Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the back of the discussions that we have had, I am struggling to understand. There seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation here. We have had to take evidence on a bill that will be substantially amended. Minister, why did you think that it was appropriate for ministers to be directly appointed as a legal regulator? Why has there not been more engagement regarding the amendments? As Paul O’Kane rightly said, the devil is in the detail, but the committee does not know that detail and it seems that senior professionals in the legal field do not know that detail. If you had concerns back in August, when you were getting evidence in response to the call for views, why did you not begin engagement then? I feel that we are clambering around trying to find a way to scrutinise legislation that we will have to look at all over again when we come back after the new year.

I go back to the first answer that you gave. Do you think that where we are now is far removed from where you started in terms of your review? If you were to give any advice to the Scottish ministers at this point, would it perhaps be to relook at the original principles that you outlined?

I must admit that, after the line of questioning from Paul O’Kane, I am concerned about the current status of the bill. You rightly summed it up at the start by saying that the bill seems to have upset everyone. That is certainly true.

I am worried because we could end up having to heavily amend the bill, which would involve scrutinising the amendments that were forthcoming from the Scottish Government and engaging with all stakeholders involved. That goes beyond the legal side; it also relates to the consumer side, because the intention of the bill is to streamline the legal process to make sure that people can access it where possible.

I do not know whether you have any further comments on that, but I will put that aside and move on to the concerns relating to the independence between the legal profession, the judiciary and, of course, the Executive. Many concerns and arguments have been raised that, with the new legislation, the Lord President could be drawn into a collaborative Administration with the Scottish ministers.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the proposed powers for the Scottish ministers and whether there is any way of manoeuvring to make sure that the judiciary remains completely independent.

It relates to the powers that the bill, as it stands, gives to the Scottish ministers.

As it stands, the Parliament is scrutinising legislation that the Scottish Government itself intends to amend, and that aspect has been part of the discussion that we have had thus far. We are looking at the bill at face value, but we know that significant and valid concerns have already been raised, and we do not know whether the forthcoming amendments will make those in the legal profession more amenable to the bill.

I throw this question out there. Is there a risk that if the intended amendments are not forthcoming as soon as possible, the legal profession could lose confidence in the principle and direction of the bill? Given that we might have to invite witnesses back to re-scrutinise the amendments once we have sight of them, could that set back the implementation of the intended principles of the bill?

I wish to return to the complaints process and the complainer’s fee. We do not have that in Scotland, but it exists in other places, including South Australia, where I believe there is a complainer’s fee equivalent to £60, which is returned to the complainant should their complaint be successful. Given the pressure on the complaints system, and referencing the delays that were mentioned earlier, has anyone on the panel thought whether it would, in that regard, be better for the legal profession were we to proceed with the bill?

I am happy to throw that out to whoever would like to answer.

At the risk of starting a new debate, I will leave it there, convener. Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you very much, panel.

I will move on to the appeals process. Rosemary Agnew touched on it briefly in the previous tranche of questions. Under the bill, appeals against SLCC decisions would be made not to the Court of Session but to a commission review body of the SLCC itself. I wonder whether that could be seen as the SLCC marking its own homework. Would there be any impact on the independence of the appeals process? I am genuinely interested in that with regard to how we move forward.

Good morning, panel. I will stick with the complaints process aspect. There has been a lot of discussion so far about the complexities. At present, we do not have a complainers fee in Scotland. While I was looking ahead to today’s committee session, I looked at examples in other countries. In South Australia, there is a complainers fee of £60, which I believe is returned to the complainer if they are successful. Given the pressures in the complaints system, including the delays and complexities that have already been discussed with the panel, has the SLCC thought about or discussed such a fee? We probably already know what the cons might be, but what are the pros and cons? I will start with Neil Stevenson.