Chamber and committees

My principal amendments in this group deal with the issue of registered foreign lawyers and the regulation of legal businesses therein. Much of the content and purpose of my amendments is similar to what Pam Gosal has outlined and relates to how we ensure that there is no detriment to businesses that are trying to operate in Scotland. For the benefit of the committee and the minister, I do not intend to repeat too much of that.

However, the issue of registered foreign lawyers more generally has been raised with me throughout the process. Although many come from qualifying jurisdictions within and beyond Europe, we must reflect jurisdictions in which relevant law firms provide legal services internationally and where many of their solicitors are in the UK, either in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. Evidently, there will be much cross-border work with Scotland, so we want to avoid a situation in which that would not be possible because of the definition of a registered foreign lawyer. It is important that we recognise that, and that safeguards are in place in relation to some of the issues that have been raised.

A foreign lawyer can be registered only if they are to be an owner of a practice where at least one other qualified lawyer is able to practise in Scotland. They cannot practise as sole practitioners or provide legal services that are reserved to those who are qualified in Scotland. I heard what the minister said about guidance. It would be useful to have those definitions in statute and to be clear about what we are trying to achieve.

As I said, Pam Gosal’s amendments are similar to mine but, on the basis of the advice that I have taken, I think that mine will move forward in the way that we are trying to advance. However, I appreciate that there is some duplication.

On the other amendments in the group, I recognise the minister’s offer to try to work together to look at how we might broaden the scope of regulation. I am happy to meet her on those issues ahead of stage 3 to see how we might further develop the bill, as we discussed earlier this morning.

More broadly, the minister has done important work through the amendments. I believe that the majority of the amendments in the group make good improvements to the bill, so I will support them. However, we need to be clear on the issue of registered foreign lawyers to ensure that there is no detriment, particularly on cross-border issues.

On the requirements that you listed, are you at the table and having those conversations now?

That is what I was keen to explore next. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice spoke last week about moving from the discovery phase of the programme to day-to-day business. We know that policy innovations come along—for example, the announcement in the budget about the two-child limit and the delivery of a payment with regard to that. You are closing one programme and that has come along, so how do you intend to prepare for that? What do you think the challenges will be in trying to move to the business as usual space?

On building the system, we know that there has been a lot of debate and conversation in the past few weeks about the need for DWP to transfer data and the interaction between the two Governments. What is your role in that and what do you require to be prepared to build the system that will ultimately deliver whatever the policy intent is?

On the point about building capability, horizon scanning and preparedness, the Government policy on the two-child limit was sent to the Scottish Fiscal Commission a week and a day before the budget was introduced. When was Social Security Scotland made aware that it might have to deliver that innovation?

Good morning. David Wallace’s introduction was very helpful in setting some of the context. We are interested, first, in the operational challenges of taking on the remaining functions of the current programme. In particular, what progress has been made on reducing the risk score of bringing the project to its closure?

Good morning. I want to follow up on the commissioner piece that we have been discussing. The committee will seek to influence colleagues and help to shape some of what is looked at within that, and it is important that we give the various stakeholders the opportunity to do that. My sense, from the discussion, is that we want to take a broader look beyond the mechanics of commissioners and the financial implications. Angela O’Hagan’s points about the root-and-branch approach are important.

We have heard—because we have a duty to consider commissioners’ proposals, which often come before us—that access to justice is missing. We have touched on that already today. Do you want to see your piece of work on access to justice for everyone form the basis of conversations and recommendations within that wider piece of work? Do you want to highlight, on the record, anything specific in that at this stage?

That is helpful to the committee in thinking about how we engage. I am grateful.

I appreciate what you are saying about the move to a steady state. We know that the main benefit that still needs to be devolved is employment injury assistance, and we have just touched on the Government’s intention to mitigate the two-child limit. We had this discussion before the Christmas break, but that decision was taken a week and a day before the budget was announced—you may want to correct me if I am wrong about that. To what extent has that decision been factored in, given the potential delay that could be caused to the closure of the programme? Was planning done prior to that decision being made? Were projections considered on the impact of the decision on the wider programme?

I have a question about future changes. As you rightly point out, it is for any Government to decide what to do when more mainstream social security becomes devolved. I noted that the Deputy First Minister made some public comments yesterday about the two-child limit, suggesting that the reason why it had not previously been considered was that the DWP was not willing to give information.

Regarding long-term planning for social security, we have had a discussion about costs and we know that there will be structures for that. Has the cabinet secretary been planning that for some time? Has she considered the preparation of some of that? That seems to be what the Deputy First Minister was alluding to yesterday. Within that, has the cabinet secretary previously asked the DWP for those powers?