Chamber and committees

I appreciate what you have said about the aspiration of Government. However, we can evidence some inconsistencies. Do you feel that a better, standardised format should be given to ministers to ensure that everyone reports in the same way, or do you feel that it is up to individual ministers to make their own interpretations?

Okay. On the point about individual equality impact assessments and their use as a tool, there have been calls from organisations relating to individual budgetary decisions. Many organisations have said that the decision on the reduction in the housing capital budget should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. I put that to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, who pointed to the broader piece of work that we have just discussed. However, organisations feel that the ramifications and the understanding of the impact that that cut will have are such that it should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. Is it your view that there should be individual equality impact assessments on specific decisions?

Can I infer from that answer that your view is that the decision on the 27 per cent reduction in housing spend should have been subject to an equality impact assessment and that that would perhaps have meant that there would have been more rounded consideration of that decision?

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s openness to that process. Last night, in this room, I chaired the cross-party group on care leavers, and one of the discussions that we had was about the importance of uprating in relation to the challenge of cost of living pressures. Will the cabinet secretary agree to consult and discuss with people with lived experience the importance of uprating as part of the on-going scrutiny work that we will all undertake on the bill?

The Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Parliament, will introduce two new forms of assistance—childhood assistance and care experience assistance. Is it your view that there should be a statutory requirement to uprate those in line with inflation?

Given that we do not have much time in hand, Mr Swinney has very helpfully moved me to my final point, which is about where we go next and how we can create the consensus that we all want to see. For Labour members, it is about the amendments in respect of the ministerial powers, and ensuring that we see the details of those amendments; that we, as a committee, have time to scrutinise them; and that we can scrutinise them in the chamber. It is also about looking at all the other aspects that have been raised in the debate and where further amendments might be made to support the many good contributions from organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland and Women’s Aid and those who have a view in this space. The Law Society of Scotland, of course, also wishes to see other amendments to the bill.

Although we will abstain on the general principles of the bill today, that is with the view of trying to make the bill better at stage 2, so that we can all support it by stage 3. I would be keen to hear an undertaking from the Government in that regard when it comes to its summation.

The debate has been constructive in terms of the interactions with and interventions from members, which have been helpful. In concluding, I will reflect on three points: why we are where we are, how we got here and where we are going next.

We have heard eloquently from a number of members about the importance of access to justice, to a complaints system that works and to a robust system when someone has been wronged at the hands of a solicitor or lawyer. We heard eloquently from John Swinney and Stuart McMillan about what is going on with McClure’s, which is known to many of us.

We also heard from many other members, including Russell Findlay, about the challenges that people face when they are in such a situation, which may have had a huge impact on their life. They may have been given bad or wrong advice, and they feel that they have no recourse in the process, or that the process is too slow or does not act to hear all that they have to say and what they feel.

Michelle Thomson’s explanation of some of that, and of her own experience, was helpful. In committee, I was keen that the contributions that she made in parliamentary questions were recorded in the committee’s report, because it is important that we capture that aspect.

Many members have reflected on how we have ended up here, with the current bill. Liam McArthur outlined that the minister has inherited the bill, in many ways, and that it has come out of different processes of consulting on the principle of reform that have never managed to get to the point at which there has been a wider consensus.

Many concerns have been raised about how we can balance the need for an independent judiciary with the need for better reform of the legal services sector. Katy Clark laid out some of the thinking among Labour members about how we can look at the bill that is before us, acknowledge how we got here, and find a way, in amending the bill, to make it better.

I am pleased to open for Scottish Labour in the debate. We recognise the importance of the bill, the debate and the issues contained therein. Listening to the speeches so far, we have already started to see the emerging issues that have been debated in committee, which I think will be a feature as the bill continues its progress.

I wish to start from a position of some consensus. There are things in the bill that are to be welcomed and encouraged regarding the improvement and delivery of legal services. It is clear from all the evidence that was heard in committee that many people feel that the complaints system, as it currently exists, is in need of reform and is not fit for purpose, and that work needs to be done in that regard. It is clear that there is support for reforms on regulating legal businesses, providing more protections to safeguard consumers—and, indeed, the public—and ensuring that access to justice is easier for people in the full knowledge that there will be a right of recourse where there are issues.

As we have heard in the debate, there are clearly areas that need further development. Of course, everyone would want to engage fully in the process to ensure that, at stages 2 and 3, we look in great detail at where changes can be made to the bill to make it better.

In saying that, it is clear to me that there is work to be done to the bill at quite a fundamental level, specifically around the current drafting, which grants significant power to ministers, which could compromise the independence of the judiciary and the judicial system.

The record of the most recent Labour Government in lifting millions of children and pensioners out of poverty by expanding social security payments and encouraging uptake of those payments speaks for itself.

Analysis by the Scottish Government that was published in November last year showed that only three quarters of eligible people had taken up the young carer grant, that only 61 per cent of eligible people had taken up the funeral support payment, which was down from the previous year, and that only 15 per cent of eligible people had taken up the job start payment. Is that not another example of the SNP levelling legitimate and justified criticism at the Department for Work and Pensions and saying that it will do things better, but failing to do so?

The committee heard a variety of evidence on either side of the argument. I acknowledge what the member is saying. What was clear to me was the significant concerns that were raised by not just the judiciary but by the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and many other bodies in the legal profession. I have significant concern about the wider issue of ensuring that the independence of the judiciary is protected. We heard that quite clearly in our consideration of the evidence. That is part of the reason why I advocated that the committee should not take a position on stage 1 of the bill and should not recommend whether to support it. I do not think that we have had enough clarity on what amendments might be brought forward by the Government on that issue. I asked the Government, because I do not think that it is unheard of to bring forward amendments in draft form so that they can be considered in more detail.

The convener made an important point about the requirement for further scrutiny. If the Government is to lodge substantive amendments that will change the core of the bill in that regard, there will have to be a level of scrutiny of those, and people will have to give evidence and give their view on either side of the debate. The Government has given a commitment in writing to the committee, and the minister made that commitment when she gave evidence, but we could have been further along if we had been able to discuss the amendments in draft form before we got to the stage 1 debate.