Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister and her official for that response.

Minister, you have said that 43 out of 48 organisations are smaller, advocacy ones. Are you saying that 43 organisations are not the larger ones—that they are more niche in those areas? We know that some organisations deliver on helping people from BAME backgrounds but that it sometimes does not come to light—they must prove that by giving their figures and statistics to the Government because their data is not collected. I know that because my domestic abuse bill was looking at the matter of certain data not being collected. The information on data is kind of bottom up rather than top down. How much does that affect your decisions, and are you saying that 43 out of the 48 organisations that are being funded are smaller ones and that there are five larger ones?

Thank you, minister.

Minister, it is good to hear that you are probing the other departments and the nine other ministers to make sure that they look at the intersectionalities and to make sure that other things are looked at, such as housing and how people who are victim survivors of domestic abuse need housing. That will be very different from day to day and for different people.

It is sad to see that we are going to have the budget debate this afternoon and that issue has not been reflected on fully. I do not know how much it has been reflected on. It would have been good to see something like this, to show that the Government takes it seriously enough to see that, if this happens, that happens. We cannot look at areas in silos any more.

It is good to see that you are doing the work and pushing it. I hope that you will push it more next year.

My stage 2 amendments to the bill are centred on the definition of legal businesses and how that definition is affected by the bill. When I spoke to representatives from the Law Society, they expressed concerns that the bill would make it difficult for certain businesses to operate in Scotland. The bill defines

“a legal business”

as being

“wholly owned by”

either

“solicitors, or ... qualifying ... individuals”,

but not a mixture.

The language in the bill makes no provision for any share of ownership being held by any registered foreign lawyer, which includes a lawyer who can practise law elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is why my amendments 549, 551, 552 and 554 would clarify that registered foreign lawyers can participate in, and own, a legal business “in combination with” solicitors.

Other amendments in the group also seek to improve the definition of legal businesses, which, as currently drafted, is not wide enough to cover ownership and employment outwith Scotland. Amendments 553, 555 and 641, in the name of Paul O’Kane, would build on my amendments by specifying that a law firm can be owned by a “combination of ... persons.” I am happy to support those amendments. I am also happy to support amendment 556, which would add to the list of what authorised legal business rules should contain.

I am happy to support Scottish Government amendments 271, 272 and 274 to 309, which will significantly remove powers of Scottish Government ministers to regulate the legal sector, and which offer clarity where needed.

I thank the minister for her engagement on the bill and for our meeting last week, and I acknowledge the amendments that she has lodged. However, after speaking to the Law Society, I believe that my amendments sufficiently clarify some nuances when it comes to the ownership of legal businesses. For example, amendment 549 clarifies that a “solicitor” could include a foreign solicitor. Section 39 does not make that clear, and nor does any of the other amendments.

Okay. In the light of what the minister said about discussing the matter with us before stage 3, I am happy to not move amendment 549. However, I wanted to put on the record those important points, which have not been clarified through amendments.

Amendment 549 not moved.

Amendments 550 to 552 not moved.

Amendment 273 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendments 553 and 554 not moved.

Amendments 642 and 274 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 555 not moved.

Amendment 275 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

Section 40—Offence of pretending to be an authorised legal business

Amendments 276 and 277 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Section 41—Rules for authorised legal businesses

Amendment 278 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 556 not moved.

Amendments 279 to 287 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Section 42—Authorisation rules

Amendments 288 to 295 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Section 43—Appeals in relation to authorisation decisions

Amendments 296 to 299 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 43, as amended, agreed to.

Section 44—Practice rules

Amendment 300 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 44, as amended, agreed to.

Section 45—Financial sanctions

Amendments 301 to 304 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Section 46—Reconciling different rules

Amendment 305 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

Section 47—Monitoring of performance of authorised legal businesses

Amendments 306 and 307 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 47, as amended, agreed to.

Section 48—Law Society of Scotland

Amendment 308 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1

Amendments 5 to 26 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

You will be happy to hear that this is my last question. What more can MSPs do to ensure that the Parliament is effective as a human rights guarantor? Earlier, you mentioned some of the monitoring stuff that you want to do. Would there be any benefit in your doing further work with members and committees? What planning should be in place to prepare for the next parliamentary session?

I would like to ask one more question. You mentioned the rights of women, the rights of people with a disability and the rights of people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The committee has heard evidence that it is sometimes challenging to reach out to and engage with certain communities, especially ethnic minority communities. Have you had any problems in that regard? You said that you did some work in that area. What gaps did you notice? What more can we—or you—do to reach out to those communities?

As someone who comes from a BAME background, I know that there are certain things that I would find it difficult to do—whether in a job or anything else—not only as a woman, but as a member of an ethnic minority living in a different culture. There are some things that you would probably take for granted that you do every day, but which I would find difficult because of the cultural aspect surrounding that. Could you shed a bit of light on that?

Thank you. Angela O’Hagan, you said that you spoke to the First Minister. You may not want to divulge what was said, but were your recommendations and your considerations well received? As you say, it is good that there was a debate on the report, but was it received well?

Good morning. Thank you for your opening statements and for all the information that you have provided so far.

I want to move on from my colleague Paul O’Kane’s questions. The state of the nation report provides an assessment of how civil and political rights are met in Scotland. In fact, the commission found that human rights failings occur across Scotland, specifically in places of detention and across rural communities. Extensive barriers were also reported in justice, which you have mentioned—you have talked about the monitoring. How has that report been received? What feeling do you get that the Scottish Government and public authorities are going to address those failings? You have mentioned the monitoring, but will they address those failings?