Chamber and committees

Amendment 236 is linked to amendments in group 8 that remove the role of Scottish ministers from the process of acquiring and exercising the right to provide legal services. The amendment removes the involvement of the Scottish ministers in respect of any application enabled under section 31 by an accredited regulator to surrender its acquired rights. Amendments 238, 239, 242, 243 and 244 are consequential. Applications are to be made to the Lord President alone.

Amendment 240 inserts new subsection (2A) into section 30, making particular provision where an application is to surrender all of the regulator’s acquired rights. The consultation undertaken by the regulatory body under subsection (1A) must seek the views of the body’s authorised providers about whether a majority of those providers would like another regulator to authorise them to exercise and regulate their rights or to form a body and to submit an application under section 25 to seek accreditation to authorise them to exercise and regulate their acquired rights.

Amendment 245 provides that the direction-making power under section 30 is exercisable by the Lord President acting alone, rather than together with the Scottish ministers. Amendments 246 and 247 provide that those directions can be varied or revoked by the Lord President.

Amendment 248 makes changes to the conditions and process of granting an application to surrender some or all of the acquired rights, placing publication and notification requirements on the Lord President

Amendment 249 provides that, where all a regulator’s rights are to be surrendered, the Lord President’s notice may provide that the notice takes effect either when the regulator’s legal services providers are authorised by a new regulator or when the providers form a new body and that body becomes an authorised regulator.

Section 34, on revocation of acquired rights, allows Scottish ministers to revoke the approval of an application under section 29 when it appears to them that the body that made the application had failed to comply with a direction under section 33.

Amendments 264, 265, 266 and 269 reflect the shifting of the role to the Lord President alone.

Amendments 267 and 268 set out the notification, publication and consultation steps that the Lord President must take when they wish to revoke the approval.

The bill grants ministers the power to intervene by establishing a new regulator, transferring rights to another regulator, or, if necessary, assuming direct regulatory responsibilities themselves.

Amendment 270 transfers the responsibility and authority to the Lord President. In the new section that it introduces, powers are given to the Lord President to seek appropriate arrangements where an accredited regulator is a discontinuing regulator. That will involve consulting each authorised provider to determine, in particular, whether a majority of the authorised providers would like another regulator to authorise and regulate them. If the majority is in favour of another regulator authorising and regulating the providers, the Lord President, where the new receiving regulator is an accredited regulator or a body that has had an application granted under section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, can amend the regulatory functions of the receiving regulator to enable it to regulate the authorised providers of the discontinuing regulator.

In any other case, the Lord President can ask the Scottish ministers to make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to amend the functions of the receiving regulator. As noted with the previous group, the Lord President and the Law Society have welcomed these amendments.

I move amendment 236 and ask that members support the amendments in the group.

Amendment 236 agreed to.

Amendments 237 to 249 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32—Offence of pretending to have acquired rights

The Scottish Government recognised the differing views on the primary recommendation in Esther Roberton’s report, so it committed to seeking a wide range of views through consultation to inform the shape and extent of the reform. The bill takes a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of all stakeholders, and it has been shaped by the responses to the consultation. As I said in my opening statement, we have had to balance those differing views as we aim to modernise the regulatory system.

The consultation highlighted that views were evenly split between support for and opposition to the primary recommendation. However, it is important to state that there are many areas where there is broad agreement between stakeholders, such as the introduction of entity regulation, protections around the title lawyer, and improvements to the complaints system. It is agreed on both sides of the polarised debate that reform is long overdue and is needed through the bill.

The bill will require that regulators of legal services exercise regulatory functions independently of other functions and activities. By removing complaints handling from regulators, the bill reflects the position that 60 per cent of the respondents supported, retaining and improving the current position in respect of responsibility for complaints handling. It was considered important that the body that is responsible for setting the rules deals with conduct complaints in relation to failure to adhere to those rules.

The SLCC will remain the single gateway for all legal complaints against legal practitioners for consumers of legal services, with a limited exception. When a complaint is identified by a regulator, it will be able to investigate it immediately.

The bill will introduce a more efficient and flexible system to allow complaints to be dealt with more swiftly. The Scottish Government has given very careful consideration to which bodies should have responsibility for investigating conduct, services and regulatory complaints. Although there is general agreement that improvement is needed, there is again significant divergence in views on what that improvement should look like. I think that everybody appreciates the need to find a balance as the bill progresses.

The bill retains a multi-agency approach, but it introduces changes that will vastly simplify and strengthen the process to the benefit of consumers, practitioners and the bodies that are responsible for handling complaints. The bill establishes a new legislative framework that will allow the SLCC to design its own flexible and responsive complaints system. It is intended that a proportionate system will be created for processing complaints. The bill will also remove steps in the current system that slow down the investigation of complaints by allowing the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to raise a complaint and directly investigate it without first going through the SLCC in certain circumstances. The introduction of those new systems, as well as the new ability for the SLCC or the regulator to initiate its own complaints, will be hugely beneficial for consumers and practitioners alike.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission currently has a role in monitoring trends in legal complaints and making regulations with which the regulator does not have to comply. The bill will build on that in providing greater independent oversight of complaints handling by allowing the SLCC to set minimum standards in consultation with the regulators and the Lord President. That will ensure consistency and best practice in the way that complaints are handled and it will mean that consumers should receive redress as quickly as possible and that fewer complaints should reach the SLCC.

Setting minimum standards for regulators will also improve the experience for those who have a complaint to lodge and for practitioners. The committee heard evidence from Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, that that approach is best practice.

I appreciate that, in this part of stage 2, we are focusing a lot on removing ministerial powers and on all the legal aspects of the bill. In future sessions, we will consider how consumer interests are strengthened and improvements to the complaints system. The voice of the consumer will be placed at the heart of legal regulation by the expansion of the consumer panel’s remit. The panel will be able to make recommendations on, for example, client relation rules and price transparency. The introduction of the consumer principles will reinforce that, as the bill will require that the views of consumers are understood and taken into account.

I note the concerns that the Law Society raised in its letter of 17 January, in which it advised that the problems in the complaints system today are not because of who regulates but stem from complex, cumbersome and confusing processes that are required by statute. I have lodged a significant number of amendments that have been developed following engagement with the bodies that are involved in the complaints system, and they will streamline and deliver a more proportionate and flexible system to better serve legal practitioners and consumers. I will speak to those amendments when they are debated in subsequent groups.

I will address one of my concerns with Tess White’s amendments. At the moment, the Court of Session is responsible for the regulation of advocates, so we would undermine that court if we agreed to her amendments. That is just one of my concerns. However, I am very happy to discuss with Tess White before stage 3 how we can strengthen the consumer’s voice, which I am trying to do with my stage 2 amendments that we will discuss further down the track.

We do not have a timescale for that at the moment, because we are still engaging with all the organisations that are involved. It is a work in progress.

Would you like me to set out what the recommendations on the victim contact team were and what it should ultimately look like, even though I do not have a timescale at the moment?

Thank you for inviting me to attend this meeting to discuss the Government’s commitment to reforming the victim notification scheme—the VNS. I am aware that the committee took evidence last week on our intention to use the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to deliver the reforms to the VNS that require primary legislation, and I am also aware of the real interest and desire to ensure that victims’ needs are being met.

As the committee will be aware, through our engagement with the victims task force, the Government heard concerns from stakeholders that reflected the views of victims themselves that the VNS was not operating effectively, which is why we commissioned an independent review to ensure that the scheme was fit for purpose and that it could serve victims more effectively.

During the review, the chair, Alastair MacDonald, and the vice-chair, Fiona Young, undertook a considerable amount of engagement with justice partners, victim support organisations and victims. They also considered international examples of victim notification. The review report was published in May last year, and it contained 22 recommendations, some of which comprise several sub-parts, that were rooted in that substantial engagement.

The VNS is complex, and it covers three separate schemes. Two of those relate to the criminal justice system, both of which are effectively identified by the length of the offender’s sentence. The third scheme is for victims of mentally disordered offenders, which is the term that is used in the review. The review recommendations cover all three schemes.

Scottish Government officials engaged with justice partners and victim support organisations to discuss in detail the recommendations to inform and develop our response to the review, which was published in October. The Government agreed either fully or in principle with the majority of the recommendations, including the central proposal for creating a victim contact team.

Some of the review’s recommendations are aimed specifically at justice partners, some are for the Government and others are for the Government to lead in collaboration with partners. Taken together, we anticipate that the recommendations will require a mix of legislative and administrative changes.

At the time of publishing our response to the review, I made it clear that progressing the reforms is a priority for the Government, and that we would use the opportunity of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to ensure that the reforms that are needed to be taken forward through primary legislation could be done at pace. However, I acknowledge that that will be a new part of the bill, so I intend to limit the number of amendments to those that we consider to be essential for the legal underpinning of VNS reform.

I need to be clear that we are at the very early stages of reforming the system, building on the extensive consultation that took place with justice partners and victim support organisations after the review’s report was published, which informed our response.

Reforming the scheme is about ensuring that it works well for victims, and I am aware that the victim notification scheme can support victims only to a certain extent. It is not an absolute remedy for traumatic experiences. The concluding sentence of the independent review reflects that. It says:

“a human, trauma-informed and personalised process ... can go some way to help victims”.

Improving the VNS is part of our wider commitment to transforming how justice services are delivered, which includes putting at the heart of the system the voices of victims and a trauma-informed approach. The reforms will put the needs of the victims firmly at the heart of the notification scheme. By increasing the information that is available to victims, improving communication across justice agencies and making the system more accountable, we can ensure that the scheme continues to be as effective and trusted as possible.

Reform is about ensuring that the scheme works well for victims, which is, I think, what we all want to achieve. We share the vision in the conclusion of the review report, which, as I have already mentioned, is to have

“a human, trauma-informed and personalised process, which can go some way to help victims in their difficult situation”,

and we are committed to creating that with our partners.

Convener, I am pleased to be able to work on the bill with the committee and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. The bill will improve victims’ and witnesses’ experiences and strengthen their rights. I look forward to taking your questions.

At the moment, the VNS is formed of three schemes.

The victims of offenders who have been sentenced to more than 18 months of imprisonment have the right to receive information about the release of the offender, and some of those victims have the right to make recommendations when decisions are being made about release. That is referred to as the criminal justice VNS. As of 2 December, there are 3,057 victims on that VNS.

The second scheme involves victims of patients in the forensic mental health system who are subject to a compulsion order and restriction order. Those victims are similarly entitled to rights of information and the making of recommendations. That scheme is referred to as the CORO VNS. As of 2 December, 34 victims are registered on that.

Victims of offenders who are sentenced to fewer than 18 months are entitled, on request, to more limited information about the offender’s release. That is known as the victim information scheme—the VIS. Currently, 58 people are registered on that scheme.

A lot of organisations are involved in the VNS. It is complex, so I will give you some background: the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service plays a role at the start of the process by distributing registration packs to victims; the Scottish Prison Service sends written information to victims; the Parole Board for Scotland and the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland facilitate victim representations; and the Scottish Government sends written information to victims of mentally disordered offenders and also provides release information to the registered victims of offenders detained in secure accommodation. In addition, victim support organisations provide support and assistance to victims registered on the VNS and to victims who can request information under the VIS. Some victim support organisations also now have proxy rights to information.

I hope that that gives you some background in relation to all the organisations that are involved and with which the victim contact team will need to engage.

To go back to your original question, as we move to stage 2, we are not only considering underpinning the victim contact team. We are looking at including the CORO VNS in the standards of service, as set out in recommendation 2 of the review. We are looking at applying discretion to the list of relatives eligible to register for the scheme, as set out in recommendation 11, with that discretion applying across the three schemes. We are looking at children over the age of 12 being able to authorise an adult to receive information on their behalf, which would be done on a case-by-case basis, according to the child’s capacity and choice, as set out in recommendation 14, and that would also apply to all three schemes. We are looking at taking a power to expand the information available under the victim information scheme, as set out in recommendation 15. The power to amend the VIS would bring that scheme more generally into line with what is happening with the VNS. We are also looking at data sharing and a duty to co-operate in order to establish the victim contact team, which covers recommendations 17, 20 and 21 and would apply across all schemes.

In my opening answer to the convener, I had to explain how complex the system is, with all the different agencies that we must deal with and have conversations with. Whereas the report was published back in May 2023, the landscape in October 2024 was very different, due to the policy of early release of prisoners throughout the United Kingdom. We needed to engage with all the multiple organisations involved, but we also wanted to look at the policy landscape, which had changed significantly since March last year, and ensure that it was as up to date as possible. That is why we took our time and made our announcement in October.

I am not in a position to give you an exact figure for a victim contact team today. Indeed, as the work is on-going, it would be disingenuous even to give a ballpark figure to you today. Ultimately, the victim contact team will be budgeted for and it will be costed through the justice budget. If there are any costs arising from the amendments or the victim contact team as we reach stage 2, we will be providing a financial memorandum.

We deal with many victim support organisations, and we will be in discussion with them. I cannot confirm exactly who will be on the team; it is a work in progress. At stage 2, I will be giving you amendments with the full details.

In relation to how it is set up?

The main recommendation was about the victim contact team, which is why the amendments that will come in at stage 2—which are dry and technical—will be for the underpinning of the establishment of such a team; they will not themselves create the actual victim contact team.

There were other recommendations. I cannot share the exact amendments at the moment, but we are looking at including the compulsion order and restriction order victim notification schemes in the standards of service, as set out in recommendation 2 of the review report.

Convener, this is all quite detailed. Would you like me to go through it to give you a bit of an overview before returning to your question?