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 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.

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 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.

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.