Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is such a serious matter that I would like to raise it with you after this meeting of Parliament today.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its role in ensuring that public bodies are meeting their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010, following recent correspondence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. (S6T-02370)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

I thank Jackie Baillie, and I completely agree with her that the Scottish Government and its agencies are not above the law.

The situation that has arisen in NHS Fife speaks volumes about what is happening behind closed doors in Scotland’s public sector under the SNP Government. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon’s self-identification policy has binned the rights of biologically female employees to access single-sex spaces. Taxpayers’ money is being used to cover legal costs to defend a public body’s gender policy, but there is no transparency over the cost to the public purse because the health board involved will not disclose that information. That is simply not acceptable, especially when the health service is in crisis and budgets are being squeezed.

It has been reported that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, was made aware in June last year of the situation in NHS Fife and the legal implications of it. We need clarity over Neil Gray’s involvement or lack thereof.

The public interest in the issue is huge. It has been covered extensively in the press and MSPs have been contacted by constituents with legitimate questions and concerns, and yet we have not been able to bring those questions to the chamber. Topical questions, First Minister’s questions and urgent questions that have been lodged on the issue have not been selected. Meanwhile, our colleagues in Westminster have been able to raise it. It is deeply disappointing that, once again, this Parliament cannot discharge its duties to the public because members do not have parliamentary privilege.

Women are watching today. The public has had enough of the recent abdication, obfuscation and moral cowardice from the Government, and we are only going to see more witch hunts at the public’s expense if we do not get clarity on the Scottish Government’s position. I urge members to support my amendment.

I move amendment S6M-16518.1, to leave out first “5.15 pm Decision Time” and insert:

“followed by Ministerial Statement: Public Sector Workers’ Access to Single Sex Spaces

5.45 pm Decision Time”.

Sandie Peggie, who has been a national health service nurse for 30 years, spoke up for her sex-based rights in her workplace because she did not want to share a changing facility with a biological male. However, in doing so, she is being treated as the perpetrator, not the victim.

I know that the Presiding Officer considers this case to be sub judice. Nothing I say here today will prejudice any live proceedings, because at the heart of this case are the policies of the Scottish National Party Government.

Presiding Officer, we need a ministerial statement on public sector workers and single-sex spaces. I am grateful to the Minister for Parliamentary Business for being open, despite the late notice, to considering that request.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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 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.

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.