Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 646, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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.

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.

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?