Seòmar agus comataidhean

And the SLCC? You mentioned discussions with the Law Society in relation to the amendment.

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 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 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.

So, safe homes, decent food and health and social care are still in your top priorities.

My final question is for Jan Savage. The SHRC’s annual report highlights evidence that, after experiencing violence,

“women’s experiences of accessing support are falling short of the national strategy and undermine Scotland’s compliance with international human rights obligations.”

Will you expand on that observation? How will the SHRC work to ensure that survivors of violence are not being failed by the Scottish Government and the system that is supposed to support them in their time of need?

Is it too late to do that now? We are late in the process. You met Shona Robison. Will we see a human rights overlay on the budgeting process?

I am nodding my head because, for three decades before I became an MSP, my role was to look at spend and whether it was delivering the intended outcomes.

It seems as though we go into this budgeting round with an intersectional disconnect. Again, I will quote Dr Hosie. She said in her evidence session to us that the Scottish Government’s approach to massive in-year spending cuts

“was not a very satisfactory process, and it was not transparent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 29 October 2024; c 40.]

Our committee has been looking at a number of issues. We know that a huge percentage of women with learning needs—90 per cent—have been sexually assaulted. We know that inoculation centres are centralised in rural areas, so we are not surprised that our hospitals are facing a huge issue with flu because people cannot get their jabs. We have mentioned the GP contract for maternity services, and Professor O’Hagan mentioned women giving birth by the side of the road. I have two more examples. We are aware that an increasing number of over-50s with hypothermia are presenting themselves in hospitals. Finally, there has not been a single conviction for female genital mutilation.

I appreciate that you are new to the role—thank you for this helpful session today—but what can we, as a committee, and the Scottish Government do more of to ensure that a human rights perspective is applied to, and overlayed on to, the budgeting process, given that that does not happen right now?

I will come back quickly on that point before I go on to my third question. On primary healthcare, under the 2018 general practitioner contract, rural areas are massively negatively affected. I raise that issue because of the huge number of practices that are closing, threatening to close or handing back their contracts. Primary healthcare is at the front end of our health and social care system. Do you have any comment on that?

Professor O’Hagan has indicated to the convener that she would like to come in. One of the issues that has been raised with the committee is legal aid, and we are considering the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. That issue is front and centre as well.

Convener, can Professor O’Hagan come in?