Chamber and committees

I am sorry; I do not have time.

Stephen Kerr said that he did not want our land to be turned into a wirescape. He said that Governments should be

“the servant and not the master.”

There is nothing just or fair about the proposed transition.

The Scottish Government’s pre-application guidance for transmission operators is inadequate and outdated. It fails to capture the complexities of transmission developments and the volume of projects. Sadly, SSEN’s engagement with affected residents has been dreadful. The public must be given meaningful opportunities to influence the proposals. They cannot be bulldozed through by transmission operators, which is what people feel is happening now.

This issue is not just about a route on a map or targets to achieve; it is about people and the place that they call home. Scrutiny, transparency and public participation should not be seen as tick-box exercises or obstacles to overcome. They are fundamental to the democratic decision-making process, and so, too, is the right to a public inquiry. In 2023, the SNP MP Alan Brown tried to remove the right of local planning authorities to have a public inquiry in such situations. Now, the UK Labour Government is trying to muzzle the voices of communities by stifling public inquiries.

Communities must be at the heart of the electricity consenting process, but, just last night, SSEN failed to show at Stonehaven community council’s opening meeting on the plans. That is disgraceful.

Once our landscape is punctured by pylons, it cannot be restored. It has been left to the Scottish Conservatives to bring this debate to the chamber. The Scottish Conservatives would ensure that the right to a public inquiry was enshrined in the consenting process, and I urge my SNP and Labour colleagues to do the same.

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.

I thank the minister for her remarks. I am not going to push my amendments in this group at stage 2, but I welcome the opportunity to get it on the record that I will engage with the minister and stakeholders ahead of stage 3. I thank the minister for agreeing to meet me. It is important that we work together to further improve the complaints processes for the consumer, as the minister says.

My concern is that we have waited for so long for regulatory reform of the legal profession and that the bill will be a missed opportunity not only to strengthen the complaints process for consumers but to give them greater protections. The committee took a view on that at stage 1, and it is important that we do not get lost in this behemoth of a bill. As we have all agreed, and as my colleagues have said today, consumers stress that it is important for all of them to have a voice in the legislative process.

Amendment 541, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 67 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

I will speak briefly on group 13. Amendment 638, in my name, is from the Law Society. Along with amendments 27 and 508 from Siobhian Brown and amendment 639 from Paul O’Kane, amendment 638 seeks to safeguard the interests of clients in circumstances where an authorised legal business is unable to continue to operate. Such circumstances could include death, incapacity or suspension.

The provisions in amendment 638 repeal sections 45 and 46 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and replace them with new provisions—sections 45A and 46A. Consequential amendments are made to paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the 1980 act.

Client money would be immediately protected as it would be placed under the control of the regulator, which would be able to issue directions that set out how clients’ other assets, such as files and documents, are to be dealt with. I have engaged on this issue with the Law Society, which believes that the Scottish Government’s amendment 508 would leave consumers in a worse position than they are in today because there would be potentially time consuming applications to the court. That could lead to delays for clients when time is of the essence.

I have discussed my amendment with the minister and thank her for her constructive engagement. I appreciate that the Law Society having the agility and flexibility to respond in such situations must come with checks and balances, but we must find a route through on the issue that satisfactorily protects the client.

The minister has indicated that she is happy for amendment 638 to replace amendment 508, so I will press amendment 638. Ahead of stage 3, I am happy to engage with the minister and the Law Society further on the provisions

Minister, I would be grateful if, when you wind up, you could address the SLCC’s concerns about amendment 40. The amendment looks like a minor drafting adjustment, but, when looked at it more closely, it seems to make a substantive change by qualifying the application of regulatory objectives. It is no longer a duty. The amendment does change that. I would like the minister to respond to the SLCC’s comments.

I commend Katy Clark for her work with Beatrice Wishart on the WASPI women CPG. Has she strongly raised the issue with Keir Starmer, Liz Kendall, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves? What have they said to her in reply?

I will give way to Monica Lennon.

I wonder whether Keir Starmer is going to give you a vote on this—

—and listen to his colleagues in the chamber today. I hope—I have had it confirmed today—that you are shocked—