Chamber and committees

I am just about to get on to that. Bearing in mind that this is the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, there are two areas that I would like you to take forward, one of which has been raised by my colleague Maggie Chapman.

The first issue relates to NHS Grampian, which serves a huge rural area and has gone short of £0.25 billion in funding while the Scottish National Party has been in government. That is a huge issue and it is having a massive knock-on impact on the integration joint board.

The second area—the one that was highlighted by Maggie Chapman—is assessments for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In fact, I am not just talking about assessments; the fact is that people are waiting sometimes two years and sometimes five years, and they still have no date for an assessment. There is also a massive shortage of medication. The concern for people right now is that they go to their GP, who agrees that they need an assessment, but they cannot get one. The fear is that, with the massive shortage of medication, assessments are not going to happen—it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. That is a massive issue.

The national health service is in crisis, because of a shortage of funding. I have raised the issue of rural proofing again and again. Neil Gray did not recognise the figure of a quarter of a billion pounds, which actually came from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Then there is the huge issue that we have in the north-east of autism and ADHD assessments and medication. You told my colleague that you were happy to write on those areas, you say that you are having meetings and you have a toolkit, which is a good step forward—but, please, rural areas are in crisis, and money is being taken away from them.

I would like to go on to my next section of questions, which is on funding approaches. As my background is in business, I always judge people not on their words, but on where they actually spend their money. We have already talked about health. In September, you told MSPs—and I listened very carefully to this—that your

“fund manager, Inspiring Scotland, will continue to work with”

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s

“board as it implements the necessary changes ... recommended by Vicky Ling’s report.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2024; c 8.]

After that, however, in January, Rape Crisis Scotland U-turned on delivering a definition of “woman”—something that, as I am sure that you are aware, had been a key recommendation of Vicky Ling’s report. It means that women remain in the dark about which services are male free. Two weeks ago, you announced close to £2 million—I repeat: £2 million—from the delivering equally safe fund for the scandal-ridden Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland. My question is this: what oversight do you have of that situation, given the seriousness of the report’s findings and the fact that public money—this is important; it is taxpayers’ money—is being used to support those services? This evidence session is about transparency and accountability, minister, so I would like you to address the issue of accountability with regard to that spend.

And that is important. You know that my background is personnel and human resources. One of the biggest spends is staffing. There is also the matter of accountability and transparency. This is a very important matter, so if I can just finish.

I thank the minister for giving the background to the amendments, but, having listened to the discussion, I still feel that section 65 could use some improvement. I thank Maggie Chapman for asking how the existence of the register will be communicated. I also thank my colleague Paul O’Kane for saying that, while he supports the amendments in principle, it seems odd to have an opt-in register. He also raised the question of what the incentive would be to join it. Those are valuable points. I recognise, however, the positive comments from the minister that being on the register would be a kitemark, and something to be achieved.

Nonetheless, I hope that the minister will appreciate, bearing in mind the comments that she has heard from three committee members saying that further work is required on this area, that it would be useful if we could look at the amendments again, and go back to the Law Society and the SLCC to test whether there is an acceptable way through the issue.

I will withdraw amendment 646 and not seek to move my other amendments in the group, but I want to return to them at stage 3.

Amendment 646, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 372 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendments 647 to 649 not moved.

Amendments 373 and 374 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 65, as amended, agreed to.

Section 66—Commission rules as to practice and procedure

Amendment 605 not moved.

Amendment 637 is a straightforward amendment that will require a review of the act to be undertaken five years after royal assent. It is based on a similar amendment on post-legislative scrutiny that was made to the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill. I remember that, when I was on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, we discussed that issue at length. A review was seen as good practice then, and I think that it would be good practice for the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill too, particularly as it is the most amended bill in the Scottish Parliament’s history. It was introduced in April 2023, 43 years after the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was created. I know from my engagement with the Law Society of Scotland that it has been making the case for change to the regulatory system for many years now and that the bill is long overdue.

I note that Esther Roberton, who led the 2018 review of the regulation of legal services, was also clear that some of the operational issues that the SLCC has experienced are a result of the complexity of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which itself was heavily amended.

Post-legislative scrutiny is always important but, against that background, it is essential. A review would ensure that the regulatory system was working for the legal profession and serving the interests of consumers. It is really important to get the balance right, but there is a danger that things will get lost in the weeds for years to come once the bill is enacted.

I thank the minister for her engagement on my amendment. Following our discussions, I recognise that the Government has concerns about a review period beginning the day after royal assent. I am happy to discuss ahead of stage 3 the possibility of basing the time period on commencement, and I will seek stakeholders’ views on that.

I move amendment 637.

Members will recall from last week’s proceedings that amendment 638, which came from the Law Society, seeks to safeguard the interests of clients when an authorised legal business is unable to continue to operate. The amendment has already been debated, and the minister advised that she is happy to support it. As the convener said, because of a technical error in the first marshalled list, a correction has been made to include the missing subsections (3) to (6). Prior to disposing of the amendment today, we are revisiting it to ensure that members are aware of the correction. I understand that the Government has also been notified.

I move amendment 638.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to engage on amendment 637 ahead of stage 3. Given her undertaking, I will withdraw amendment 637 with a view to bringing suitable wording back at stage 3.

Amendment 637, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 78 to 80 agreed to.

Section 81—Removal of practising restrictions: law centres, citizens advice bodies and charities

Section 65 provides the SLCC with powers to introduce a voluntary register of unregulated providers of legal services. Amendments 646 to 649, from the Law Society, change the voluntary register of unregulated providers of legal services so that it becomes mandatory. I note that, at stage 1, some witnesses, including the Competition and Markets Authority and Professor Stephen Mayson, who carried out the independent review of legal services in England and Wales, argued for a mandatory register.

I am sympathetic to the Law Society’s view that a voluntary register that provides for the payment of levies and fees and subjects a service provider to a statutory complaints scheme is unlikely to attract a “meaningful uptake”. Those views were reflected in paragraph 146 of the committee’s stage 1 report, which calls on the Scottish Government to strengthen the provision and consider creating a mandatory register.

I have also engaged with the SLCC on the amendments and I recognise that it has several concerns about how such a register would work in practice. The SLCC is concerned about the uncertainty around who would be captured by the provisions and the scale of the resources that would be needed to communicate the requirement to providers. Those are reasonable criticisms from the organisation that will be tasked with the responsibility of a mandatory register.

My view is that the approach in section 65 is not sufficient. Although I recognise that some unregulated providers might sign up for regulation because it could give them a competitive advantage and provide consumers with assurances, that will not necessarily be the case for all. Providers who pose a risk to consumers are not likely to subject themselves to regulation.

The minister has other amendments in the group that the Scottish Conservatives are content to support at this stage, although they amend the proposed voluntary register provisions. I look forward to hearing the minister’s comments on my amendments and the policy intention behind them.

I move amendment 646.

I thank the convener and the committee for the opportunity to speak at today’s meeting. It is fortuitous, because the petition was once again in the press last week, when it received coverage in The Courier.

This is a difficult and emotive topic. I pay tribute to the petitioner, Maggie Reid, who is a constituent of mine, for her on-going work to improve perinatal mental health support for women in the north-east and across Scotland.

As the convener will know, this is the third occasion on which I have appeared before the committee on the petition. However, frustratingly, the Scottish Government has made little progress towards advancing its key aims. It seems that we are no closer to extending the period for which specialist perinatal mental health support is available, and we still do not have a mother and baby unit in the north-east. The recommendations of the Strang report on Tayside’s mental health services have still not been satisfactorily implemented. Worryingly, stakeholders have advised that, since the dissolution of the perinatal and infant mental health programme board in 2023, there have been no clear plans for the long-term strategic planning and monitoring of specialist perinatal mental health services. I have also been advised that there are no clear timescales for completion on meeting the recommended service models for different parts of the country.

At the core of Maggie’s petition is the premise that new mothers who suffer mental ill health should be kept safer—much safer than they are now. The committee will recall that Maggie’s sister Lesley was sectioned because of postpartum psychosis, and she was placed in a mixed ward at Carseview psychiatric unit. I ask members to imagine how they would feel if their own daughter, niece or mother had to go through that. Thinking about that prospect brings it home to you. Lesley was already vulnerable, and she was—understandably—absolutely terrified.

I raised the issue of mixed wards in Carseview with the First Minister at First Minister’s question time last week, following reports of sexual assaults and rapes taking place at the unit. This issue needs much greater scrutiny.

Last year, Maggie and I met the Deputy First Minister to discuss maternal mental health and the petition. The Deputy First Minister undertook to see Carseview for herself, and last week she visited it with the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. That makes me all the more surprised that she has not found the money that she promised. We await detailed feedback on the visit.

I would like to finish with Maggie’s own words, which I will leave with members. She said:

“this is not just for my sister, it’s for women in general and I hope the Scottish Government will do something about it.”

We cannot wait any longer.

The amendments in this group are probing amendments. I lodged them because my colleagues and I believe that the bill does not go far enough in creating a simplified and streamlined complaints process for consumers. However, the issue is not just about an administrative process; it cuts to the core of the balance of power between lawyer and consumer. It is about who does what in the regulatory and complaints handling landscape.

Lawyers play an important role in challenging Governments on behalf of their clients, but who guards the guards? Is it right that a membership body for the legal profession should also regulate the misconduct of its members? That is a very important point. It should not be a David and Goliath situation, but that is what we have at the moment when things go wrong. For consumers of legal services, it is not always clear where self-regulation ends and self-interest takes over.

The Scottish Conservatives’ view is that those issues have not been satisfactorily addressed in the bill. Against that background, my amendments in this group form a package that seeks to change the system of complaints handling so that only the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and not the professional bodies, would consider complaints. It is clear from the 2018 Roberton review that the existing complaints and redress process is not fit for purpose. Esther Roberton’s diagram of the current system is eye-opening and quite alarming. As my colleague Russell Findlay said at stage 1, the Tokyo metro map is easier to understand.

Although I was not a member of the committee when the stage 1 report was published, I note the finding at paragraph 144, which states:

“The Committee is concerned that the Scottish Government may have missed an opportunity to take a simpler, more user-friendly approach in creating a single streamlined complaints process which would have benefited consumers and regulators alike.”

I have worked with the legislation team on how best to address the recommendation against the backdrop of a complex and legalistic framework. Members will appreciate that the single complaints process that was proposed in the Roberton review depended on the creation of an independent regulator, but I acknowledge that the ship has sailed—that quote has been used—at least for now.

At the moment, we have a single gateway for complaints, but we do not have a single investigation process. As such, my amendments in this group would use the SLCC’s existing infrastructure to investigate all conduct and service complaints. I have engaged with the Law Society of Scotland on that proposal and I note its position on my amendments as set out in correspondence to the committee on 17 January. I also note the submission that we received last night from the Faculty of Advocates, which argues against a single complaints process.

The regulators’ position is not unexpected or surprising. I recognise that they believe that more regulatory powers are essential in order to improve the complaints process and that they strongly oppose any structural change. Of course, it is their right to do so. However, in its latest response, the Faculty of Advocates says that the proposal is

“a hare that was considered to have been caught and shot long ago.”

I respectfully disagree. Just because the regulators oppose a single complaints process, that does not mean that we should not continue to discuss or debate the proposal. The consumer must also have a voice.

The SLCC has engaged constructively on my amendments, arguing that a single complaints process would be in the

“best interests of the public, consumers, the legal profession and the representative bodies”

and that it would be

“more efficient and allow greater flexibility ... reducing inefficiency, duplication and delay.”

The approach would, in many ways, satisfy paragraph 144 of the committee’s stage 1 report, on complaints, but it is not a cure-all. I recognise the stakeholder concerns about cost implications and the complexity of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which was foundational for the SLCC.

My amendments in the group are probing and I will value the opportunity to work collaboratively with the minister and stakeholders ahead of stage 3 if it means that we can further improve the complaints process for consumers.

I move amendment 541.

And the SLCC? You mentioned discussions with the Law Society in relation to the amendment.