Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. The McClure situation shows the necessity for justice reform to ensure that situations such as that at McClure’s do not happen again. I am aware of the number of families who are facing issues as a result of McClure’s going into administration. As MSPs, we will all have been contacted by constituents on that.

I cannot comment on individual cases, but the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to help to mitigate such situations. Such cases show the need for legal regulation that centres on the public interest and protection of the consumer. The bill will introduce the authorisation of legal businesses. That will bring benefits such as consistency in the way in which legal firms are regulated, with all entities having to meet the same high standards; and greater collation of data, which would enable the regulator and the legal profession to identify and address deficiencies early and take the necessary preventative action.

I know that this is a different bill but, as part of the process for my Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament—we have just had stage 2—I heard of the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees may have in administering trusts when a trustee who was appointed in their professional capacity is no longer a member of the profession. I therefore lodged amendments at stage 2 of that bill to ensure that that would not happen in future. With the justice reform bills that are going through, we can address situations such as that at McClure’s and prevent them from happening in future.

I do not believe that it is too complex; I believe that we are improving the system. Regulatory complaints already exist in respect of licensed legal services providers and the bill will extend that type of complaint to authorised legal businesses by the introduction of entity regulation. I do not believe that that is making the system more complex; I believe that it is simplifying the system for consumers to access legal advice.

As the committee has already heard, there were vastly differing views on Esther Roberton’s primary recommendation. That was backed up by a consultation that showed that views were evenly split between support and opposition to it. However, there are many areas where there is broad agreement between the stakeholders.

The bill takes a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver stakeholders’ key priorities. It requires that all legal service regulators exercise regulatory functions independently of other functions or activities and introduces greater transparency and accountability of legal services regulation.

On the whole, it was simply due to both sides—the legal profession and the consumers—having polarised views on the recommendation for an independent regulator that the decision was made not to go down that track.

Back in 2015, the Law Society approached the Scottish Government on the need for reform, and that is when Esther Roberton was asked to carry out an inquiry and produce a report. After the report was published, we saw polarised views from the legal sector and the consumer. I do not believe that there is any way that the bill could move forward with both sides on board 100 per cent, because there will always be a conflict between the legal sector and the consumer. It is about trying to find the fine balance between the two, so that we can bring in good legislation to improve things for the legal sector and for consumers.

The bill has a huge, long history that dates back to before I came into my post in April. There has been a lot of work by officials throughout the many years of the bill’s development, and the work is on-going. It has evolved, and we have to continue to listen. We know that opinions are polarised in some areas, which is why I am keen to listen to all stakeholders’ views. My officials and I will work collaboratively with all the stakeholders and the legal profession.

I know that the devil is in the detail and that it is not ideal for the committee not to have the detail of the amendments that we will lodge at stage 2. As Maggie Chapman said, however, the situation is unprecedented in that they will not be drafted by the lawyers until agreement is made with the legal profession, the Lord President’s office and the stakeholders. I am keen to share all the information with the committee as we progress, and to get agreement as soon as we are able to do so.

The committee has heard about the differing views on who should be responsible for regulation. However, there is broad support from stakeholders for the wide content of the bill. The introduction of entity regulation reform of the complex complaints system, the reduction in restrictions in respect of alternative business structures and the ability for bodies such as Scottish Women’s Aid to directly employ legal professionals to support their clients in court all represent significant improvements to the status quo.

I am afraid that I do not think that there would be any winners if the bill was not supported. The question is not necessarily about an alternative bill as such. As the committee is aware, no approach would completely satisfy all the groups. The bill provides a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities for all the stakeholders.

We hope to have the amendments agreed by the new year. I will share the information with the committee, but we hope for agreement in the new year.

I thank Miss Wells for her answer—sorry, her question.

Certain stakeholders, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, support the removal of a minimum ownership requirement entirely, while other stakeholders, including some legal firms, favour retaining the current rule of 51 per cent ownership by regulated professionals, so there was a divergence of views. In the response to the Scottish Government consultation, just over half—52 per cent—of respondents agreed that the 51 per cent majority stake rule for licensed legal services should be removed, compared with 48 per cent who disagreed. Some stakeholders have shifted their view on the issue slightly since the Scottish Government consultation, but our approach in the bill is to seek to strike a balance between the two views.

I will bring in my officials, as they have that history.

Yes, convener. The first section that has been highlighted with regard to ministerial powers is section 5, which allows for the regulatory objectives and professional principles to be amended to update them to reflect regulatory best practice. It was included in the bill in response to calls from stakeholders for a permissive and enabling framework of primary legislation that would be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the legal services market by allowing future amendments through secondary legislation. The Scottish Government will, however, accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the bill be amended to remove section 5, and we will lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

The next section is section 8, on the creation of a category system for regulators. It seeks to create an inherent requirement for flexibility to respond to any changes or proposed changes to how a regulator operates or in its membership numbers, and it is intended to future proof the regulatory framework. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the DPLR Committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove section 8 from the bill. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 8(5) are necessary to ensure that the bill accurately reflects any changes to the regulatory framework in respect of new accredited regulators receiving approval, any regulator ceasing to operate or a change in a regulator’s name, as recently evidenced with the name change of the Association of Construction Attorneys.

We will—