to conveyancing and executry practitioners. Amendment 76 addresses a point made by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal about certain sanctions that the tribunal and the council of the Law Society of Scotland will be able to impose on a practitioner by means of a direction. The sanctions in question apply primarily to a practitioner who has provided inadequate professional services, and are set out in sections 20(2)(a), 20(2)(b) and 20(2)(f) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.
The effect of amendment 76 will be to enable the council of the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal to require the practitioner to give an explanation of the steps he or she has taken to comply with a direction. The resulting explanation is to be given to the council. Amendment 76 also repeals "or it" from section 20(6) of the 1990 act to take account of the fact that, in future, only natural persons will be able to apply to the council for registration as an executry practitioner.
Amendment 77 is a technical amendment to recognise that the bill will enable the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, as well as the council of the Law Society of Scotland, to take the disciplinary step of attaching conditions to the registration of a practitioner. The tribunal is to have the power to impose that sanction by virtue of new section 20(2B)(d), which is to be inserted by paragraph 14(6)(e) of schedule 4. That needs to be recognised in section 20(8) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, and the amendment inserts the necessary wording for that purpose.
Amendment 78 simply adjusts section 20(8)(b) of the 1990 act to recognise that the disciplinary decision that is taken can be either the council's or the tribunal's. At present, section 20(8)(b) refers only to the decision of the council. Amendment 78 seeks to bring the position into line with the intentions of the bill.
Amendment 92 is intended to clarify the tribunal's powers in relation to appeals by practitioners. The appeals in question are those against decisions taken by the council of the Law Society of Scotland in a review of a disciplinary step taken against a practitioner under section 20(2) of the 1990 act. Amendment 92 seeks to remove any uncertainty about the tribunal's powers by providing that it may quash, confirm or vary the council's decision. It ensures that the tribunal will have the same powers in relation to practitioners as it currently has in relation to solicitors.
Amendment 79 will make two minor consequential changes to section 20(17) of the 1990 act, which defines "conveyancing practitioner" and "executry practitioner" for the purposes of section 20. The bill already provides at paragraph 14(4)(c) of schedule 4 that, in future, only natural persons will be able to apply for registration as executry practitioners. In the interest of consistency, it is necessary to repeal references to "it" where they relate to executry practitioners, to make it clear that only natural persons can in future be registered.
Amendment 93 is a minor amendment, which reflects the overall approach taken by amendment 94 to prescribing the powers and procedures of the tribunal in relation to conveyancing and executry practitioners. Those provisions are no longer required because of the provisions added by amendment 94, so amendment 93 deletes the latter subsections.
Amendment 94 will insert a new section into the 1990 act, to apply the relevant provisions from schedule 4 to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 on the tribunal's dealings with solicitors to its dealings with conveyancing and executry practitioners. It is important that the tribunal is able to deal with solicitors and conveyancing and executry practitioners on a broadly comparable basis, and the detailed but important provisions ensure clarity in relation to the tribunal's powers and procedures.
I move amendment 76.
On a point of clarification, will the minister explain in words of one syllable what a "natural person" is?
It is not a politician.
I do not know about that.
We dealt partly with Tricia Marwick's question last week. As I understand it, a natural person is as it appears, whereas a person otherwise described might also mean an incorporated or unincorporated body. We are trying to make a distinction and point out that we are talking about natural persons.
That is correct.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Amendments 77, 78, 92, 79, 93 and 94 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 80 is grouped with amendment 81.
Amendments 80 and 81 relate to the compensation fund for conveyancing and executry services. The bill inserts new section 21B(1) into the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which provides for the council of the Law Society of Scotland to maintain a compensation fund, which it will inherit from the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board.
The fund's purpose is to provide grants to compensate persons who suffer pecuniary loss as a result of dishonesty on the part of an independent practitioner. The bill already enables the Scottish ministers to make contributions to the fund, which is currently financed by contributions from independent conveyancing practitioners. However, as I indicated earlier, its balance is very modest, because only two such practitioners are currently registered. As the level of contributions to the fund has been low, the board has had to arrange additional insurance cover, which is met from public funds through grant in aid that is paid to the board.
The effect of amendments 80 and 81 will be to provide the council with an express power to take out such insurance; to provide the Scottish ministers with powers to defray the costs of insurance arranged by the council; and to clarify that the compensation fund will also compensate persons who have suffered loss by reason of dishonesty in connection with the provision of executry services to the public for a fee, gain or reward by or on behalf of an executry practitioner.
Because of the way in which amendment 80 is framed, it is necessary to restate ministers' existing power in the bill to make contributions to the fund. Members might be concerned that that opens up a potentially unlimited liability in any call upon public funds through Scottish ministers. However, the amendment has to be seen alongside the Executive's intention in the bill to cease the ability to register new independent practices after duties are transferred to the Law Society. That measure will limit the potential public cost.
Amendment 80 is designed to allow ministers to deal with the limited costs that will continue over time and that arise from the independent practitioners registered at the time of the transfer to the Law Society. Depending on the arrangements that the Law Society can secure from its insurers, we might over time be able to limit the public costs involved to less than they are at present. However, without such a guarantee, we must make provision to continue to meet the costs to which we are committed under the current arrangements.
New section 21B(2) provides the council with rule-making powers with regard to the operation of the fund and includes a power to make provision on the contributions to be paid to the fund. However, the subsection relates only to contributions that are paid to the fund by independent conveyancing practitioners. It is necessary that the rule-making powers should also cover contributions to be paid to the fund by executry practitioners providing services direct to the public for a fee, gain or reward. Amendment 81 ensures that that is the case.
I move amendment 80.
Will the minister indicate how much Scottish ministers will have to contribute to the compensation fund? He has said that the amount will be minimal, but how much are we talking about? Does the minister intend to move a further financial resolution at the conclusion of stage 3?
I am heartened by the minister's clarification regarding contributions under proposed new subsection (1B)(a). As I understand it, amendment 80 will legislate to provide that the Law Society may set up insurance to pay out on any losses that people incur. I reiterate Tricia Marwick's question about the amount of money. In addition, is there a time scale for how long ministers will continue to contribute?
I will deal with Sandra White's points first. Our fundamental intention is to ensure that the public are protected following the changes to the situation. The previous Administration's legislative intention was clear, but it has not worked out in practice. There are no time scales against which funding will discontinue. In practice, it might continue for as long as the existing firms continue in business. That is a consequence of the current position. Depending on the provisions that the Law Society can negotiate with its insurers—which are a matter for the Law Society and its brokers—it might be possible to reduce the current costs and/or the time during which they might be incurred.
On Tricia Marwick's points, the premium for the current top-up insurance arrangements, which ensure that there are sufficient funds in circumstances in which the fund is required to pay out following dishonest behaviour, is £16,000 per annum. All other things being equal, we expect that to continue. I also understand that the existing financial resolution is sufficiently widely drawn to cover such expenditure into the future, as well as any other expenditure that arises from the bill.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
Amendment 81 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 82 is grouped with amendments 83 and 84.
Amendments 82, 83 and 84 concern the power to provide notarial services and to subscribe documents under section 9 of the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.
The amendments correct the definition of "relevant notarial services", which paragraph 14(11)(j) of schedule 4 inserts into section 23 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Act 1990. They also make it clear that those notarial functions are to be exercised by independent conveyancing practitioners, as notarial functions are not required by executry practitioners or employed conveyancing practitioners.
Powers under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 to subscribe documents on behalf of a blind person or a person who is unable to write are valuable to conveyancing and executry practitioners and so are made available to them all.
At present, the bill defines "relevant notarial services" as
"the functions exercisable by practitioners by virtue of section 14".
That would include the functions specified in section 14(3), which relate to the subscription of documents under section 9 of the 1995 act. However, such functions cannot be described as notarial services. Accordingly, the definition of "relevant notarial services" is amended to mean only those notarial services specified in section 14—the administering of oaths and the receiving of affirmations in relation to certain matters under certain sections of the specified statutes. Those are powers that independent conveyancing practitioners will find of value in their practice.
As executry practitioners do not require material powers, amendment 83 deletes the amendment that schedule 4 makes to the definition of executry services in section 23 of the 1990 act.
I am sure that that is entirely clear, convener.
I move amendment 82.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 89 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21—Orders and regulations
Amendments 27 and 28 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 49 not moved.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
Section 23—Interpretation
Amendment 90 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends our stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank committee members, the minister and his team for their hard work. Some of the technical amendments appeared not to be worth debating, but we only need to read the bill to know that that is not the case.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—