Seòmar agus comataidhean

The provision is intended to ensure that an appropriate regulator is always in place to regulate authorised legal businesses, should there be no other suitable regulator. Such intervention may be necessary because the members of the regulator may be involved in an on-going court case that might be disrupted, or because of transactions that might put them into difficulty. To avoid that and to respond to it, the Scottish ministers may intervene to create a body to become a new regulator or have another regulator, such as the Law Society, step in to take over the regulation, or they may even regulate the providers themselves.

In relation to when the power could be used, the provision is intended as a measure of last resort in specific circumstances and only in the event that a regulator finds itself unable to operate. It is designed to cover situations in which a regulator of authorised legal businesses gets into difficulty, such as a financial collapse or as a result of regulatory failures.

Moving on, as I mentioned when we were discussing section 35, given the similarity of the measures in section 49 with those in section 35, we are exploring amendments that would bring them together in one provision that would maintain the power to take action in urgent situations but would transfer it to the Lord President.

It is considered that the newer regulators run the greatest risk of encountering circumstances that would render them unable to operate at short notice and create a need for the Scottish ministers to step in and ensure that their members continued to be authorised to provide legal services to the public while alternative arrangements are worked out. It was considered appropriate to separate those provisions from section 49, which also deals with situations of necessity in relation to any regulator, allowing the Scottish ministers to take action as a measure of last resort, while maintaining the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny and approval in advance of such steps. However, given the similarity of the measures in sections 35 and 49, we are exploring amendments that would bring them together in one provision that would maintain the power to take action in urgent situations, take it away from the Scottish ministers, and transfer it to the Lord President.

I will bring in Leanna MacLarty.

Yes, we have been having conversations, which are on-going. I will bring in my officials at this point.

Section 41(6) has been criticised by the Law Society as preventing it from regulating legal businesses in terms of non-legal services—for example, that could involve estate agents, accountants or tax advisers. That is not the intention of the bill, and we are working with the Law Society to ensure that the introduction of entity regulation is as effective and beneficial as possible. Currently, we are exploring amendments that will make that clear.

The power in section 41(2) gives the Scottish ministers flexibility to expand on the regulatory matters that will be covered by the regulatory rules in order, for example, to add clarity or address unforeseen issues. Currently, that will apply to the Law Society alone as the only category 1 regulator. However, if there were more than one category 1 regulator in the future and different regulators applied rules inconsistently in a way that would have a negative effect on consumers or competition, it might be beneficial to make regulations so that regulators took a consistent approach.

We have listened to the concerns and intend to lodge amendments that will narrow the scope of the power so that a change would be made in response to a request from bodies such as the regulators or the consumer panel. That would introduce a requirement for the Lord President’s consent and for consultation with regulators and the other bodies in respect of regulations under section 41(2).

No, we do not.

I will be happy to meet you.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief opening statement about the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. As set out in the delegated powers memorandum,

“The overarching policy objective of this Bill is to provide a modern, forward-looking legal services regulatory framework for Scotland that will ... promote competition, innovation and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective and independent legal sector.”

The bill seeks to implement a number of key recommendations from “Fit for the Future: Report of the Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation in Scotland” by Esther Roberton. That report’s primary recommendation of a single independent regulator resulted in largely polarised views from those in the legal and consumer landscapes. Despite that, there were many areas of broad agreement among stakeholders, including a common aspiration that any future model be transparent, open to public scrutiny and efficient, to ensure that justice remains accessible to all.

The bill is designed to take a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of all stakeholders. As the committee knows, for each and every bill, the Scottish Government considers carefully the rationale for the inclusion of delegated powers—for example, to provide flexibility and to be able to react and be responsive to future events without having to resort to amending primary legislation. Therefore, the bill seeks to take a proportionate approach to what is provided for in the bill and what is provided for by way of delegated powers.

That said, I accept that certain delegated powers in the bill have caused concern among some stakeholders. Therefore, having reflected carefully on our discussions with stakeholders, including the senior judiciary, I intend to lodge amendments at stage 2 to address concerns about the role that the bill would give to Scottish ministers. On 27 September, I wrote to the lead committee, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, to inform it of my intentions, and I provided further information on 27 October.

I reiterate that the Scottish Government has committed to continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders in respect of the reforms and throughout the passage of the bill. I am happy to take any questions.

We recognise the importance of, and commit to maintaining, the regulatory objectives and professional principles. In order to strengthen the safeguards, we intend to introduce amendments that would require the Lord President’s consent to be gained before any changes are made to the regulatory objectives or the professional principles, or to how they apply. We are also considering amendments that would limit the scope of how any such changes may be sought by limiting that to being done only at the request of certain bodies, such as the regulators or the consumer panel of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

The regulation-making power is an important mechanism to future-proof the regulatory framework, in recognition of the fact that regulatory best practice may change over time. Since the introduction of the regulatory objectives and professional principles under the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010, it has become apparent that they can be strengthened by the inclusion of consumer principles and better regulation principles, as recommended by Esther Roberton. The Scottish Government also views the human rights principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality—the PANEL principles—as an important addition.

In the next 10-year period, it may become apparent that further refinement is required; therefore, the bill allows for such flexibility. It is possible that the consumer principles or the better regulation principles will be updated in the next decade, and we would wish the bill to respond to any such changes. That happened in the eight years between the introduction of the legislation and Esther Roberton’s report, when there was a need to update the objectives and principles.