Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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.

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.