Chamber and committees

I am saying that, when the bill process started, the Scottish Government wanted the judiciary to report directly to ministers, which was absolutely absurd. We have now reached a point where we are tinkering around the edges as the bill increases cost and complexity, and consumers are not being fully taken into consideration.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on section 65, following stage 2 consideration of the bill. Amendments 130 to 134 and 142, in my name, allow the Scottish Government to lay regulations that would give specific organisations the mechanism to request that an unregulated provider of legal services is formally registered.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments from the Law Society that sought to change the voluntary register for unregulated providers of legal services in section 65 to make the register mandatory. The Law Society’s position was that a voluntary register that requires payment of levies and fees and that subjects a service provider to a statutory complaint scheme is

“unlikely to attract a meaningful uptake”,

and I agree.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s stage 1 report called on the Scottish Government to strengthen the provision and consider “creating a mandatory register”. Stakeholders such as the Competition and Markets Authority have made similar calls. However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission raised concerns about how the amendments at stage 2 would work in practice.

My view remains that it is in the public interest to have a mandatory scheme. Consumers currently have no recourse that would enable them to raise complaints about an unregulated provider.

I am pleased at stage 3 to have worked with the Scottish Government to find a way to strengthen section 65 that satisfies stakeholders. The Law Society states in its stage 3 briefing that my amendments

“significantly toughen up the provisions in the Bill”

and lay the foundations to begin to address the issues in the unregulated sector. The SLCC states that the amendments take

“a proportionate and risk-based approach”.

I am grateful to the Law Society and the SLCC for their expertise and insights during this process, which has led to a positive outcome for consumers. I urge colleagues to support these changes.

I move amendment 130.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on amendment 137 following stage 2. Amendment 137 creates a statutory post-legislative review of the act, to begin no later than 10 years after the commencement of sections 8, 39, 52 and 78. It requires the Scottish ministers to consult regulators of legal services, consumers of legal services and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as part of that review, and it leaves the door open for other individuals and organisations to be consulted, too. Following the raising of concerns at stage 2 about the length of the review period, I have agreed with the minister that 10 years is an appropriate length of time and that it should begin from the commencement of specific sections of the bill rather than royal assent.

Post-legislative scrutiny is important; however, in the case of the regulatory framework for legal services, it is essential. That point was made by the Competition and Markets Authority in its stage 3 briefing, which urged

“regular statutory review to assess whether”

the act

“is meeting the needs of consumers”.

Many of the issues that arise in the regulatory system have occurred because so much time has passed since the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was added to the statute book. The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is therefore long overdue. The Law Society has been campaigning for change for at least a decade.

Given that the bill has been so heavily amended, there is a strong case, too, for ensuring that it is operating as expected within what is a fragmented legislative landscape, and that it serves the interests of consumers.

Stakeholders are widely supportive of a post-legislative review, which, I hope, will give all parties involved an opportunity to take stock and recommend further changes in the public interest.

Regulatory issues must not get lost in the weeds for years to come, which is why I urge colleagues to support amendment 137.

I move amendment 137.

I speak today on behalf of my constituents who rely on the energy sector for their livelihoods. The job losses at Harbour Energy are the tip of the iceberg. Why? Because the SNP and Labour are directly harming the industry with a presumption against new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and a punitive fiscal environment. Hostile left-wing politicians are presiding over the industrial decline of Scotland’s oil and gas sector.

Russell Borthwick of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce is right: if the SNP Scottish Government and Labour UK Government do not change course, recent lay-offs will be

“just a tiny fraction of what’s to come”.

The so-called just transition risks becoming a jobless transition. It will not be fixed by gimmicks such as Great British Energy. Even its chairman, Juergen Maier, said that it would take 20 years to deliver the 1,000 jobs that have been promised. That is an utter sham.

SNP ministers tout a clean energy future, but they will not even define what “clean” means, scaring off the investment that we need for an affordable transition. The SNP Government ploughed ahead with a ScotWind gold rush, selling off vast swathes of the sea bed on the cheap with no real plan for grid infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks wants to puncture our prime agricultural farmland and rural landscapes with monster pylons up to 230 feet tall, leaving residents feeling betrayed and disenfranchised. Their mental health is already suffering and they are fearing the health impacts, lost livelihoods and plummeting property values from the explosion of that new energy infrastructure. The bottom has dropped out of their world.

Farmers are ringing alarm bells over serious safety concerns about overhead lines and farming machinery.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will undertake a review of Historic Environment Scotland before the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-04643)

Just a few weeks ago, it emerged that Historic Environment Scotland was propagating that trans women are women. It had no policy regarding the provision of single-sex spaces and suggested that excluding people from bathrooms and changing rooms is transphobia.

When my colleague Rachael Hamilton demanded that the cabinet secretary intervene, the cabinet secretary said that it was

“an operational matter for Historic Environment Scotland.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2025; c 2-3.]

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment and the Parliament’s swift action to comply with the ruling, will the cabinet secretary stop washing his hands of the situation and ensure that the organisations that fall under his remit immediately comply with their legal obligations to women?

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

They are, rightly, worried about the loss of agricultural productivity and the impact on their businesses, the health and safety of their animals, the crop yield and overall food security. It is environmental vandalism, and this is just the start. It cannot be the vision of a so-called just transition. To rub salt into the wound, the SNP and Labour have been pushing to muzzle the voices of communities by removing the right to a public inquiry.

Countries such as the Netherlands and Germany are undergrounding cables to great effect and Denmark is developing energy islands to act as an offshore energy base. We undergrounded the pipes in the 1970s—why can we not do it again?

The Scottish Conservatives’ commonsense plans balance the needs of today and those of tomorrow. We recognise that we will need to use our oil and gas for years to come. We know that Scotland’s oil and gas workers and renewables ambitions can go hand in hand. That means scrapping the ban on new oil and gas production and embracing innovation in order to cut emissions while preserving jobs. It also means listening to communities and pursuing alternatives to monster pylons and huge substations.

I urge my SNP and Labour colleagues to see sense before it is too late.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the announcement that NHS Grampian has been escalated to stage 4 of NHS Scotland’s national performance framework for finance, leadership and governance. (S6T-02523)

This is not about taking pops. The deepening crisis in NHS Grampian is not just about board meetings and balance sheets; it is about people. A mother in her mid-70s, herself a nurse by profession, had a bad fall. Her husband spoke to NHS 24 and called 999, and an ambulance was eventually dispatched. He was advised that the wait would be four to eight hours. As she was drifting in and out of consciousness, her family took the difficult decision to lift her and drive to Aberdeen royal infirmary. Tragically, after they arrived, they were told that she would soon pass. Her family are shocked and are massively traumatised by what happened. Above all, they are haunted by how it happened.

We have had enough of the cabinet secretary’s excuses. He needs to know just how bad the situation is on the ground, so that families are not asking the same difficult questions. My ask, cabinet secretary, is for you not just to do visits that are pre-arranged. Will you please do a shift with an ambulance crew in Grampian—a shift that interfaces with accident and emergency—-and see it for yourself?

The Scottish National Party Government has repeatedly been warned about the perfect storm in NHS Grampian. Wherever we look, from waiting times to ambulance turnaround times, NHS Grampian is on its knees. That is little wonder, given that it has the lowest bed base in the whole of Scotland. A decade of chronic underfunding has put unsustainable pressure on national health service staff, and there are huge implications for patient safety. Just this week, front-line workers raised the alarm in The Press and Journal about patients dying and getting harmed because ambulances are still queuing for hours outside Aberdeen royal infirmary. Does the cabinet secretary finally accept that his Government has short-changed NHS Grampian for years?