Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I begin, I thank Kaukab Stewart for her time as convener and congratulate her on her new role.

I thank all those who provided evidence to the committee. We are grateful for all the views that were expressed to us by representatives of consumer groups and the legal sector, including the senior judiciary. I also thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the wider team who supported us through stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and our report.

Reform of the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland has long been called for. Although it is not perfect, the bill seeks

“to introduce a modern set of regulatory objectives and professional principles, incorporating key aspects of the Better Regulation Principles and Consumer Principles.”

There was much discussion about the approach that is being taken to build on the existing regulatory framework rather than introducing an independent regulator, as was proposed in the Roberton report. As we note in our report, there is a sense that the framework that is proposed does not satisfy consumer groups or the legal profession. However, our role is to scrutinise the bill that is before us, so I will cover areas that are included in the bill.

Anyone who has been following our scrutiny of the bill closely will be aware that concern has been expressed by the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and the senior judiciary that some of the delegated powers that are proposed in the bill will have a significant detrimental impact on the independence of the judicial system.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee reported that it

“found it challenging to meaningfully report on a number of delegated powers in the bill”.

Its report reflected much of what we heard in evidence.

Although the minister indicated that the Scottish Government is engaging with the Lord President and others to lodge amendments at stage 2 to address the concerns, when it came to considering the general principles, it was unclear how different the bill might look subject to those amendments. On balance, however, and in light of the reassurance that the minister offered, a majority in the committee were content to agree the general principles.

We welcome the Scottish Government’s prompt response to our stage 1 report. We note that it contains a summary of the Government’s position on the DPLR Committee’s recommendations. However, should the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill, we are likely to require an extended deadline at stage 2 to be confident that the amendments are sufficient to allay the concerns that have been expressed.

The bill is very technical and detailed. The committee did its job by scrutinising what was before us at the time, and it is not for us to say what will be presented at stage 2.

I turn to other parts of the bill. There was a view among witnesses that the current complaints system is “slow” and “overly complex”. The bill seeks to simplify the complaints process, but the creation of two categories of regulators with different regimes might mean that a lot of complexity will remain. We recognise that it will be for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to establish its own rules on how complaints are analysed to determine whether they relate to conduct issues, service issues or both. That highlights the importance of annual reporting to help understand whether the operational mechanisms are robust.

The bill proposes changing the name of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to “Scottish Legal Services Commission”. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns that were expressed about how that might cause unnecessary confusion and it has indicated that it will amend the bill at stage 2 to retain the SLCC’s current name.

We heard broad support for proposals to update the rules on alternative business structures to increase the number of businesses and other bodies operating as such and to encourage innovation.

There were queries about how the ownership threshold figure of 10 per cent was reached, and the committee was not quite convinced by the rationale provided by the minister. The Government’s indication that it

“will bring forward amendments to remove the ownership requirement”

and that it

“will liaise with the Law Society to develop a greater risk based and proportionate system to the fitness test”

is therefore welcome.

We heard conflicting views on the proposal to change the route of appeal in relation to service complaints from the Court of Session to an internal review committee of the SLCC. The Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates considered that the right to appeal to court should be automatic, whereas the SLCC supported the introduction of an internal review committee. On balance, we were content that the proposed internal review committee process should provide a more proportionate approach and resolution that will benefit consumers and those who are the subject of a complaint.

The committee agreed that there is a perception that the term “lawyer” is interchangeable with the term “solicitor”. It is important that consumers are absolutely clear about what service they are being offered and by whom. We therefore support the proposal in the bill to regulate the term “lawyer”.

The introduction of entity regulation to regulate legal businesses as well as individual solicitors received broad support. The committee welcomes the potential benefits that that will bring for regulators and consumers as part of a modern regulatory framework. Concerns were raised by the Law Society about the special rule exemptions, and we welcome the fact that the Government is engaging with the Law Society to address those concerns.

This is a very technical bill, with a lot of detail to be considered. We acknowledge that parts and sections of the bill will need to be amended at stage 2. That could leave us with a different bill as we move on from stage 2 to stage 3, but many aspects of the bill are welcome and will help us to move towards a more modern and accessible regulatory framework.

I am quite confident in the committee’s ability to work on that as it takes the bill through the different stages of the process.

Many aspects of the bill are welcome as they will help us to move towards a more modern and accessible regulatory framework. That is why the majority of the committee agreed to the general principles. Should the Parliament agree to the general principles, we will scrutinise the amendments fully at stage 2 and, if we consider it necessary, we might invite additional evidence before formally commencing stage 2 proceedings.

Thank you so much. It is an absolute honour to serve as convener of the committee. I look forward to working with everybody over the next few weeks, months and—possibly—years.

We move on to questions from Annie Wells.

As there are no more questions, that concludes our business in public. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance, and we move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda.

We move on to Paul O’Kane.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I remind members to keep questions within the scope of the bill that we are scrutinising today. Kevin Stewart has a supplementary question.

Do members have any further questions?

We move on to questions, and I will kick off. My first question is about an issue that you touched on in your opening statement. What is the main purpose of the bill?