Seòmar agus comataidhean

I turn to my last, follow-up, question. We have talked about funding in the equalities portfolio. This point is about accountability and transparency. I have been told that one of your former SNP colleagues, Alison Thewliss, who appeared with you in a photo with banners saying “Decapitate TERFs” and who refused to say whether she accepts the Cass report, has been hired by Rape Crisis Scotland. If that is indeed the case, is that one hand washing the other? Do you recognise the concerns that Rape Crisis Scotland, as a Government-funded body—

That is my question—but if the minister does not want to answer it, I can address it separately. Thank you.

I am just about to get on to that. Bearing in mind that this is the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, there are two areas that I would like you to take forward, one of which has been raised by my colleague Maggie Chapman.

The first issue relates to NHS Grampian, which serves a huge rural area and has gone short of £0.25 billion in funding while the Scottish National Party has been in government. That is a huge issue and it is having a massive knock-on impact on the integration joint board.

The second area—the one that was highlighted by Maggie Chapman—is assessments for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In fact, I am not just talking about assessments; the fact is that people are waiting sometimes two years and sometimes five years, and they still have no date for an assessment. There is also a massive shortage of medication. The concern for people right now is that they go to their GP, who agrees that they need an assessment, but they cannot get one. The fear is that, with the massive shortage of medication, assessments are not going to happen—it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. That is a massive issue.

The national health service is in crisis, because of a shortage of funding. I have raised the issue of rural proofing again and again. Neil Gray did not recognise the figure of a quarter of a billion pounds, which actually came from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Then there is the huge issue that we have in the north-east of autism and ADHD assessments and medication. You told my colleague that you were happy to write on those areas, you say that you are having meetings and you have a toolkit, which is a good step forward—but, please, rural areas are in crisis, and money is being taken away from them.

I would like to go on to my next section of questions, which is on funding approaches. As my background is in business, I always judge people not on their words, but on where they actually spend their money. We have already talked about health. In September, you told MSPs—and I listened very carefully to this—that your

“fund manager, Inspiring Scotland, will continue to work with”

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s

“board as it implements the necessary changes ... recommended by Vicky Ling’s report.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2024; c 8.]

After that, however, in January, Rape Crisis Scotland U-turned on delivering a definition of “woman”—something that, as I am sure that you are aware, had been a key recommendation of Vicky Ling’s report. It means that women remain in the dark about which services are male free. Two weeks ago, you announced close to £2 million—I repeat: £2 million—from the delivering equally safe fund for the scandal-ridden Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland. My question is this: what oversight do you have of that situation, given the seriousness of the report’s findings and the fact that public money—this is important; it is taxpayers’ money—is being used to support those services? This evidence session is about transparency and accountability, minister, so I would like you to address the issue of accountability with regard to that spend.

And that is important. You know that my background is personnel and human resources. One of the biggest spends is staffing. There is also the matter of accountability and transparency. This is a very important matter, so if I can just finish.

I am just finishing, convener.

My understanding is that the reason for the SSI is an administrative error. That is why we are here to discuss it and vote on it if necessary.

I want to highlight something that came out in the submission from Citizens Advice Scotland to the Scottish Government’s consultation. CAS raised a big concern about rising court fees, saying:

“We have serious concerns about the negative impact of the proposed uplift in court fees on the realisation of the public’s right of access to justice, especially for those on lower incomes, those who are vulnerable and/or share a protected characteristic.”

I just wanted to put on record that feedback from CAS.

I get that, but I hope that you appreciate that people are scratching their heads when they find that money has been taken away from one thing, leaving them in crisis, but that money is still being spent on something else. You have shared with me that you are across the brief on that, and that the £2 million—

It is a Government-funded body, and it appears to be doubling down on its commitment to wiping out women-only spaces for survivors.

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