³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I make just a brief comment to thank the minister for her amendments in this group. She will be aware that this is one area that exercised many witnesses at stage 1, and I raised concerns about the need to strengthen and alter the provisions contained in these sections throughout the stage 1 process, as other colleagues did; I also did so in my meeting with the minister.

It is important that consumer protection is at the forefront of our minds in ensuring that unscrupulous individuals who seek to misrepresent themselves as lawyers or solicitors, or as holding the public office of advocate, are held to account, and that we ensure that there is a safeguard against their doing so. I believe that the Government’s amendments in the group will provide a solution to that and, indeed, to the concerns that we heard in evidence. I will support the amendments in the group.

My principal amendments in this group deal with the issue of registered foreign lawyers and the regulation of legal businesses therein. Much of the content and purpose of my amendments is similar to what Pam Gosal has outlined and relates to how we ensure that there is no detriment to businesses that are trying to operate in Scotland. For the benefit of the committee and the minister, I do not intend to repeat too much of that.

However, the issue of registered foreign lawyers more generally has been raised with me throughout the process. Although many come from qualifying jurisdictions within and beyond Europe, we must reflect jurisdictions in which relevant law firms provide legal services internationally and where many of their solicitors are in the UK, either in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. Evidently, there will be much cross-border work with Scotland, so we want to avoid a situation in which that would not be possible because of the definition of a registered foreign lawyer. It is important that we recognise that, and that safeguards are in place in relation to some of the issues that have been raised.

A foreign lawyer can be registered only if they are to be an owner of a practice where at least one other qualified lawyer is able to practise in Scotland. They cannot practise as sole practitioners or provide legal services that are reserved to those who are qualified in Scotland. I heard what the minister said about guidance. It would be useful to have those definitions in statute and to be clear about what we are trying to achieve.

As I said, Pam Gosal’s amendments are similar to mine but, on the basis of the advice that I have taken, I think that mine will move forward in the way that we are trying to advance. However, I appreciate that there is some duplication.

On the other amendments in the group, I recognise the minister’s offer to try to work together to look at how we might broaden the scope of regulation. I am happy to meet her on those issues ahead of stage 3 to see how we might further develop the bill, as we discussed earlier this morning.

More broadly, the minister has done important work through the amendments. I believe that the majority of the amendments in the group make good improvements to the bill, so I will support them. However, we need to be clear on the issue of registered foreign lawyers to ensure that there is no detriment, particularly on cross-border issues.

My amendments 543, 544 and 545 all seek to deal with the issue of waivers by leaving out the relevant sections of the bill. The powers contained within sections 21, 22 and 24 seek to provide for powers that already exist and are conferred under the 1980 act, with the ability to waive most of the existing practice rules. That is currently in force and is deemed to work well.

I have listened to what the minister has said and I am looking at the motivation behind the Government’s desire to make changes to the powers for special rules, but there is a lack of clarity in relation to concerns or issues that have been raised about waivers and how the system works at the moment.

Regulators that currently operate a waiver system go through numerous checks before a waiver is granted. Practice has been built up over many years of experience and is overseen by dedicated committees conducting due diligence on applications for waivers.

In understanding the concerns about the system that the Government is creating in the relevant sections, it is important to understand that waivers are requested and granted most often when that is of benefit to clients and there is a need to move quickly, which is the theme that has emerged from our desire that the bill help to speed things up for people who seek support and redress.

The bill might create a lengthy process that has to run through other bodies, including the Lord President and Scottish ministers, before a waiver can be granted. That might add to the system inefficiency and complexity that do not exist at present. I have not heard compelling arguments for introducing that system. Processes can add time and cost, and can be to the detriment of the consumer, who will bear the consequences.

There are further issues with the system that the Government envisages. In most cases, the system might not work if waivers are time limited, because a rule must either apply to situation and transaction, or it must not.

Additionally, waiver decisions often refer to an applicant’s personal information, which can be commercially confidential, such as information about operations or practice and what is going on in a business. It would therefore be difficult, at best, to publish waiver decisions, as is envisaged by the Government. At worst, having to redact them before they are published might consume significant time and resource. I come back to the argument about the length of time that it might take, when we are seeking a quicker process.

I am not convinced that there has been much evidence that the current system is broken or that it is being misused. Perhaps we should not seek to fix problems that do not exist. I hear what the minister has said and I hear her challenge to me, but I wonder whether, in summing up, she might say more about her position on special rules and consider what more we might do in that area.

That is what I was keen to explore next. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice spoke last week about moving from the discovery phase of the programme to day-to-day business. We know that policy innovations come along—for example, the announcement in the budget about the two-child limit and the delivery of a payment with regard to that. You are closing one programme and that has come along, so how do you intend to prepare for that? What do you think the challenges will be in trying to move to the business as usual space?

On building the system, we know that there has been a lot of debate and conversation in the past few weeks about the need for DWP to transfer data and the interaction between the two Governments. What is your role in that and what do you require to be prepared to build the system that will ultimately deliver whatever the policy intent is?

On the point about building capability, horizon scanning and preparedness, the Government policy on the two-child limit was sent to the Scottish Fiscal Commission a week and a day before the budget was introduced. When was Social Security Scotland made aware that it might have to deliver that innovation?

Good morning. David Wallace’s introduction was very helpful in setting some of the context. We are interested, first, in the operational challenges of taking on the remaining functions of the current programme. In particular, what progress has been made on reducing the risk score of bringing the project to its closure?

On the requirements that you listed, are you at the table and having those conversations now?

Good morning. I want to follow up on the commissioner piece that we have been discussing. The committee will seek to influence colleagues and help to shape some of what is looked at within that, and it is important that we give the various stakeholders the opportunity to do that. My sense, from the discussion, is that we want to take a broader look beyond the mechanics of commissioners and the financial implications. Angela O’Hagan’s points about the root-and-branch approach are important.

We have heard—because we have a duty to consider commissioners’ proposals, which often come before us—that access to justice is missing. We have touched on that already today. Do you want to see your piece of work on access to justice for everyone form the basis of conversations and recommendations within that wider piece of work? Do you want to highlight, on the record, anything specific in that at this stage?

That is helpful to the committee in thinking about how we engage. I am grateful.