Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a long-term commitment to retain the Ardrossan to Brodick ferry service. (S6O-03148)

The minister will be aware of the appalling implications for Arran resulting from the continuing failure to provide a regular Brodick-Ardrossan service. The MV Caledonian Isles has been out of service since early January and—as has been said—the MV Alfred can no longer be used on the route, so we are reliant on the 40-year-old MV Isle of Arran.

Does the minister accept that that is an inevitable problem of having an ageing fleet as a result of past failure to invest? Indeed, the failure to make progress at Ardrossan harbour is coming home to roost. We need much more robust resilience strategies, and the Scottish Government needs to be centrally involved in that provision.

Although considerable investment was made in the new women’s custody units, we were advised last year that, for most of the time, occupancy rates were less than 50 per cent, with the highest occupancy rate being 52 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary reassure the Parliament that the assessment criteria have been reviewed and that those excellent facilities are now being fully utilised?

I understand that winter heating payments are being increased in line with the CPI. Has any work been done on the cost of increasing them in line with energy prices, which, as the cabinet secretary is well aware, are a major challenge? Have there been any costings? What would the financial implications of that be?

I am very much aware of the UK’s responsibilities and of its failings. We spent the whole of Tuesday afternoon discussing a hypothetical social security system in an independent Scotland. Surely the payments that we are discussing are within your power. It might be that there is not the money to do this, but I am asking whether you have done any costings and whether you could look into the matter, given that we are dealing with real costs to people. Has any work been done on that, and could that be shared?

I declare that I am a former member of the Law Society of Scotland and the Law Society of England and Wales and that I have worked as a solicitor in both jurisdictions. However, I agree with much that has been said.

I believe that there is widespread consensus in society that the reform of legal services is required and that it is often the case that many who use such services or who try to get legal help have concerns about the quality of the service that they receive, the transparency of the feeing process and the inability to complain in any meaningful way. Although most people who use legal services will no doubt be very pleased with what they receive and will, on many occasions, feel that solicitors and indeed advocates offer excellent services at a very reasonable cost—on occasion, pro bono—we have to focus on what happens when things go wrong.

I have sympathy with some of the bill’s general principles. It is unfortunate that there are still ministerial powers on the face of the bill as we have today’s discussion, as that has distorted the nature of the debate.

In its briefing for MSPs, Citizens Advice Scotland, which provides advice on legal processes to thousands of people every year, gives details of the YouGov public opinion poll that it commissioned in late 2022 and in which it found that two thirds of those who responded would prefer an independent regulator to oversee the legal profession, compared with one in eight who would support the status quo. Of the respondents to that survey, 74 per cent felt that an independent regulator would increase public confidence. As I have said, there is widespread support for some of the bill’s general principles, but I hope that, once amendments come forward, we will be able to focus on some of those challenges.

As outlined in the committee’s report, there are strongly held views on whether the decision to adopt the principal recommendations of the review for independent regulation was correct. I would have hoped that that would have been the focus today. It is also significant that the committee report noted the broad and significant opposition to the initial proposals to give powers to Scottish ministers in certain parts of the bill. The bill is potentially a great opportunity to strengthen consumer rights, but unfortunately, as it stands, I do not believe that that can be the focus.

The current complaints process clearly needs urgent and drastic reform, and the bill’s provisions simply do not go far enough. Scottish Labour shares the concerns expressed by the Law Society of Scotland and others about the new powers in the bill to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services. We agree with Esther Roberton, who led the independent review into the reform of regulation of legal services in Scotland, that Government involvement is not in the interests of the Government itself, the legal profession or, most important, the public. We believe that the independence of the legal profession from the state lies at the heart of the rule of law and, indeed, of public trust.

I am very interested in the fact that the minister will be lodging amendments. I am not a member of the committee that scrutinised the bill, so I am not clear how substantive those amendments will be. The sections that seem to present a great deal of concern—that is, sections 19 and 20, schedule 2, section 41 and section 49—do give extensive powers to ministers. I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to give a clearer position as to whether it will be proceeding with those powers when we get to the bill’s next stages.

The order that has been put in front of us is astonishingly short. Will you confirm exactly what will happen later this week? The safeguards that relate to designated dogs will require XL bully dogs to be kept muzzled and on a lead. Beyond that, is anything happening later this week, or will the other things happen on 1 August?

If you were to, say, breed or give away an XL bully dog, you could be committing a criminal offence. Is that correct?

The problem with that is the insufficient clarity about what an XL bully dog is. We are being asked to vote on a very short order. Is there any definition in it? Do you not think that parliamentarians should have a definition before they vote?

You are mirroring the definitions down south.