For agenda item 2, the clerk has prepared a note that summarises the responses of the Scottish Executive and the Faculty of Advocates regarding the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations of the former Justice 1 Committee's report on its inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. As the note makes clear, the Executive intends to consult on the policy proposals that will represent its position on the recommendations of the former committee's report. We have various options to consider. I am sure that members will welcome in principle the fact that the Executive will consult on the previous committee's recommendations. Do members have any comments?
I welcome the fact that the Executive will carry out a public consultation, but the timeframe for the consultation is not clear. It would be helpful to ask the Executive to clarify both the timeframe within which it intends to publish the consultation document and the timetable for implementing its proposals thereafter.
I wanted to make that point, too. The first page of the letter from the Faculty of Advocates mentions the £5,000 figure and the five recommendations of the original committee report, but although the opinion that the faculty gives on those five recommendations mentions financial redress, the letter does not state that the faculty has accepted the £5,000 figure. Another issue is that the faculty's letter talks about increasing lay membership of its complaints committees and disciplinary tribunal to 50 per cent, whereas the original recommendation was for at least 50 per cent lay membership. Some clarification needs to be sought on those points.
I welcome the responses on the 2002 report. I am particularly encouraged that the Faculty of Advocates now has concrete proposals, such as the £5,000 penalty and the fact sheet to inform complainers about disciplinary rules. The Law Society has also moved on with concrete proposals, which should be in place in the near future. I am a little disappointed that we are looking only at future consultation from the Scottish Executive, as everyone else seems to have something concrete in place. I would have preferred more progress to have been made. However, I see no way forward, other than to accept the recommendation in paragraph 14.
I will summarise where we are. I think that the committee has agreed to the option in paragraph 14. We acknowledge that the Executive will be going out to consultation, but we want to clarify the timescale. Work that arose from the former Justice 1 Committee's report is in progress, so it would be fair to follow it through, as Stewart Maxwell suggests, first by writing to the Faculty of Advocates for clarification on three areas. We should seek clarification on the financial redress of up to £5,000, on the timescale for implementing the changes and on the 50 per cent lay membership rule.
I am pleased that the Law Society has informed us, even informally, that the joint complaints procedure has now been agreed. Now that the Faculty of Advocates, the legal services ombudsman and the Law Society have all agreed that procedure, we should ask for the timescale for its implementation.
We will have that clarified. Your other suggestion, which I forgot to mention, was to extend an invitation to the legal services ombudsman, Linda Costelloe Baker. That is a good idea because, independently of the recommendations in the former Justice 1 Committee report, we have been pursuing one or two issues ourselves. We could use such a meeting to make progress and to provide input into the consultation when it is called. Is that agreed?
Previous
Item in Private