The dual role of The Lord Advocate

The Committee would like to hear your views. We welcome written submissions from anyone with answers to any or all of the questions set out in the following Terms of Reference.

Terms of reference

1. What are the main advantages and drawbacks of the “dual role” – requiring the Lord Advocate to serve concurrently as a senior Scottish Government legal adviser and as the head of Scotland’s public prosecutions service?

- Are the existing safeguards (statutory and non-statutory) adequate to ensure a genuinely independent system of public prosecutions?

- Should the dual role be split? If so, what should replace it?

- What insights does the McMillan Report provide into alternatives to the dual role model?

- Could splitting the dual role have any unintended consequences?

2. What lessons should be learned from recent controversies, including those relating to Operation Branchform, about the devolved law officers and conflicts of interest?

- Are the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s existing policies on law officer recusal being properly and consistently followed?

- Is the existing practice on law officer recusal sufficiently robust to maintain public confidence in the system of public prosecutions?

- Should the recusals process be strengthened and if so, how?

- Was it appropriate, during Operation Branchform, for the (recused) Lord Advocate to provide confidential case updates to the First Minister? Should this notification process be reformed?

3. If the role of the Lord Advocate is to be reformed, to what extent, and via what mechanisms, should Scotland’s senior public prosecutors be accountable to (a) the Scottish Ministers (b) the Scottish Parliament and (c) the UK Parliament for the system of public prosecutions?

4. If the dual role is split, should the Scottish Government’s legal advice be able to be provided by a politician taking the party whip, as happens in the UK and Welsh Governments, or should law officer appointments continue to be made on a non-party-political basis?

The Committee values diversity and seeks to ensure this where possible. We encourage members of underrepresented groups to submit written evidence.

Deadline for submissions

The Committee calls for evidence to be submitted by 23:59 on 16 October 2026

The Lord Advocate and her deputy the Solicitor General for Scotland each assume a “dual role” being both senior government legal advisers, and senior public prosecutors. There is a long-standing and ongoing political and constitutional debate within Scotland about whether the dual role should be split to better mitigate actual and/or perceived conflicts of interest between the two functions. This inquiry will appraise the case for and against splitting the dual role, and exploring different options for reform.

Read the call for evidence for more detail about the inquiry.

Evidence goes to the committee through Parliament’s own form. There is no way to submit it from here: Parliament publishes no API for written evidence, so the button above opens the committee’s page.

What you send is published under your name and can be quoted in the committee’s report. Keep it under 3,000 words, send it as a document rather than a letter in the body of an email, and answer the questions above rather than writing generally.