I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s debate and shared their positive experiences of the cashback for communities programme’s 15 years of benefiting young people, families and communities. As I said at the start, the programme is unique to Scotland and demonstrates innovation, partnership and the importance of why we must invest in our young people.

We should acknowledge that most young people are not involved in antisocial behaviour or the justice system. However, we should also recognise that, sadly, some young people do not get the opportunities for the good start in life that we want them to have. The cashback programme helps to address their inequality by making high-value early interventions to provide a wide range of support activities and opportunities for children and young people, all of whom should be given the same chances to thrive.

I will address quite a few of the comments that have come up; there is quite a bit to cover. On Russell Findlay’s contribution, I think that every person across the chamber wants to see an increase in the crime funds that go into initiatives such as cashback. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.

The 2002 act provides for criminal confiscation and civil recovery of the financial benefit that is derived from criminal activity, but it also contains the principal money laundering legislation for the UK, which is a reserved matter. The 2002 act is a complex mix of reserved and devolved matters, and we will not be able to resolve that today. The Scottish Government has responsibility for leading on legislative matters in relation to proceeds of crime, but this is a complex area of reserved and devolved competences. We will continue to monitor the need to strengthen the legislation to further detect, defer and disrupt organised crime, so that we can increase the criminal funds that go into initiatives such as cashback.

I go back to Russell Findlay’s question about serious organised crime. Disrupting organised crime and diverting individuals from organised crime remains a priority for the Scottish Government. A refreshed serious organised crime strategy was published in February 2022. Although the aims and objectives remain broadly the same, the options for change have focused on strengthening links between intelligence and tasking, making better use of data and supporting efforts to improve collaboration across all sectors, in order to combat the constantly evolving challenges that serious crime organisations pose. The serious organised crime task force progress report is due to be published later this month.

I move to Katy Clark’s contribution. Carol Mochan also brought up restorative justice. We remain committed to having restorative justice services available throughout Scotland. The needs and voices of harmed persons must be central to the process, and services must be safe, consistent, evidence led, trauma informed and of a high standard.

Obviously, the pandemic slowed progress. Initial development work identified the complexities, which we need to explore further. We are committed to taking the time to resolve the issues and develop a safe and robust system, and work is under way with partners across the justice system to do that.

Katy Clark asked about the criteria for phase 6. There were four main aims—diversion away from antisocial behaviour; provision for positive activity; support for wellbeing; and building confidence and skills. I know that there was an exceptionally high number of applicants, with 157 bids seeking more than £80 million in funding. Those bids were subject to a robust panel assessment process and, in the end, only 29 partner organisations were successful.

On evaluation, which I think that Claire Baker, Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark raised, as I said in my opening speech, the full evaluation of phase 5 is due this year, and it will be for members to look at that.

There has been on-going engagement with stakeholders and the legal sector. I bring in Jamie Wilhelm to give an update on that.

The power allows for changes to a regulator’s functions. Where that relates to a regulator whose regulatory scheme was approved by virtue of the 1990 act, or for future regulators that achieve accreditation by virtue of the bill, that may be done via direction. That is not considered possible for existing regulators whose regulatory functions are set out in primary legislation, such as the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates. It is considered, in such a case, that regulations are the most appropriate way to make changes. I will give an example. If it was considered that the Law Society had failed to properly regulate conveyancing or executry practitioners, that function could be used.

The power is also designed to be applied when a category 1 or category 2 regulator has not observed the regulatory objectives. Having considered stakeholders’ feedback, we intend to lodge amendments at stage 2 to transfer the responsibilities in sections 19 and 20 to the Lord President. We are also giving consideration to amending the sections so that regulations may be introduced only on the recommendation of the Lord President. As an additional safeguard, we are also considering whether the Lord President should have to give consent to any draft regulations before they can be laid in Parliament.

I have listened carefully to the concerns of the legal sector. Even though Esther Roberton, who appeared before the committee last week or the week before, wanted an independent regulator, she did not consider it appropriate to have any ministerial interference. I am listening carefully to such views, which is why we are considering those amendments.

Yes, the matter has been raised with me. As you know, it is not possible for the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Government to intervene in or comment on individual legal matters. However, I will be happy to meet you to discuss the issue.

Since the bill has been introduced, there have been on-going discussions with stakeholders, the Lord President and the judiciary about that. We are still at stage 1, so we have a bit to go, but as we move forward through the parliamentary process, we will be happy to provide further detail. At the moment, we are still working on the detail.

I do not. I will bring in my officials, but since the introduction of the bill, we have shown a willingness and an openness to work with the judiciary and stakeholders and to consider amendments prior to stage 2, so I do not agree with you.

Yes. Talks are on-going with all stakeholders and the legal sector.

Yes.

I would just like to thank the committee for its time, and I look forward to receiving your report.

We are working on the detail of that now; we are in discussion about that.