Chamber and committees

Before we move into lengthy consideration of the amendments that are before us, I thought that it would be helpful to put on the record some general comments about this section and the ministerial powers that apply to the amendments in this group, so that I will not have to repeat my comments in any of the subsequent groupings.

For those of us on the committee who heard the stage 1 evidence, it was clear that the bill did not start out in a place of consensus. There was much concern about the warnings that came from respected organisations, including the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and the senior judiciary, that were in many ways unprecedented. Such was the level of concern about the threat to the independence of the judiciary from the imposition of ministerial powers that it seemed that the bill was, at points, quite significantly flawed and that it would require subsequent amendments, such as those that are before us. In saying that, credit should be given to the minister and the team of officials for the work that they have done on the amendments over many months, and for their work with stakeholders to sufficiently address risk.

I also thank the minister for her constructive engagement with me in listening to many of the concerns about those aspects of the bill and, more widely, for offering a collegiate way of working to address some of the issues. I hope that we will continue with that collegiate approach throughout stage 2 consideration and into stage 3.

I still have some areas of concern in the bill more widely but it would not be appropriate for me expand on those now. To avoid dragging on for too long, I just confirm my support for amendments in the group and say that I am keen to continue the debate as we move through the remaining amendments. I am grateful to you, convener.

My amendments 543, 544 and 545 all seek to deal with the issue of waivers by leaving out the relevant sections of the bill. The powers contained within sections 21, 22 and 24 seek to provide for powers that already exist and are conferred under the 1980 act, with the ability to waive most of the existing practice rules. That is currently in force and is deemed to work well.

I have listened to what the minister has said and I am looking at the motivation behind the Government’s desire to make changes to the powers for special rules, but there is a lack of clarity in relation to concerns or issues that have been raised about waivers and how the system works at the moment.

Regulators that currently operate a waiver system go through numerous checks before a waiver is granted. Practice has been built up over many years of experience and is overseen by dedicated committees conducting due diligence on applications for waivers.

In understanding the concerns about the system that the Government is creating in the relevant sections, it is important to understand that waivers are requested and granted most often when that is of benefit to clients and there is a need to move quickly, which is the theme that has emerged from our desire that the bill help to speed things up for people who seek support and redress.

The bill might create a lengthy process that has to run through other bodies, including the Lord President and Scottish ministers, before a waiver can be granted. That might add to the system inefficiency and complexity that do not exist at present. I have not heard compelling arguments for introducing that system. Processes can add time and cost, and can be to the detriment of the consumer, who will bear the consequences.

There are further issues with the system that the Government envisages. In most cases, the system might not work if waivers are time limited, because a rule must either apply to situation and transaction, or it must not.

Additionally, waiver decisions often refer to an applicant’s personal information, which can be commercially confidential, such as information about operations or practice and what is going on in a business. It would therefore be difficult, at best, to publish waiver decisions, as is envisaged by the Government. At worst, having to redact them before they are published might consume significant time and resource. I come back to the argument about the length of time that it might take, when we are seeking a quicker process.

I am not convinced that there has been much evidence that the current system is broken or that it is being misused. Perhaps we should not seek to fix problems that do not exist. I hear what the minister has said and I hear her challenge to me, but I wonder whether, in summing up, she might say more about her position on special rules and consider what more we might do in that area.

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?