Official Report 193KB pdf
Item 4 concerns our predecessor committee's inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession and public petition PE763. The report of our predecessor committee on its inquiry was a good piece of work that made recommendations on the regulation of the legal profession. We emphasise that the report is not our report, but we have picked it up because it deals with many live issues and because we are continuing to monitor its recommendations.
In her letter to the convener of 5 July, which is attached to the papers, the Minister for Justice says:
The answer to that is no—the consultation has not yet been made public. We do not know when that will happen; we know only of the principle that there will be a consultation.
As a new member of the committee, it seemed clear to me from reading the available papers that the key hole in addressing the recommendations in our predecessor committee's report is in the area of new legislation. That is the key thing that will allow us to make progress; the other aspects are of relatively low importance. The committee can write to the Executive to encourage it to tell us when it will respond or we can wait until January to write a sniffy letter that says, "You havenae done it." I am quite open-minded about which option we take.
We need further guidance from the Executive on when the consultation is likely to begin, because it is central to what the former Justice 1 Committee recommended. However, I do not think that we should let either the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates off the hook. I suggest that we make further representations to them as outlined in the note by the clerk to seek further information on the work that they are doing. They have taken action, but not in a way that would allow us to say that the issue is closed.
I support that.
In summary, the committee wants to press the Executive on the timescale for the consultation. As Mary Mulligan and Margaret Mitchell said, that should not mean that we do not continue to press for answers from the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates. It might be open to the committee to consider having a meeting with them to discuss the general approach. There are many recommendations in the committee's report, some of which are complex, so we are talking about a major piece of work. We could choose one or two areas in which we want to see progress, such as compensation or some of the other areas in which the Law Society and the faculty have accepted that there needs to be change.
Once we have an indication of what the Executive is intending to do, we will be able to marry that with the actions that the other two bodies are taking to see whether we want to pursue other matters. We need to have all the information before we can make a final decision.
There is a danger that we will be working at cross-purposes unless we know exactly what is being consulted on and the nature of the consultation. We could end up either duplicating something or missing something entirely—I am not sure which would be worse.
I agree. Some of what the Consumers Association calls for in petition PE763 is the same as the recommendations that the previous Justice 1 Committee made. There is the additional matter of the Clementi review, which is about a legal framework in which to promote competition in the legal sector. I assume that the Executive will include that work in its consultation, but we have yet to have that confirmed. Do members want to say anything about the petition?
This is not on the petition. My understanding is that the Clementi report is not available yet. We are now no longer in the hands of the Executive, but in the hands of Sir David Clementi, who, I understand, should have reported by now but has not.
That is correct. He has not reported yet and is not due to report until the end of the year.
Is that the end of this year?
In the light of Bruce McFee's point, we would need to see the outcome of the Clementi review, when it is available, in conjunction with the consultation paper that the Executive will produce separately. We need to ensure that we are getting both bits of information at the same time. I presume that the Executive might want to include in its paper recommendations from the Clementi review, but we need to have that clarified. Bruce McFee is right that there are two separate publications—the consultation paper and the report of the Clementi review—but there might be cross-over. Do members want to meet representatives of the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland to discuss the matter? Would that be of use?
It might be useful, but we need to see what the consultation from the Executive is going to be, first of all. If we can time it in that way, that would be helpful.
We are really in the hands of the Executive, regarding when the consultation kicks off and what that might throw up.
Okay. That seems fair. Do we want to get an update from the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates on where they are on both of the issues?
The petition is currently open and on the agenda. Do members wish to keep the petition open or should we close it in view of the fact that we will pursue the issues arising from it in what we have just agreed?
I suggest that we leave the petition open. We do not know what will be in the consultation, so we do not know what will be addressed. If everything is properly addressed, we will have the option of closing the petition at a future date. It is sitting there, waiting like the rest of us for the consultation to commence.
Is anyone otherwise minded than to leave the petition open?
No.
Okay. That is agreed.