Chamber and committees

The bill had so much potential to bring everybody together, but what we heard—certainly what I heard—in the evidence sessions was that it has not brought everybody together. Everyone seems to see something wrong with the bill, which is why I have made the points that I have made. There was an opportunity but, in my view, it has, unfortunately, been a huge missed opportunity for the Scottish Government.

Apologies—I am beginning to conclude.

There is a lot that I would like to say, but time is moving on. The complaints system is costly, complex, outdated and needs to be simplified. However, that does not mean that we need to vote for a bill on a whim, in the hope that the Scottish Government gets its act together and gets it right at stage 2. That will not help consumers who need a simplified process and protection when making a complaint, and it will not bring the legal sector on board to make sure that the legislation works and works well.

I will make some more progress, because I know that time is tight.

In its current draft, the bill repeatedly seeks to draw the Lord President into administrative collaboration with Scottish ministers. The fact that that was drafted in the bill to begin with shows that, somewhere, someone misunderstands the concept of the separation of powers and the respective roles in the spheres of the Executive and the judiciary.

We heard from Esther Roberton, who conducted the review on which the bill was structured, only to be told that her central recommendation of the introduction of a single regulator had not been included in the bill. What was the point of the review and what was all that hard work for? Esther Roberton’s review was essential to the reform of legal services in Scotland.

The committee was informed that the Scottish Government would lodge amendments at stage 2, but the committee has not seen those amendments and we do not yet have an exact timescale for them. As far as I am aware—unless the minister can update us otherwise today—the Lord President has not seen those amendments in full either. We are in the dark about what the bill will look like moving forward, and we will not know more until we hit stage 2.

It has been said many times today that the minister has inherited the bill, but the bill has not united consumers or the legal profession—it has managed to disappoint both sides. That point was raised by Jeremy Balfour during his speech. I do not buy the argument that it would be inappropriate for amendments to be shared. Exceptions could be made, which could have provided reassurance to those who are scrutinising the bill and to those whom the bill will directly impact. It is fair to say that the bill has created division instead of bringing all stakeholders together to create good, solid legislation.

In her opening speech, the minister moved that the Parliament accepts the principles of the bill at stage 1, but my question to her is: how can she ask the Parliament to support a bill when we do not know how far it will be amended? We do not know whether the amendments will address all the issues that were raised by stakeholders during our evidence sessions. I raised that issue time and again during the committee sessions. I asked questions about having to rescrutinise the bill and going over previous work because the Government has not managed to get its act together when introducing the bill at stage 1.

I congratulate Karen Adam on her appointment as convener, but I am less than enthused that we will have to revisit some of the scrutiny and evidence sessions. As Jeremy Balfour pointed out, it does not look as though the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will be afforded the same opportunities to scrutinise amendments that we on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee will have. That does not make for good overall scrutiny.

I am not prepared to vote for a bill that stands as open to political abuse—

The bill was linked to the Esther Roberton report, but it appears that the Government has not accepted the recommendations of that report. It does not look as if the bill has united anybody, whether they be consumers or the legal profession. How can the Government progress to stage 2 when we have not even completed stage 1 and are not in a position to do so?

Every party in the chamber believes that we need to reform our legal services. Access to those services must be simplified but, for the bill to be good law, we need to ensure that all stakeholders are on board with the proposed changes.

Rape Crisis Scotland has condemned the current legal complaints system, as have members in the chamber today. To provide reassurance, I say that there are no disagreements on that position.

As a serving member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I feel that we have been through the mill with the bill. During the scrutiny process, we had an unprecedented intervention from two of the most senior legal figures in Scotland. Then there was the backlash from those in the legal profession who are still concerned about the Scottish Government’s handling of the bill, especially in relation to the additional powers that could, as the bill stands, be given to Scottish Government ministers, which could threaten the independence of our legal sector.

Mums and babies across Scotland are missing out on vital health visitor appointments. I know that, because it happened to me—my daughter was not seen for more than 10 months. Parents in Angus have been told that their babies could be without a visit for up to a year.

Health visitors are important, because they check on a child’s wellbeing but can also identify if mums are experiencing postnatal depression. The First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care cannot bury their heads in the sand over the issue. Will the First Minister therefore intervene urgently to ensure that mums and babies are not denied those crucial visits because of staff shortages?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

To ask the Scottish Government what measures are in place to support the music industry, in relation to sustaining small grass-roots venues. (S6O-03029)

The Music Venue Trust welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement that he would continue the 75 per cent relief to business rates for grass-roots music venues. That support is vital to keeping those community venues open, but it has not been replicated in Scotland.

Grass-roots music venues are concerned about their future. Does the cabinet secretary realise that decisions taken in Scotland on business rates relief have dire consequences for the music industry?