Chamber and committees

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 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.

Minister, you have clearly been watching what has been happening down south, and it is clear that there have been a number of problems there. The ban on rehoming has had an impact on vets and on people at rehoming centres, who have been put in a position of being obliged to destroy healthy dogs that come into their care after the rehoming deadline. We have also been told that there have been difficulties in establishing muscle training at short notice, and the veterinary sector has said that it lacks sufficient capacity to carry out all the required neutering.

Given all the very practical issues that we have already seen in England and Wales, and that you say that you have already had many meetings with stakeholders in Scotland, do you envisage similar problems in Scotland after the order comes into effect later this week—if we vote in favour of it?

Is it saying that it can cope with what is about to happen? Given that you have had all those meetings, you must know that, as that is a very basic question, is it not? Are you assured that everything will be okay in Scotland, or do you think that there will be problems?

I am more concerned with the criminal courts and what is or is not an offence. I want strong legislation that is easily interpreted by a court. That is why I ask what the status of the guidance is. How will a court determine what is or is not an XL bully dog?

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.

I am sorry to interrupt, but we are short of time. What is the formal status of the DEFRA guidance? What approach will the courts take? Is this the strongest way to embed provisions in law? Perhaps your official will want to comment on that.