Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill: Stage 2
Item 4 on the agenda is stage 2 of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill.
I welcome David McLetchie and Michael Clancy. I understand that only David McLetchie will address the committee.
Yes.
I also welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry.
Section 1—Discharge of functions of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland
Amendment 1 is grouped with amendment 3.
I thank the convener for her welcome today. I declare my interest as a solicitor and accordingly as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I draw members' attention, as I have done previously, to my entry in the register of members' interests.
That has reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a member of the Law Society and a non-practising solicitor.
I should also declare an interest as a non-practising Queen's counsel.
That is the full set.
Amendment 1 relates to the limits of delegation. Before I address the amendment directly, I refer back to the committee's evidence-taking session and the debate in Parliament at stage 1, at which point I indicated to the committee and the Parliament that the council of the Law Society would produce a scheme of delegation to implement the powers that will be conferred on it if the bill is passed by Parliament. The committee asked whether the principles of the scheme could be made available for consideration by members before we got to stage 2. I understand that a paper outlining the principles of the scheme has been circulated to committee members with the papers for the meeting.
That is helpful.
I draw members' attention to page 4 of the statement of principles. It deals with the specific proposals on complaints handling, which was the primary focus of the committee's stage 1 report and was a focus of the committee's wider inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession.
Members will see from the statement of principles that, as recommended by the committee, the principle of 50 per cent lay representation on complaints or client relations committees is to be established under the new scheme. The principle of paying an honorarium to such members is to be introduced; that is also as recommended by the Justice 2 Committee. The power to determine the outcome of all complaints is to be delegated to committees of the Law Society; that is again in line with recommendations of the committee. There is to be an oversight committee—that function is currently performed by the Law Society's client care committee—to help to ensure that there is consistency in all aspects of dealing with complaints by the various complaints committees of the Law Society. I make those points on the record simply to draw members' attention to the fact that the points that were raised at stage 1 in the committee and the chamber have been followed up by the Law Society.
The paper is also now public so, if any other parties are interested, it is on the website with the rest of the documents and papers for today's meeting.
Absolutely. Before we get to stage 3, the Law Society intends to make available to committee members the detailed scheme that will put more flesh on the bones of the statement of principles on the complaints function, which has already been circulated.
Having dealt with the introduction, I will now consider amendment 1 specifically. The amendment is about placing a limitation on the power of delegation and, in particular, on the ability to delegate functions to individuals. The amendment is a result of a concern expressed during the consultative period by the Scottish Consumer Council about the delegation of functions to individuals and how that would be addressed.
The Law Society was also concerned that the preliminary and investigatory work of sifting the complaints that come to the society should continue to be done by society officials. Amendment 1 seeks to get the appropriate balance between the functions of committees that could not be delegated, and the functions of individuals. The amendment seeks to do that by making it clear that the decision on whether a complaint is valid and should be upheld, and on what action should be taken, can be made only by a committee and not by an individual. That would not preclude an individual employee of the society from doing the preliminary work or the reporter appointed by the society's committee from doing the preliminary investigation of the complaint. On the basis of that investigation, the committee would judge the complaint and thereafter determine an appropriate sanction.
The second part of amendment 1 takes cognisance of the fact that since stage 1, Parliament passed the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. It was passed on 5 February and is awaiting royal assent. That bill transfers to the Law Society functions that were previously exercised by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. Following the transfer, the Law Society will deal with complaints in relation to practitioners who were licensed for that purpose by the SCESB under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.
Amendment 1 seeks to make clear that the limitations on delegations to individuals in handling complaints about conveyancing and executry services practitioners are the same as those that will apply to complaints about solicitors. It will put the whole process on all fours.
Amendment 3 has been lodged as a result of the passage of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. It is designed to incorporate transitional provision to reflect the fact that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill will come into force only when a commencement order is moved, whereas the bill that we are considering today will come into effect once it has received royal assent. Therefore a transition period is necessary until both bills are fully in effect. That is the purpose of amendment 3.
I move amendment 1.
I am pleased to confirm that the Executive supports the amendments. They are necessary to anticipate the new regulatory responsibilities for conveyancing and executry practitioners that the Law Society of Scotland will acquire. David McLetchie referred to the transfer of responsibilities from the board to the council of the Law Society of Scotland on the board's abolition. The Executive is grateful to the Law Society for its willingness to take over those responsibilities.
The amendments will ensure that the council of the Law Society takes appropriate account of its new responsibilities. The council will also ensure the commencement of provisions that will coincide with the commencement of the relevant provisions in the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 is in a group of its own.
This amendment also reflects the passage of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill. In this instance, it is intended to align the aspects of that bill that are related to what are described in this bill as the excepted functions of the council. Those are in effect the council's rule-making functions, which cannot be delegated and remain the primary responsibility of the council.
The Law Society is taking over the rule-making function that the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board previously discharged. It is therefore necessary for consistency in relation to practitioners' licences, which were licensed by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, that that rule-making function again be an excepted function for the purposes of this bill. It is necessary to have consistency of treatment between the two professions. Those are first, the solicitor branch, for which the council of the Law Society is responsible, and secondly, the conveyancing and executry services practitioners for which the council will shortly be responsible when the Pubic Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill comes into effect.
I move amendment 2.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[David McLetchie]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.