Chamber and committees

I make just a brief comment to thank the minister for her amendments in this group. She will be aware that this is one area that exercised many witnesses at stage 1, and I raised concerns about the need to strengthen and alter the provisions contained in these sections throughout the stage 1 process, as other colleagues did; I also did so in my meeting with the minister.

It is important that consumer protection is at the forefront of our minds in ensuring that unscrupulous individuals who seek to misrepresent themselves as lawyers or solicitors, or as holding the public office of advocate, are held to account, and that we ensure that there is a safeguard against their doing so. I believe that the Government’s amendments in the group will provide a solution to that and, indeed, to the concerns that we heard in evidence. I will support the amendments in the group.

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.

As I have said previously, in this speech and in my other contributions on this matter, the door should not be closed and there is a process that should be explored. I have been clear that that is my position and the position of the Scottish Labour Party. We have been clear about that.

I have also noted, however, that the PHSO report highlighted a number of different ways in which women could be compensated. I think that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should look again at that and at all the issues within that with regard to how redress may be made to those women. That is why Scottish Labour will support the Government’s motion tonight, and it is why I have lodged an amendment saying that we have to look at redress in full and understand what people are asking of us. I give that assurance on the record.

I am conscious of the number of interventions that I have taken and that I am rapidly running out of time. We will hear contributions from members on all sides of the chamber today about the experience across Scotland and more widely. I am clear that we support the principle, as I have outlined, and I look forward to this important debate and to continuing to move the issues forward on behalf of the WASPI women.

I move amendment S6M-16160.1, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges that the UK Government has apologised to women who have been impacted as a result of maladministration, and agrees that the UK Government should look at all options for remedy, particularly for those most adversely impacted.”

I appreciate that Meghan Gallacher is broadening out her speech to talk about policies that affect and impact pensioners across the country. Will she confirm whether she supports her leader’s comments on the pension triple lock or whether she is committed to protecting the triple lock for pensioners across the country?

[Made a request to intervene.]

That is certainly not the intention of my amendment, which I lodged in good faith. I like to find consensus, which I think is important. Many members have mentioned the importance of the Parliament speaking with one voice.

It is clear that there are variations in the detriment caused by maladministration. We are seeking to recognise that and the fact that a system could be put in place to do so. Does the cabinet secretary not agree?

Will Tess White take an intervention?

I have outlined my position, and the Scottish Labour Party’s position, quite clearly, which is that the Government should look again at the issue of compensation.

However, I gently say to Mr Ross, for whom I also have respect, and who has spoken well on the issue, that he was a Conservative member of the House of Commons and a member of the Government—a minister of state—who did nothing when the report was delivered to that previous Government, which did not consider an apology or any lessons learned but instead long-grassed the issue. He served a longer term in the House of Commons than any other MSP who is present in the chamber, so what has he done? Mr Ross comes to the chamber and levels his accusations at me, when I am trying to make a case about what more we need to do, but what did he do?

I will begin, as I have done in debates in which I have spoken on this topic in this chamber in my four years in Parliament, by acknowledging all the WASPI women, including those who are in the gallery today and those we represent in our regions and constituencies. In doing so, I offer them my respect for the work that they have done over many years of campaigning. Indeed, like colleagues across the chamber, I have had the opportunity to speak to many impacted constituents and WASPI campaigners over the years. I have listened to their views and experiences of what has happened to them, the impact that those issues and decisions have had on their life, and to what they feel is an appropriate remedy for them in terms of their circumstances.

I have heard, as members across the chamber will have, a variety of experiences that I believe deserve to be accounted for and heard today, as well as a variety of views on what is required to achieve the redress that I think that everyone would want to see. I have also heard a variety of views on the report that we are debating and the subsequent issues.

In the time that I have available to me, I will focus my comments particularly on the PHSO report. When I last spoke on this matter in the chamber, the PHSO report had been received by the previous UK Government but had not been responded to. I outlined in that debate that it would fall to any incoming Government to deal with the detail in the report and to respond. I also highlighted my desire for a response to be made and, indeed, my support for that response to include a redress scheme. That had to be fully considered in line with the different recommendations that the ombudsman outlined in their report. Therefore, I recognise the disappointment at the fact that the UK Government has not taken to the UK Parliament the PHSO’s recommendations on compensation.

Along with Labour colleagues, I have been clear that, although steps have been taken to recognise maladministration, the UK Government could go further. However, it would be remiss not to recognise that the UK Government has finally acknowledged that maladministration occurred—something that the previous UK Government refused to do—and has offered an apology on behalf of the state for that maladministration.

In addition, the UK Government has made commitments to taking clear action to ensure that maladministration of that kind cannot happen again. Those actions include working with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan for the report, setting clear and sufficient notice of any future changes to pension age—[Interruption.]

Not at this stage. I have much to get through, as Mr Stewart will appreciate.

I recognise the importance of what the ombudsman has said about the apology and those other actions, and I recognise that, for many WASPI women, including those in the gallery and those who will be watching today, that action does not go far enough. That is the point that I am coming on to, which members are highlighting. That action does not go far enough. That is why we, in Scottish Labour, have been clear that the UK Government should not close the door on this issue and should think again about the whole issue of compensation following the apology.

I also have to accept and acknowledge what has been said about the economic circumstances. The current UK Government has inherited a horrendous financial situation from the previous Government, and the new Government has had to deal with a long legacy of unresolved issues—not just WASPI women, but the infected blood scandal, the Horizon Post Office scandal, Windrush and others. I am saying that to set the context, and I think that that is important to consider in terms of any future decisions. I think that all of us in the chamber would recognise that Governments have to make decisions and that the previous UK Government left behind a huge in-tray of issues for the current UK Government to deal with.

That said, and as I am coming on to outline the position of members on the Labour benches, it is clear that more could be done to look at fair and flexible compensation, to be provided in particular to those who have been the most adversely impacted by the maladministration that was outlined by the ombudsman in her report. I think that we will hear examples of that in the course of the debate.

I recognise that arguments have been made that many WASPI women were not adversely impacted by pension age changes and that, if the maladministration had not occurred, it may not have made a difference, but we need to drill into that in terms of what the ombudsman has said.