Chamber and committees

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Amendment 646, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

Another storm has wreaked havoc across our energy networks. With wind speeds of 90mph, conditions were far too treacherous for engineers to carry out vital repairs. The same thing happened after storms Arwen, Babet and others. The cabinet secretary spoke in her statement about power cables overturning. Does she agree that such costly and dangerous disruption to the power supply bolsters the need for transmission lines to go offshore or run underground?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted yes.

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.

Communities across Angus and Aberdeenshire have been blindsided by SSEN’s plans to industrialise our countryside. As Douglas Lumsden said, for the past two years, constituent correspondence on new energy infrastructure in the north-east has flooded our inboxes. No other issue—not a single issue—has come close. The First Minister said that he was sure that ministers would be happy to meet with campaigners, but where is Gillian Martin? She is missing in action for constituents. She has met SSEN, but she has not met her constituents and campaign groups.

We need more than lip service from Mairi Gougeon, who is the constituency MSP for many of the affected areas. Where is she today? She is missing in action.

Members: She is ill!

I have attended town-hall meetings on the plans; met with constituents and campaign groups, including the save our Mearns group, Angus Pylon Action Group, the Turriff against pylons group and Deeside Against Pylons; supported a petition to Parliament on the deeply flawed consultation process; engaged with SSEN, Ofgem and the Scottish Government; and led a parliamentary debate in May last year.

The projects’ location, scale and accelerated timeframe are a massive source of concern for communities. The wrong kit is being put in the wrong place, but the public have not been given the opportunity to provide feedback on alternative options, such as offshoring or undergrounding. As Douglas Lumsden said, the devolved Scottish Government, instead of looking for solutions that empower, has chosen, once again, to ride roughshod over rural communities.

Affected residents are understandably worried about the value of their homes, disruption to their businesses and the local economy, and the loss of prime agricultural land. What will happen to people—of whom there are many—such as the family who live next to Fetteresso, who will have three pylons within spitting distance of their home, when they have to remortgage and they face negative equity? Like many people, they also have concerns about the health implications of the infrastructure, which have not been explored or allayed.

The mental health and overall wellbeing of affected residents have suffered. [Interruption.] I know that SNP members are not really interested in this, because they are talking over me, but my constituents are. I was recently shocked to learn that one local farmer’s firearms had been removed for his own safety, and I understand that some farmers have been threatened with compulsory purchase orders. I have been told that SSEN has not even considered how the height of the overhead lines relates to the use of farming machinery. Farmers will have to mitigate their operations along the pylon pathway. What will that mean for food security, forestry and countryside management?

All of that is an extremely high price to pay for the energy transition, especially when it is the north-east that will bear the brunt of it.

As my colleague Graham Simpson said, we know what we need to do to decarbonise our electricity system—we can all agree on that. I say to Michael Marra and Labour that we and our communities do not believe what he and Ed Miliband say. They might be speaking for the cities, but they are not speaking for rural communities.