Chamber and committees

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 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Amendment 646, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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.

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.

I thank the minister for her remarks. I am not going to press 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.