Legal Services (Scotland) (Bill): Stage 3
We come now to stage 3 proceedings on the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the revised marshalled list and the groupings, which I have agreed as Presiding Officer. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division. The period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, we will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate, and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—Regulatory objectives
We come now to consideration of amendments, starting with group 1, on regulatory objectives, et cetera. Amendment 1, in the name of the Minister for Community Safety, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6.
I can say without fear of contradiction that this will be a very long afternoon. I am grateful, however, to my colleagues in various parties with whom discussions have taken place, especially over the past fortnight, which I hope will help to smooth proceedings to some extent this afternoon. For that I thank them all.
Amendments 1 to 4 are drafting amendments that adjust some ordering in the lists of regulatory objectives and professional principles in sections 1 and 2 in order to keep things that were added at stage 2 within the structure of those sections, but without changing their effect.
Amendments 5 and 6 ensure that the requirements that are placed on the Scottish ministers to act in a way that is compatible with the regulatory objectives and to consult in relation to their functions under part 4 do not extend to their functions under sections 96(c) and 98A(1). Those functions are not of the same regulatory character as the Scottish ministers’ other functions in the rest of part 4, as they relate, respectively, to receiving information from the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to making orders under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. It would not be appropriate to require the Scottish ministers to be bound by the regulatory objectives or to consult in relation to those functions.
I move amendment 1.
I concur with the minister. It will be a lengthy afternoon, but matters have been facilitated and truncated to some extent by the discussions that have taken place, which is to everyone’s benefit.
The amendments in group 1 are straightforward. It is important that “the interests of justice” are set out as the primary aim.
One might have thought that amendments 3 and 4 were unnecessary, given that I think that all members would expect any solicitor or legal practitioner to treat their clients’ business as confidential. That should be regarded as a principal requirement. However, it does no harm to stipulate it in the bill.
Amendments 5 and 6 demonstrate the Government’s view that amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 in section 96 and to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 in section 98 do not sit comfortably with the regulatory requirements that are outlined in sections 4 and 4A. After consideration, I concur that there is merit in that view. The Government is correct to amend the bill in that regard.
We thought carefully about whether it was necessary to make explicit in the bill a duty of confidentiality. Members such as Mr Brown and me, who were practising solicitors in a former life, have the duty of confidentiality to clients ingrained in our DNA, so at first sight it appeared that the duty was so basic that it did not require to be explicitly incorporated into legislation.
However, there is the obvious fact that the bill sets out and makes explicit the other duties, principles and objectives. Therefore, it occurred to us that to omit the duty of confidentiality might be regarded by some people as a failure to make clear that there is such a duty. That is why we lodged amendments 3 and 4. I am grateful that they appear to enjoy support in the Parliament.
We move to the question. I remind members that if they do not agree to an amendment they should make it very obvious that that is the case.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 2—Professional principles
Amendments 3 and 4 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Ministerial oversight
Amendment 5 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 4A—Consultation by Ministers
Amendment 6 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Approved regulators
Group 2 is on limit on the number of approved regulators. Amendment 121, in the name of Richard Baker, is grouped with amendment 152.
Regulation has been at the heart of the debate on the bill. We have considered how to ensure that there is a robust regulatory regime in order to enable the new alternative business structures to work effectively and to ensure that they are properly regulated. The need for robust regulation is clear if we are to ensure that the provisions on access to legal services and fit and proper persons in relation to investors work.
Ministers did not support the idea of a legal services board such as has been established in England and Wales to oversee regulation, but suggested that it will be sufficient for there to be a small number of regulators. Indeed, they said that they expect only the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to apply.
On that basis, I hope that amendments 121 and 152 will not cause difficulty for the minister. It is important to allay concern that the bill could allow for a multiplicity of regulators. If it transpired that a significantly larger number of regulators than two or three were to be appointed, there would be legitimate concerns about consistency and uniformity of regulation in all parts of the legal services industry. Some regulators might be less stringent than others, and the context would be one in which only limited funds were available to support regulation.
To address the matter, I suggest that we limit the number of regulators to no more than three. However, I understand that the new approach to the legal services industry will develop all the time, so I have sought to give the Scottish ministers the ability to approve additional regulators by statutory instrument, should there be a good argument for their doing so. The approach would give the Parliament the ability to take a view on whether it would be appropriate to appoint a larger number of regulators. That is a more robust approach to developing the regulatory framework than an approach that simply works on the assumption that only two bodies will apply. On that basis, I hope that the minister and members will support amendments 121 and 152.
I move amendment 121.
14:15
I concede that Richard Baker’s argument contains a degree of logic, but we are to some extent talking in a vacuum, in that the number of potential regulators is very restricted. I cannot imagine that there would be more than two: the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. We will not see potential regulators queuing outside St Andrews house to lodge applications if the bill is passed at decision time. Even if that were to happen, I do not think that the Scottish ministers would appoint an unnecessary number of regulators. I question the necessity of amendment 121, and, consistent with lines that I have taken in the past, I do not believe that we should have unnecessary things in legislation.
I agree with Bill Aitken. Amendment 121 is interesting, but it does not fulfil a purpose. I am not a fan of the principle of regulatory competition, which in a small jurisdiction such as Scotland is a bit of a nonsense. Legal firms and firms that provide legal services should be regulated by the Law Society of Scotland. That is not the framework that the bill sets out, but it is difficult to conceive—as Bill Aitken rightly says—of anyone else materialising as a regulator; ICAS is perhaps the only possibility.
The one body that I would not want to be allowed in is the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales. That is not for nationalist or protectionist reasons, but because it could sound the death knell of the independent profession in Scotland. I understand that the authority is not statutorily empowered to be a Scottish regulator as such, but I hope that the minister can assure us in his reply that any necessary steps have been or would be taken to prevent that situation from arising.
There is neither magic nor logic in restricting the number of regulators to three, as Richard Baker’s amendment seeks to do, particularly if that can easily be changed under the second part of the amendment. I oppose amendment 121.
Sections 5 to 35, in part 2 of the bill, deal with the provisions on approved regulators, as part of a peculiarly Scottish approach to the issue. As Robert Brown mentioned, a different approach has been taken south of the border, which involved setting up a body that requires staff and premises and is costly to run; the costs extend to several million pounds.
The system that the Government has set out in the bill avoids that expense: the expense detailed in the financial memorandum, to which I will come in a moment, is relatively modest in comparison. We will not go down the route that has been taken south of the border, although, to take up Mr Brown’s language, to characterise that body coming in as sounding a “death knell” is unduly cataclysmic and not in keeping with the usual moderation that we expect from the Liberal Democrat approach to politics.
Turning to the text of amendment 121, one reason for opposing it is that there should be no impediment to appropriate “professional or other” bodies, to which section 5(1) refers, seeking to be regulators. Nonetheless, having reached this stage, it does not seem that there will be a long queue waiting outside St Andrews house, Drumsheugh Gardens or anywhere else to take on the role. It is difficult to see how there could be any regulatory competition, because it is hard to see how any financial gain could be made; that is a new Liberal Democrat oxymoron that has been brought into the debate today.
I therefore see no reason to oppose Richard Baker’s amendment, because it provides for no more than three regulators and we do not expect at present that there will be more than three, although if there are that can be dealt with under the second part of amendment 121.
For that reason, in the interests of following a consensual approach whenever possible in relation to the bill, and in light of the arguments that Mr Baker put to me in private in a series of meetings—
Members: Oh!
With his colleagues, I hasten to say. For those reasons, we are happy to support the amendment.
I call Mr Baker to wind up. I can give you only one minute, I am afraid.
I will not need it, Presiding Officer.
Suffice it to say that I welcome the minister’s support for amendment 121. It will allay any potential concerns about the regulatory framework. I acknowledge the points that Bill Aitken and Robert Brown made, but I think that they are working on the basis of supposition. Amendment 121 gives certainty, and I am pleased with the minister’s comment that we can proceed on that basis.
The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, there will be a five-minute suspension.
14:20
Meeting suspended.
14:27
On resuming—
Now that everyone is in the chamber, I remind all members that when we come to any vote, it is up to members to let the Presiding Officer know when they do not agree with the question that has been put. The question was that amendment 121 be agreed to. It was not agreed to, so there will be a division. Please vote now.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 29, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 121 agreed to.
Section 6—Approval of regulators
Group 3 is on approval and conditions etc. I must exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to extend the first time limit to allow those who have a right to speak to do so. In this instance, I am afraid that that applies only to the minister.
Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 8 to 20 and 76 to 79.
Following various amendments at stage 2, section 6, which provides for the approval of regulators, was left in a slightly confusing and inconsistently drafted state. Amendments 7 and 9 to 18 seek to improve the drafting and to ensure internal consistency in the section without overturning the effect of Opposition changes that were made at stage 2.
Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that potential approved regulators have an understanding of the application of the regulatory objectives and professional principles, rather than just an understanding of the objectives and principles. Amendment 19 is a drafting amendment.
Amendment 20 seeks to correct an omission at stage 2, whereby the bill does not provide for the restrictions relating to the categories of licensed provider or legal services to be varied.
Amendments 76 and 78 seek to remove the requirement for the Lord President’s consent to be given in relation to the certification of applicants as approving bodies of confirmation agents, and to the addition or variation of conditions that are attached during that process. I resisted the amendments at stage 2, and noted that Robert Brown was, in his words, slightly less than convinced that the area requires the Lord President’s involvement. Although I am not seeking to reverse the similar requirements that have been inserted into part 2, I maintain that the Lord President’s having such a role in relation to confirmation agents is unnecessary. Furthermore, the Lord President has indicated that he has no strong views in relation to his role under part 3, as opposed to part 2. The Lord President noted that there is no requirement for his consent in respect of the regulation of non-lawyer will writers, so removing the requirement for confirmation agents is consistent with those provisions.
Amendments 77 and 79 are drafting amendments.
I move amendment 7.
14:30
As I explained, there is no time to allow other members to speak.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Does any member object to the minister moving amendments 8 to 20 en bloc?
I object to amendment 8 being moved with the others.
Amendment 8 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 102, Against 15, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments 9 to 16 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 6
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Authorisation to act
Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Regulatory schemes
Group 4 is on compensation arrangements. Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 25, 27, 27A, 27B, 28, 28A, 29, 86, 135, 88, 136 and 89. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information that is given on the groupings.
Amendments 21, 25, 27, 28 and 29 relate to compensation arrangements for licensed legal services providers. At stage 2, there was broad agreement that clients of licensed providers should be given the same protection against fraud as the Scottish solicitors guarantee fund gives to clients of traditional law firms, and that that is one of the most crucial issues to resolve if alternative business structures are to be successful. However, following stage 2, the bill did not fully provide for a compensation fund for licensed providers because of the defeat of certain Government amendments following concerns that were expressed by the Law Society of Scotland about the use of the guarantee fund by licensed providers that it did not regulate.
I committed to discussing the matter with the Law Society during the summer and I am glad to be able to report that those discussions were extremely constructive. The Law Society of Scotland is now content for the guarantee fund to be used by other approved regulators as long as it has an oversight role and can inspect licensed providers in certain circumstances.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland is the only other body that has thus far expressed an interest in becoming an approved regulator, and it is also content for the Law Society to have the role.
I have therefore lodged amendments 21, 25, 27, 28 and 29, which will require approved regulators either to establish their own compensation fund or to use the guarantee fund. I have also lodged amendments to give the Law Society a monitoring and inspection role in relation to the guarantee fund, which will be discussed in a later group of amendments.
My amendments requiring approved regulators to choose the guarantee fund or to set up their own compensation fund apply equally to all approved regulators. However, Robert Brown’s amendment 27A would exclude the Law Society from the provisions and makes specific provision for it that includes denying it the option of establishing an alternative compensation fund. I do not fully understand the rationale behind the amendment and see absolutely no reason for making separate provision for the Law Society when the general provisions are fit for purpose.
Robert Brown’s amendment 27B is also unnecessary. In addition, I do not think it appropriate to state in the bill what details must be supplied to the Law Society; instead, I intend to set out any necessary details in regulations that will be made under proposed new subsection (2) of my amendment 29.
Robert Brown’s amendment 28A would require the Law Society to make rules requiring its licensed providers to make contributions to the guarantee fund. My amendment 28 already requires that approved regulators that choose to use the guarantee fund make rules requiring their licensed providers to make contributions to it. Amendment 28A would be necessary only if the Law Society were treated differently from all other regulators.
It is vital that the clients of licensed providers have the same protection against dishonesty as the clients of traditional firms. Our provisions are designed to achieve that. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that those arrangements, which allow a licensed provider to use the guarantee fund, do not extend to the provision of non-legal services, such as accountancy, that are provided by a licensed provider. That would put a disproportionate burden on the guarantee fund and would not be consistent with its purpose. Therefore, amendment 86 ensures that licensed providers are covered by the guarantee fund only in connection with their provision of legal services. Amendment 88 is consequential on that change.
I am afraid that I must hurry you, minister.
Bill Aitken’s amendment 135 would extend the list of persons to whom grants cannot be made. I will listen with interest to what Mr Aitken has to say on his amendments 135 and 136. Since my time is short, I will foreshorten the four remaining pages of my speech. I am bound to say, though, that there are difficulties of a technical nature regarding the amendments that would, I fear, cause problems.
I move amendment 21.
As has been said, section 8 relates to the compensation arrangements and the Law Society’s guarantee fund. In principle, it seemed to me entirely wrong that the Government should require the Law Society to give access to the benefits of a fund that has been built up by the contributions of solicitors, with some millions of pounds in it, to other entities over which the Law Society has no regulatory power. I was surprised that the Law Society did not seem to be prepared to defend against that proposition further.
I do not understand why the minister does not understand amendment 27A. The Law Society already has a guarantee fund arrangement and does not need to set up another one to deal with any new bodies that it might regulate beyond the existing ones. Therefore, the intention is, under the section that amendment 27 would insert, to disapply the other arrangements because neither option A nor option B would be appropriate to the Law Society. Amendment 28A is a consequential amendment.
Amendment 27B covers the other situation, in which an outside regulator opts to access the guarantee fund. It seems entirely reasonable that the Law Society should be notified of that before the entity is licensed, leaving it to make such further inquiries as are reasonable.
I am sympathetic to Bill Aitken’s amendments 135 and 136, which seem to narrow matters down sensibly and to provide the cover that the guarantee fund is intended to provide. An obvious and equitable arrangement seems to be being proposed in that regard.
The minister is correct in stating that all members are concerned to ensure that, when things go wrong, clients have an opportunity of a recovery. My amendment 135 requires a bit of further explanation and an answer from the minister. It appears that the minister is of the view that amendments 86 and 88 deal with the issue. However, under amendment 135, there would be a greater provision for a grant from the guarantee fund, which may not be made to compensate a licensed provider, or investors who control the licensed provider, for dishonesty by the licensed provider. Clearly, we cannot allow a situation to arise in which people benefit from their own dishonesty. If the minister is able to convince me that his amendments deal with the matter, I will not move amendment 135.
Amendment 136 would insert a provision into section 43 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to ensure that a claim on the guarantee fund can arise only in the event of loss from dishonesty when the licensed provider is providing legal services. On the face of it, I consider that to be more comprehensive than the Government’s amendment 86, but I am open to persuasion in that respect, and will listen to the minister’s summing-up speech carefully.
I agree with Bill Aitken when he stresses the importance of the guarantee fund, and I recognise the work that the minister and the Law Society have done to improve the bill as it has proceeded to stage 3 by ensuring that the guarantee fund and the compensation fund are in place in relation to wholly owned solicitors and licensed legal services providers. Obviously, the Government amendments seek to effect that.
On Robert Brown’s amendments, I am sympathetic to amendment 27A. It is entirely logical that, as the Law Society currently operates the guarantee fund, it would not need to choose between option A and option B. Similarly, on amendment 27B, it is appropriate that the Law Society should be advised by licensed providers about whether they are opting for the guarantee fund or the compensation fund. It has to understand the position if people are applying to access the fund. I am also sympathetic to amendment 28A, which makes it clear that the Law Society must produce rules to clarify how licensed providers would make contributions to the guarantee fund. Clearly, we are entering a new set of circumstances, and the amendments would bring greater clarity.
Bill Aitken’s amendments 135 and 136 would provide extensions to cover licensed providers and put in place a formal link to legal services. I am sympathetic to the amendments, but will listen to what the minister says in his summing-up speech.
On Robert Brown’s amendments, I point out that the guarantee fund is not the Scottish solicitors guarantee fund—it is a statutory fund. It is perceived to be the solicitors fund, but it was set up by statute for Scotland. Therefore, it would be wrong for the bill to make separate provision for solicitors as a regulator as opposed to any other regulator. There must be a uniform system.
I can assure Bill Aitken that there is no question of anyone benefiting from their own dishonesty by virtue of the provisions of the bill: quite the opposite is the case. The bill contains a robust regulatory regime that will ensure that any such conduct is most stringently dealt with.
My answer to Bill Aitken’s advocacy of amendments 135 and 136 is that they are not necessary, because the matters that they deal with are dealt with and fully covered in my amendments. Amendment 86 will limit the use of the guarantee fund to losses that are suffered by reason of dishonesty on the part of licensed providers. Amendment 136 would essentially have the same effect, but my amendment 86 will insert the provision in the correct place in the bill. In addition to that technical argument, there is a substantive argument, which is that Mr Aitken’s amendment 136 refers to those who manage or control a fund having given an “irrevocable undertaking” that, in the event of a grant being made out of the guarantee fund, they will reimburse the Law Society the amount that was paid out. It has not been made clear at all why such an amendment to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 is thought to be necessary, as no equivalent provision is present in that act in relation to solicitors or incorporated practices. Because of that, I feel that there are ambiguities and uncertainties in the amendment, although I entirely accept Mr Aitken’s aims and purposes.
I respectfully invite Mr Brown and Mr Aitken not to move their amendments.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
14:45
Group 5 is on areas where the Lord President’s agreement is required. Amendment 22, in the name of the minister, is grouped with the amendments 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40 to 42, 122, 58, 60 and 117.
As I mentioned earlier, I do not intend to seek to overturn the stage 2 amendments to the bill that require the Lord President’s consent before the Scottish ministers can take various actions under part 2. However, my amendments in group 5 will make slight drafting changes to the provisions. In particular, they will require the Lord President’s “agreement” rather than “consent”. That is more appropriate wording in the context of the primary role for the Scottish ministers, but it does not change the intended effect. In my view, the provisions are also worth restructuring a little for the sake of readability.
Robert Brown’s amendment 122, which is supported by James Kelly, relates to the step-in powers in section 35, which allow the Scottish ministers by regulations to create a body to act as an approved regulator, or to act as one themselves if that is necessary for the continued effective regulation of licensed providers. Before stage 2, the Justice Committee and the Law Society raised concerns about those powers and when they might be used. That was absolutely appropriate. Consequently, I lodged an amendment that provided that such regulations are not to be made unless ministerial intervention is necessary as a last resort. That clarification was provided in order to respond to the committee’s clear invitation and, indeed, to the cross-party arguments on the matter.
As I stated in relation to a similar amendment at stage 2, I question the need for the Scottish ministers to be required to have the Lord President’s consent before taking action. Stepping in would be a matter of last resort in accordance with the regulatory principles. The key argument is that it might require to be done very quickly in an emergency situation. We are talking about a last resort. The situation is unlikely to occur, but if it did, it would be an emergency. In an emergency, one needs to act quickly. I therefore have some concerns about amendment 122, but of course I will listen to what Mr Brown has to say.
I move amendment 22.
I call Robert Brown to speak to amendment 122 in a minute and a half, if he can.
I will be quicker than that.
I am not sure that the minister explained the workings of section 35 correctly. What we are talking about is the making of regulations rather than the stepping-in per se. The process of making regulations would take a certain amount of time in any event, so I am not overly persuaded by that point. When we are dealing, as we are in other sections, with a body that becomes an approved regulator, with what happens in that context, and with the step-in by ministers, it seems to me that, in principle, the arrangements surrounding that ought to be at least partly the responsibility of the Lord President, who should therefore be involved in the decision-making process.
I am not impressed by the point about speed, which arises after the regulations have been made when step-in occurs, rather than at the time of making the regulations.
After consideration at stage 2, the committee felt that it was appropriate for ministers to have step-in powers to create a regulator of last resort in appropriate circumstances. I support Robert Brown’s amendment 122, which would give the Lord President a say in that process. On the minister’s point about speed and emergencies, we live in a modern technological age, when people are available via mobile phones, e-mail, the internet and so on. We can quickly contact people on the other side of the world, so it is surely not beyond us to get hold of the Lord President when he is only on the other side of Edinburgh.
I listened carefully to what Mr Brown and Mr Kelly said. In the light of their arguments, and given that the bill elsewhere—indeed, throughout part 2—provides a role for the Lord President and requires him to be approached for his agreement, in the interests of both consensus and verisimilitude, I will accept the course of action that is proposed.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Section 9—Reconciling different rules
Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 14—Practice rules: general
Amendment 25 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 17—Performance report
Group 6 is on references to licensed legal services providers. Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 32, 43, 44, 47 to 49, 56, 57, 65 and 69.
All the amendments in the group are minor drafting changes that will abbreviate the term “licensed legal services provider” to “licensed provider”.
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
After section 19
Amendment 27 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
Amendment 27A moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 27A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 57, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27A disagreed to.
Amendment 27B moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 27B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27B disagreed to.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
Amendment 28A moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 28A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 57, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28A disagreed to.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 22—More about governance
Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Assessment of licensed providers
Amendment 32 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 25
Group 7 is on the Law Society’s inspection role etc. Amendment 33, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 34, 35, 38, 39 and 137.
During stage 2, the Law Society expressed concerns about plans to allow licensed providers that it does not regulate to contribute to and be covered by the guarantee fund. I suggested that giving limited monitoring and oversight functions to the Law Society may provide some comfort, and had extensive discussions with it over the summer to resolve that important matter. Those discussions were useful in setting out what that role should involve.
Amendments 33 to 35 will require approved regulators to report to the Law Society any breaches of the practice rules relating to accounting and auditing. They must also make available to the Law Society any financial compliance inspection reports. If the society has concerns that are not resolved following discussions with the approved regulator, it can report the matter to the Scottish ministers, who will take action, if necessary. The Law Society can seek permission from the Scottish ministers to inspect documents relating to financial matters that are held by the licensed provider if it thinks that that is necessary to ensure that the relevant accounts rules are being complied with. The Scottish ministers will, of course, treat such requests with urgency where necessary.
Those inspections would be a last resort. I certainly do not expect them to be commonplace, but it is appropriate to make provision to allow them. I hope that that reassures those who still have doubts about allowing licensed providers to be covered by the guarantee fund.
Amendment 137, in the name of Bill Aitken, also makes provision for an oversight inspection function for the Law Society. However, unlike in my amendments, there is no role for the Scottish ministers in relation to any action that is taken by the Law Society, and there is no requirement for the society to consult the approved regulator.
My proposed model is the result of extensive discussions with the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland over the summer. It will confer a monitoring and inspection function that is consistent with the framework in the bill, and will allow the society to minimise risks to the guarantee fund while not interfering unduly in the business of other approved regulators that have the primary role in monitoring compliance with their accounts rules.
In the light of those assurances, I will listen to Mr Aitken with interest, but hope that he will consider not moving amendment 137.
I move amendment 33.
When the Justice Committee was dealing with the matter in question, there was a unanimous view that things should be kept as tight as possible. I question whether proposed new subsection (2) in amendment 33 is adequate. That subsection will, of course, require an approved regulator to report to the Law Society instances in which things have either been proven to have gone wrong or there are significant suspicions. However, it seems that, historically, reports under those headings are normally made by third parties. The whistleblower is frequently a member of staff or the police.
In respect of proposed new subsection (3) in amendment 33, should not there be a requirement that the approved regulator provide information on the regulator’s proposed action following a report to the Law Society?
On amendment 35, does the minister believe that giving the licensed provider 48 hours’ notice of an inspection is prudent? I fully accept that I may have a fairly devious mind, but does not that simply provide the provider, who may be under suspicion, with a warning that a potential fraud is being investigated?
On amendment 34, I would be grateful for the minister’s reassurance that there would be no unnecessary delay in the Scottish ministers’ granting consent for any proposed action under proposed new subsection (5).
I will listen carefully to what the minister has to say before I decide what to do with respect to amendment 35.
I call Robert Brown, who has two minutes.
Twenty seconds will probably do, Presiding Officer.
I speak in general support of Bill Aitken’s amendment 137. It seems reasonable to me that the Law Society should have the power that is suggested to investigate the circumstances of an entity that it is obliged to indemnify but does not regulate. However, I confess to concerns about whether the amendment would convey effective powers to do that, as it appears that it contains no enforcement provisions, nor any duty to comply on the entity. Perhaps the Government’s rule-making powers are wide enough to cope with that. I think that the provision is also supported by the Law Society, which regards it as necessary. There may be issues to do with the suggested wording, but the matter is important and I hope that the minister can, at the very least, give some reassurance about the interrelation between the Law Society’s position and the arrangements around the regulated entity.
I am happy to respond to points that have been made in the debate.
It is plain that ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements to protect the public and clients of licensed service providers is one of the more serious issues in the bill. The Scottish Government’s proposed amendments were discussed at length with the Law Society and ICAS over the summer, and a great deal of thought has gone into the question of their efficacy.
I am happy to give Bill Aitken the assurance that the Scottish ministers would act swiftly in the event that their permission was sought to invoke the powers. I emphasise that we do not anticipate that the powers are likely to be used frequently: they will not be used as a matter of common practice. The history of claims to guarantee funds does not suggest that the powers are likely to be used frequently, but it is nonetheless important that the provisions are thorough and sufficient.
Mr Aitken’s proposed measures are, for the reasons that I outlined, technically infelicitous. The amendments that we have lodged, with considerable thought, address the necessary aspects of regulation without being disproportionate, and they cover the need for proper enforcement. Therefore, I encourage members to support the Government amendments and I invite Mr Aitken, in the light of those assurances, to consider not pressing amendment 137.
Amendment 33 agreed to.
Amendments 34 and 35 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
15:00
Section 26—Additional powers and duties
Amendments 36 to 38 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Guidance on functions
Amendment 39 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Measures open to Ministers
Amendments 40 to 42 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Cessation directions
Amendment 43 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 32—Transfer arrangements
Amendment 44 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 35—Step-in by Ministers
Amendment 122 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 37—Eligibility criteria
Group 8 is on the majority ownership rule. Amendment 45, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 45, 46, 46A to 46F, 123, 63, 114, 154, 155, 115, 116 and 118. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emption information on the groupings sheet.
Amendment 45 will clarify that sections 37 and 37A, which deal with eligibility criteria and majority ownership by regulated professionals, both apply for the purposes of licensing a licensed provider.
My amendments 46, 46D to 46F and 114, Richard Baker’s amendments 46A to 46C and 154, and Robert Brown’s amendments 123 and 155 all relate to external ownership of licensed providers. As many members will be aware, external ownership has been the subject of much discussion and deliberation in the past few years. The legal profession has been split by the issue, with a series of impassioned debates and votes taking place before stage 2. However, a measure of consensus has been achieved, with the Law Society council now supporting the compromise position that was inserted at stage 2.
I argued strongly against that compromise, which requires 51 per cent of any licensed provider to be owned by solicitors or other regulated professionals. My preference was for the greater opportunities that would be provided by 100 per cent external ownership. However, given the support of the Law Society and the Opposition parties for the compromise, I have decided not to pursue further amendments on that at stage 3.
Amendment 46 will simply improve the drafting and ensure that the definition of “regulated profession” and other related terms can be further specified by regulations that will be subject to affirmative procedure.
I believe that the compromise, which was achieved at no small cost to those involved, should not be thrown away lightly, and I suggest with great respect that Richard Baker’s amendments 46A to 46C risk doing that. They would require 51 per cent solicitor ownership and limit ownership by those who are not regulated professionals to 25 per cent. That would be a fundamental shift from the compromise that was agreed at stage 2 and would perpetuate unnecessary restrictions on the business models that solicitors can adopt. For example, the amendments would prevent business models that would otherwise be likely to form, such as firms of accountants or surveyors that employ a number of solicitors to offer legal services.
Amendments 46A to 46C would severely restrict access to external capital, which would reduce the ability of Scottish firms to expand and compete with firms in England, which are soon to benefit from the full implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007. The model would fail to increase competition significantly in the legal services market, which would be to the detriment of the legal profession, consumers and the Scottish economy. Furthermore, the 25 per cent model was not supported at stage 2, nor was it supported by the legal profession at the latest special general meeting of the Law Society.
The current provisions on external ownership were supported by all Opposition parties at stage 2, the Law Society, four of the largest law firms in Scotland, ICAS and various consumer groups, all of which have expressed reservations about Richard Baker’s amendments. For those reasons, I strongly urge members to continue to support the compromise, which was so difficult to achieve, and not to impose further restrictions that have not been debated properly, are not supported by the Law Society, ICAS or consumer groups, and which degrade significantly the potential benefits of the bill.
Robert Brown’s amendment 123 would require 51 per cent of any licensed provider to be owned by solicitors, but proposes no restrictions on the remaining 49 per cent. That would still rule out many potential business models, such as an accountancy firm employing solicitors and sharing ownership with them to provide legal services to its clients. Again, I strongly urge members to reject amendment 123.
My amendments 46D to 46F are an attempt to provide comfort to those who still have concerns about the ability of regulated professionals to own licensed providers. As it stands in my amendment 46, section 37A allows but does not compel Scottish ministers to make regulations about what is to be regarded as a “regulated profession” and the other related terms. Concerns were raised that if Scottish ministers were not to set out what is meant by “regulated profession”, it would be unclear which persons were covered by that definition and so could have a controlling share in a licensed provider.
Amendment 46D ensures that Scottish ministers must make regulations about what is or is not a regulated profession. Amendment 46E retains the optional nature of the power in relation to the other related terms that are less crucial. Amendment 46F requires the Scottish ministers to have the Lord President’s agreement and to have consulted various bodies before making such regulations. That amendment was lodged after representations by Mr Baker and, in particular, Ms Craigie, for which I am grateful.
Amendment 63 indicates how the term “solicitor investor” is to be interpreted in part 2. The other amendments make minor changes.
I strongly urge Mr Baker and Mr Brown not to move their amendments.
I move amendment 45.
The most important debate that we will have in these proceedings is on majority ownership of the new businesses that will be created through the establishment of alternative business structures. I understand that the minister has moved from his original position, whereby businesses could have been owned entirely by investors from outwith the legal profession or any other regulated profession, to the position currently in the bill, whereby 51 per cent of the business must be owned by solicitors or members of other regulated professions.
Will the member give way?
I apologise to Mr Thompson, but I do not have time.
The minister has lodged amendments to provide further definition of regulated professions, which is welcome. Despite the Law Society’s current view, as outlined by the minister, anyone who has followed the passage of the bill will recognise that the issue has been bitterly contested in the society. It is also important to know that those with significant reservations about the bill have sought to make constructive proposals so that consensus can be reached. For our part, we have moved from our stage 2 position, where we advanced the proposal for no more than 25 per cent ownership by non-solicitors, to my amendments today, in which we propose that 49 per cent of a firm could be owned by other regulated professionals and up to 25 per cent could be owned by investors who are not from regulated professions.
There are still those who have great concerns about what the reforms will mean for their profession. The bill brings with it a comprehensive new regulatory structure, but not the new Legal Services Board that we have seen in England and Wales and not the same level of investment in regulation either—the financial memorandum indicates that investment in regulation by the Scottish Government could amount to just £100,000.
We understand that in the proposed structure there are a number of provisions on fit and proper persons to invest. Nevertheless, fear remains about possible attempts by those who are involved in criminal activities to invest in firms. Although we are told that the reforms will bring benefits to consumers, with one-stop shops for legal advice, accountancy advice and other services, concerns have been expressed about how that will affect small legal firms that serve small and rural communities.
The problem that we come back to again and again is that the argument that this reform will be of clear benefit to our legal services industry, however well intentioned, is based on supposition. Indeed, my understanding is that, currently, external ownership of legal services providers in England is at no more than 20 per cent—a lower percentage than the percentage proposed in my amendment—and that proposals to move to 100 per cent external ownership south of the border are scheduled not to come in for a year.
If the bill is passed, the structure for regulation will be in place and the opportunity will exist to make changes to the percentages of ownership. We favour an incremental approach, which will allow for more evidence to be presented to show that the system will be beneficial to both the legal services industry and consumers. Our amendment 46A would allow that approach to be taken.
At stage 2, an amendment was agreed to to allow ministers to vary by regulation the percentages of ownership. We are sure that that could be done expeditiously.
I do not believe that requiring 51 per cent majority ownership for solicitors would prevent the one-stop-shop model, such as a small firm of one solicitor and an accountant, as the firm could be constructed to be in line with the provisions of our amendment 46A.
I have received representations that some law firms that support the change might deregister in Scotland if other investors and regulated professionals are not allowed to have a majority ownership. However, we have to realise that in any event, the changes raise the potential for firms to be bought by businesses outwith Scotland.
If amendment 46A is agreed to, it will introduce a provision that takes us to where England and Wales are, the new regulatory structure will be introduced and ministers will have the power to bring forward regulations to change the percentages, should that be shown to be desirable. I do not see what significant delay would be caused by agreeing to amendment 46A.
Should my amendment not be agreed to, we will support amendment 123 in the name of Robert Brown, but we believe that our amendment 46A presents the most sensible and logical approach, and we will press it.
As Richard Baker said, this is the single most important group of amendments, which go to the heart of the purpose of the bill. The argument has also been at the heart of the Law Society’s protracted and rather confusing wrangles about the bill. The position that we have heard the minister take is very strange, as he vehemently opposed the 51 to 49 per cent ownership share at stage 2, but now supports it as a compromise.
There are issues with multidisciplinary partnerships, which I think are familiar to existing solicitors. However, those are different to situations where a legal entity is owned or controlled by outside investors. We might describe this as not so much Tesco law but the Robert Maxwell situation. That option is favoured by most but not all of Scotland’s largest legal firms, because they think that it provides a level playing field for access to the lucrative English legal market, which dominates the continent, because so many commercial contracts are expressed in English law or subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the English courts.
Much play is made of the potential for a solicitor in a rural town to partner an accountant to provide a viable entity and a local one-stop shop. That might happen, but there is no bar at present to their sharing office or back-office functions and it is not a common situation. It seems to me that each of the two professionals still has to have a living income for themselves, regardless. I cannot help but conclude that the advantages for the rural town, solicitor and public are to some extent a fig leaf.
The purpose and core of the bill is aimed at the large firms, and it is designed primarily to enable them to become larger by buying other firms here or south of the border. I am not sold on the idea that that is necessarily in the public interest. It seems to me that it is just as possible that they will instead be bought by even larger English firms.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
However, the large firms tell us that the bill is needed to keep them in Scotland to support a growing legal services market that is headquartered here, trains a large number of Scots lawyers and contributes a large whack to the master policy.
At stage 2, I successfully lodged the Law Society compromise, which I hoped might be the basis of a legal consensus. That has not really proved to be the case, and we need to look again at the issue. Amendment 123 is designed not, as the Law Society suggests, to reverse the stage 2 compromise but to develop it.
It should also be said that the issue should be judged not entirely on whether the Law Society of Scotland is supportive—important though that is, its support has been a rather moveable commodity over time—but on whether it is in the public interest. The bill as amended at stage 2 provided that
“51% of the entity is owned, managed and controlled”
by solicitors and/or members of other professions. It may have been difficult to define management and control in terms of percentages, which is perhaps why the Scottish Government has, in its amendment 46, rephrased the wording to a
“51% stake in the total ownership or control of the entity”.
Notwithstanding that the wording is weaker, we all accept that this is the basis for going ahead.
15:15
Will Mr Brown confirm that the Law Society compromise position, which the Government supports, was reached after years of difficult and bruising internal debate, whereas his proposal has never been debated and was not brought forward until two weeks ago? The legal profession has had no opportunity to debate his proposal.
I hear what the minister says, but the debate has been around for a long time. The matter has been debated across the profession with different people putting forward a range of propositions at different stages.
My amendment 123 requires that the majority 51 per cent stake is held by solicitors alone, with other professionals and investors being the 49 per cent minority. That is the right solution, certainly at this stage. As the minister knows, under section 52(2A) of the bill, the percentage can, of course, be amended up or down by way of Scottish statutory instrument. The Law Society suggested that the proposal would prevent likely business models, such as firms of accountants or surveyors, employing solicitors. The fact is that it would not, but it would require things to be done in a certain way. If difficulties arise, there are powers under sections 99 and 99A to alter the percentage by statutory instrument to
“make different provision for different purposes”.
I hope that the minister is prepared to accept my amendment 123. The entities will, in any case, be subject to the regulatory objectives, which among other things are to support the rule of law; protect and promote the interests of justice, consumers and the public interest generally; promote competition in the provision of legal services; and promote an independent, strong, varied and effective legal profession. I hope that the minister will confirm that he sees those noble aspirations not only as words but as a way to regulate robustly the new entities.
I hope that the Government will go to the extent of refusing registration and imposing stringent conditions on ownership and control beyond section 37A, where that is necessary. Ownership and control are not the same thing. I am not sure whether, among all the furore, we have analysed the issue fully. For the time being, amendment 123 in my name represents a satisfactory position across the profession, allows development and meets Richard Baker’s important test of being able to move forward to an extent incrementally and cautiously. That is extremely important.
I will need to limit the remaining speakers to no more than two minutes.
From the start, it was clear that there were fears about how the bill would impact on the Scottish legal system. Although some fears may have been exaggerated, there can be no doubt that they were held sincerely. Equally, there can be no doubt that the majority—if not the unanimous—view of those who were involved in the bill was that we do not want to see the application of so-called Tesco law in Scotland. On that basis, I for one felt that a 49 per cent restriction on external investment was appropriate, and I have heard nothing thus far to change my view. We need to bear in mind the enabling powers under which a Government could, in years ahead and on cause shown, amend the percentages.
Mr Baker’s amendment 46A fails under several headings. It would leave the Scottish profession at a disadvantage within the UK single market. As we have heard in the debate, it would impact on smaller practitioners who seek to combine their operations.
Amendment 123, in the name of Robert Brown, and his consequential amendment 155 have a similar disadvantage. Mr Brown is genuinely concerned about access to justice, particularly in Scotland’s smaller communities. I say to him that the bill as it stands will be of assistance. I accept in part his argument that there are ways in which two practitioners in a small county town could get around the situation, but it would be convoluted and difficult, and we would make life rather difficult for them.
I have heard nothing to change my original view. We have achieved a sufficient compromise.
The minister knows that my concerns at stage 1 were sufficient for me to vote against the general principles of the bill. Since then, I have tried to listen to all sides. The changes that were made at stage 2 addressed my concerns somewhat. However, if I am to be persuaded to accept the Government’s position in the amendments that are before us today, I would like the minister to reply to one specific question, which comes from the briefing that Thompsons Solicitors has provided to MSPs. In the first few bullet points of the briefing, Thompsons argues:
“The theory that underlies the Bill is untried and untested”.
It likens passing the bill to opening Pandora’s box and says that “the consequences are irretrievable”. There are those who regard the bill as something of an experiment. Every experiment should have failure criteria. What are the failure criteria for this experiment? Is Thompsons wrong when it says that the consequences would be irretrievable? Are the changes that we would make by passing the bill reversible?
Mr Baker was a wee bit frightened to take an intervention from me—he had plenty of time to do so. Given the compromise on external ownership that was agreed at stage 2 and the position of the Law Society after many months of debate, it is odd that Mr Baker is now trying to overturn the agreed position and impose additional restrictions. I wonder why he is doing that.
The answer to Mr Thompson’s question is that this is democracy and stage 3 consideration of the bill. Richard Baker is perfectly entitled to lodge amendments on any subject relating to the bill.
I support amendment 46A, in the name of Richard Baker, and encourage members to do so. Like other members who have spoken today, I welcome the minister’s move at earlier stages from 100 per cent to 51 per cent on the ownership issue. However, this is an important matter, and we should not take a leap in the dark. We are changing the way in which law firms have operated for years. We cannot do that if we have any doubts in our mind. I still have doubts about the people who will introduce capital to legal firms. I want us to be able to regulate and control that activity.
Amendment 46A is a measured amendment that takes a cautious approach. The bill and the changes that were made at stage 2 will still allow ministers to move the ownership percentage up and down. Let us put a toe into the water and see whether the arrangement works. If it does, the minister will have the opportunity to raise the percentage.
I agree totally with Patrick Harvie’s comment that the arrangement “is untried and untested”. Amendment 46A would give us a way of trying it and of testing whether the market works. I urge members not to take a step into the unknown, to take a cautious approach and to support amendment 46A.
Cathie Craigie’s remarks sum up the problem that we have. Rightly, she is concerned about taking a step into the dark. The issue is who will bring their money in. However, the issue that is before us now is the structure of the people who will run the businesses, which is a different matter. We address the issue of who puts money into businesses by ensuring that they are fit and proper people, not by deciding what fraction of the population are lawyers or anyone else.
Will the member take an intervention?
I fear that I do not have time.
Will the member give way?
Order.
I am sure that Mr Baker will be able to wind up.
I am concerned about another issue. I understand where amendment 123, in the name of Robert Brown, is coming from; the Justice Committee debated the issue on many occasions. However, I am concerned that, as the minister pointed out, Mr Brown has lodged an amendment that is untried and has not even been consulted on. We have talked about 51 per cent of ownership being in the hands of professionals, but we have never talked about its being in the hands of lawyers. That is not ICAS’s position or the Law Society’s position. Does it worry the member that he has lodged an amendment that has not been consulted on and is no one’s policy?
There is no doubt that the debate on this issue has been heated throughout the process. It has been characterised on one side by people who are concerned about the independence of the legal profession; about the impact on small firms, particularly in rural areas; and about the potential for undesirable elements to enter the profession. That has been countered on the other side by people who have argued in favour of the 100 per cent ABS position, saying that it would promote jobs and opportunity and would help to grow the Scottish economy. Richard Baker’s constructive amendment balances out both sides, taking into account the concerns on both sides of the argument.
Patrick Harvie makes a valid point: the Justice Committee found that there was a complete lack of evidence in support of the 100 per cent ABS position. That is why we should adopt an incremental position, taking things cautiously and a step at a time, but giving the present and future Governments the power, under Scottish statutory instruments, to make changes to the structures.
On the minister’s point about business models, I reject the notion that the proposal would be anti-business. McGrigors, under its current format, has expanded into Northern Ireland. Earlier this year, it opened a tax office in Manchester. Under the model that Richard Baker has proposed, it could continue to expand. That is the correct route to go down. It would support economic growth, and it would also protect the independence of the Scottish legal profession.
The Scottish Government entirely respects the very strongly held views, both within and outwith Parliament, in the debate that has taken place on this issue.
With regard to the two principal amendments in this group, it is fair to say that Mr Baker’s amendment 46A was substantially considered by the profession, but it was clearly rejected. Robert Brown’s proposal, on the other hand, has not been debated within the profession. I am not being unfair to Mr Brown when I say that I extracted that from him in my intervention.
The profession has been considering this thorny issue for years—years of bruising, turbulent, divisive internal debate. That process of debate resulted in a compromise that was hard won by the proponents of 100 per cent ABS, who thought that that was best, but who, in the interests of a unified profession, decided to approve the compromise.
Is not our role here in Parliament to protect the interests of the public, rather than those of any particular profession?
Patently it is to protect the interests of the public. I was just coming on to that.
We should not throw away years of hard work, which has seen a very difficult debate being concluded with a majority position that we have moved towards by compromising.
As regards protecting the public, consumer bodies have lobbied every member of the Parliament, as Mr Rumbles knows, arguing that the proposal will deliver a better deal for consumers. Relatively small practitioners, such as Austin Lafferty, have argued that it will serve as a quality control test for lawyers in providing a better, perhaps even cheaper, service for their clients, something which, I respectfully suggest, the public might welcome—speaking as a former practising solicitor.
Patrick Harvie asks whether the changes that are to be made are reversible. Section 99A says yes. The percentages relating to ownership can be changed. That means that they can be reduced or increased. The procedure is available. If Mr Harvie’s fears were proven true, the Parliament could consider the matter again and act to reverse the situation.
I am aware of the text of the bill in that regard, but could the minister comment on the practicality of reversing the provision and reducing the proportion to zero, should serious unintended consequences be identified at a later stage?
15:30
We would act as we do in every other way, in committees of the Parliament, by considering the matter as swiftly as possible after proper consultation and debate. The approach is practical. That is what the bill, which has nearly 100 sections and nine schedules, provides.
After a debate that has been fought so hard and for so long, within and outwith the Parliament, if we join together and support the compromise that is supported by the Law Society of Scotland, ICAS and consumer bodies that represent the public interest, we will be doing a good thing for Scotland. I strongly believe that there will be new opportunities, businesses and jobs for many young people in the next generations in this country. The ingenuity that McGrigors and other firms have shown in taking advantage of business opportunities, to which Mr Kelly referred, will lead to many of our constituents having the chance to pursue new careers, new opportunities and new jobs. That is good for Scotland.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
Section 37A—Majority ownership
Amendment 46 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
Amendment 46A moved—[Richard Baker].
The question is, that amendment 46A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 40, Against 76, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 46A disagreed to.
Amendments 46B and 46C not moved.
Amendments 46D to 46F moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 46, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 123 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 123 disagreed to.
Section 39—Head of Legal Services
Amendment 47 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 40—Head of Practice
Amendment 48 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 41—Practice Committee
Amendment 49 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 46—Conditions for disqualification
Group 9 is on references to penalties and offences. Amendment 50, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 51, 128, 53, 54, 75 and 84.
Amendments 50, 51, 53 and 54 will make changes to sections 46 and 50, which set out the levels of fines and terms of imprisonment that can lead to disqualification from named positions within licensed providers or to a presumption that a person is unfit to invest in such an entity.
I have some concerns—which are shared by the Law Society—that the levels of fines and the terms of imprisonment that are specified in those sections are not consistent. Amendments 50 and 51 will alter section 46 to specify a fine that is equivalent to level 4 or more on the standard scale instead of level 3, and a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more instead of two years. Amendments 53 and 54 will do the same for section 50.
Amendment 128, which was lodged by Bill Aitken and is supported by James Kelly, provides that a non-solicitor investor should be presumed to be unfit if he or she has been convicted of an offence that involves violence, in addition to offences that involve dishonesty as the bill currently specifies. The bill refers specifically to dishonesty because it has relevance—as is obvious—for legal work. Violence does not, and would in any event fall under the general provisions in the bill that relate to crimes. A person is presumed to be unfit if they are sentenced to a specified term of imprisonment or fined an amount that is equivalent to the relevant level on the standard scale, so convictions for serious violent offences would already lead to a presumption of unfitness. However, I have some sympathy with Bill Aitken’s position, and I will listen carefully to what he says on the matter.
Amendments 75 and 84 will insert new sections that provide for corporate offences, to ensure that responsible officials as well as organisations commit an offence under parts 2 and 3 if the act in question involves their connivance, consent or negligence.
I move amendment 50.
I am pleased that the Government lodged amendment 51 to reduce the specified term of imprisonment from two years to one year, although in a less consensual debate I might have commented that one has to do an awful lot that is bad under the soft-touch approach that currently applies in Scotland to get a sentence of that dimension.
More seriously, the amendment of the financial penalty to level 4 is sensible. It is possible to impose substantial fines under road traffic legislation—for example, in lieu of disqualification where the court has the option of disqualifying under totting-up procedures—which would unfairly preclude someone from participating in the legal profession.
Amendment 128 in my name, which I am gratified that James Kelly supports, seeks to insert in the appropriate section the word “violence”. My thinking in that regard is that someone who has a conviction that involves significant violence should not be considered as an appropriate investor in a firm that provides legal services.
At the committee stage, and again today, Cathie Craigie suggested that there were concerns that some persons of dubious character might insinuate themselves in the legal profession. It is clear that we seek to do everything that is possible to prevent that from happening, and the Government is to be congratulated on taking steps to make it tougher—indeed virtually impossible, I would hope—for such individuals to enter the profession. Although the concept of the Corleone brothers being involved in a legal firm is undoubtedly far-fetched, we need to ensure that the bill is as robust as possible.
I support amendment 128, which was lodged by Bill Aitken.
As Bill Aitken said, the Justice Committee raised a concern in considering the bill that in opening up the ownership potential there is potential for those who have links to serious and organised crime to have access to legal firms. Clearly, it is important in that regard to disbar people who have been found guilty of crimes of dishonesty, and Bill Aitken’s amendment seeks to extend that pool to cover those who have committed crimes of violence. That is entirely logical and will help to ensure that only appropriate people enter such firms.
I have listened carefully to what Bill Aitken and James Kelly have said, although I am not entirely sure that I agree with the remarks about soft-touch justice—an issue on which I imagine I would have the support of Ken Clarke and Ed Miliband. However, setting aside that point as it is not directly relevant to the matters before us, I have some sympathy for amendment 128. In the light of the arguments by Mr Aitken and Mr Kelly, I am minded to support it.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendment 51 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 47—Designated persons
Group 10 is on designated persons. Amendment 124, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 125, 52 and 127.
Amendment 124 seeks to tighten up a definition. Section 47(2) states basically that a designated person is a person who is designated
“by the licensed provider to carry out legal work”,
but it is not clear what is meant by the term “legal work”. Some aspects are easily definable—the conveyance of property, the preparation of wills and so on—but, as legal work can include giving advice or providing representation, lawyers often prepare documents and complete forms. Would that be included in the definition? In my view, probably not. The amendment makes the matter clearer, and it links to the definition of legal services in section 3.
Amendment 125, which is also in my name, seeks to tighten the legislation. The criteria for eligibility as a designated person is made clear under section 47: basically, employees, managers and investors are all eligible. What happens, however, when someone who has been disqualified from being head of legal services, head of practice or a member of the practice committee is also eligible for designation? There are many instances in which that would apply. Clearly we do not wish a disqualified person to be capable of appointment as a designated person, and amendment 125 would prevent such an event from occurring. The Government may argue that disqualification under section 44 would deal with the matter, but the application of section 46 depends on some action being taken by the approved regulator while section 47 applies automatically. I will listen to the minister with some interest.
I move amendment 124.
Amendments 124 and 127 would change the words “carry out legal work” to “provide legal services” in connection with designated persons. That may seem like a subtle change, but it is not. There is an important distinction between the provision of legal services by an entity and the connected work performed by those within it. Legal work covers the broad range of work that is done by solicitors, paralegals and other staff. Legal work, especially that which is performed by paralegals, may be technical and specific; it might not be classed as the provision of legal services as set out in section 3.
To ensure that designated persons can do the same work as they would do in a traditional firm, the current drafting should be maintained. If it were not maintained, the danger would be that they could not continue to do what they legitimately do at the moment. That would plainly be an unintended consequence. I have several other pages of objections, but that is perhaps one of the most telling, so I move on to my amendment 52.
Amendment 52 will remove the provision that allows an investor who does not work in the licensed provider to be a designated person. Robert Brown lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, which I opposed because I was concerned that it might have unintended consequences. After having reflected, I am now satisfied that it will not, and I therefore agree that there is no need for section 47(3)(b)(ii).
In light of that truncated version of my objections to Mr Aitken’s amendments, I respectfully invite him to withdraw amendment 124 and not to move amendments 125 and 127.
I am exercising my powers under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to extend the time limit that we have just reached to avoid the debate being curtailed unreasonably. I call James Kelly—he has one minute.
I briefly indicate support for Bill Aitken’s amendments 124, 125 and 127. I think that he is correct to get the proper terminology in the bill, and it is appropriate that we look at that point. The points about disqualification that he makes on amendment 125 are valid, too. I indicate support for the amendments.
Perhaps I can save some time. If not exactly persuaded by the minister’s eloquence, I can see the force of his argument that there could be an unintended consequence in what I have proposed. I am still far from happy, but on the basis of what has been said I will withdraw amendment 124 and not move the other amendments in the group in my name.
Amendment 124, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 125 not moved.
Amendment 52 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 127 not moved.
Section 50—Factors as to fitness
Amendment 128 not moved.
Amendments 53 and 54 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
15:45
Group 11 is on investors. Amendment 55, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 59, 61 and 62.
Section 53A was inserted at stage 2 to ensure that questionable investors could not hide behind the corporate veil. However, the phrase
“control or substantial influence in the body’s affairs”,
which was inserted by an amendment that was lodged by Robert Brown, presents some difficulty, as no indication is given of how those terms are to be measured. Amendment 55 seeks to substitute Mr Brown’s term with
“ownership or control of the body, or ... any other material interest in it”.
That will ensure that when it considers a non-solicitor body’s fitness to be an investor, a regulator must consider the fitness of those who have, to any extent,
“ownership or control of the body, or ... any other material interest in it”.
Section 52(2) allows the Scottish ministers to make regulations about interests in licensed providers and to make provision for licensing rules about persons who have an interest in a licensed provider. Amendment 59 seeks to clarify that such regulations may include further provision about what counts as an interest in a body that has an interest in a licensed provider. That might be necessary to ensure that when the fitness of a body that is investing in a licensed provider is considered, the fitness of those persons who are involved in that body may also be considered.
Amendment 61 seeks to extend the definition of a solicitor investor to include firms of solicitors and incorporated practices. Amendment 62 seeks to extend it to include registered foreign lawyers. Those who can own law firms in Scotland should not be subject to the fitness test. Amendment 62 seeks to correct the omission of registered foreign lawyers that was effected at stage 2.
I move amendment 55.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Section 50A—Ban for improper behaviour
Amendment 56 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 51—Behaving properly
Amendment 57 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 52—More about investors
Amendments 58 to 63 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 54—Ceasing to operate
Group 12 is on ineligibility to be a licensed provider. Amendment 64, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 129, 66 to 68 and 130.
Following the insertion at stage 2 of provisions that require majority solicitor or other regulated profession ownership, the Law Society of Scotland raised concerns about temporary situations that would result in the failure of a licensed provider to meet the majority ownership criteria. That could happen, for instance, following the death of a solicitor owner. It is clear that revoking a licence in such a situation would be disproportionate. Therefore, amendment 64 will give approved regulators the discretion not to revoke a licence when they are satisfied that the situation is temporary and that clients are sufficiently protected.
Additionally, I think that it would be useful to give approved regulators further flexibility, so amendment 66 will allow an approved regulator to suspend a licence pending rectification of the situation, if that is appropriate.
Bill Aitken’s amendment 129 is not strictly necessary, as licensed providers are already required to notify their regulator without delay should the circumstances in section 54(1) arise. However, I feel that it would be useful to set a deadline, as Mr Aitken’s amendment seeks to do so, on reflection, I have decided to support amendment 129.
Mr Aitken’s amendment 130 is unnecessary—there is no need to state that a licensed provider continues to be licensed if its licence is not revoked under section 54.
I move amendment 64.
Amendment 64 has merit in that, when taken together with amendments 67 to 68, it will allow some protection against a lacuna that might arise when there is a temporary lack of eligibility. Clearly there could be serious difficulties for a business if there is a short-term difficulty that could, in certain circumstances, prejudice the business. There is merit in all the amendments in that respect, and it should be supported. Amendment 129 seeks to restrict the period involved, and having heard the minister on that, I have nothing to add.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 129 moved—[Bill Aitken]—and agreed to.
Amendments 66 to 68 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 130 not moved.
Section 55—Safeguarding clients
Amendment 69 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 65—Complaints about providers
Group 13 is on complaints against licensed providers. Amendment 131, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 70 to 74, 132 and 80 to 83.
Amendment 131 seeks to expand upon the bill by adding to the category of individuals about whom a conduct complaint can be made. Section 65 will insert a new section 57A into the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. That new section concerns complaints about licensed providers, and new section 57A(4) of the 2007 act will say:
“A conduct complaint may not be made about a licensed provider, but—
(a) such a complaint may be made about a practitioner within such a provider”.
It might be thought that I am being slightly pedantic but—
No!
I am pleased to hear my colleagues contradicting me, Presiding Officer.
The 2007 act defines a practitioner as “a firm of solicitors”, “an incorporated practice” and “a solicitor”. On the basis of that wording, new section 57A of the 2007 act will mean that conduct complaints will relate only to the legal profession. Given that the raison d’être for the bill is to allow the legal profession to enter into partnerships with other persons, it is imperative that conduct complaints can be made about designated persons. The effect of my amendment is to make it clear that such complaints can be made to the regulator in respect of that particular discipline. The other amendments are not objectionable.
I move amendment 131.
Amendments 131 and 132, in the name of Bill Aitken and supported by James Kelly, would allow conduct complaints against designated persons to be made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. That is not appropriate. The commission deals with complaints about legal practitioners who are regulated by professional bodies, such as solicitors and advocates. It does not deal with complaints about other members of staff who are working for traditional law firms, such as paralegals; such complaints would be dealt with internally by the firm. It would be odd if a paralegal were to take the rap for his boss; that does not seem to be a principle that many of us would support, and it is not the system at the moment. The current position is proportionate and complaints about designated persons who are not solicitors or other legal professionals should be treated in the same way.
Amendment 70 will require approved regulators to pass on any complaints that they receive about legal practitioners to the SLCC to ensure that such complaints are dealt with. That mirrors a similar requirement on professional organisations, such as the Law Society or the Faculty of Advocates, in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.
The other amendments make minor adjustments relating to how approved regulators and approving bodies deal with regulatory and conduct complaints. That is to ensure that the relevant parts of the said act apply, following some minor concerns that were raised by the SLCC.
Amendments 71, 80 and 83 are minor drafting amendments.
In light of my earlier remarks, I respectfully invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 131 and not to move amendment 132.
Although I do not entirely share the minister’s fairly optimistic approach regarding the running of legal firms nor think that it is unheard of for paralegals and others to “take the rap”, I am persuaded that, in the vast majority of firms, responsibility for the error or any misconduct would revert to the partner concerned, who would, no doubt, take disciplinary action against his underling. On that basis, I seek permission to withdraw amendment 131 and I will not move amendment 132.
Amendment 131, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 70 to 74 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 132 not moved.
After section 70A
Amendment 75 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 74—Certification of bodies
Amendments 76 to 78 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 81C—Certification of bodies
Amendment 79 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 83—Complaints about agents and writers
Amendments 80 to 83 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 84A
Amendment 84 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 85
Group 14 is on regulation of estate administrators. Amendment 133, in the name of Richard Baker, is grouped with amendment 153.
I lodged these amendments as a result of discussions with the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners. It considers that, for the purposes of adequate consumer protection, the administration of an estate in its entirety should be a regulated activity. It argues that fraud and incompetence are most likely to occur during the administration of the estate when the deceased’s funds are being handled and when the provisions of the will are being implemented.
Those areas are currently unregulated in the bill and, as the bill is drafted, the regulation of confirmation agents would cover only the preparation and submission of the application for confirmation of the deceased person’s estate. That is a significant but small part of the estate administration process. Significant issues regarding the administration of an estate will arise in other aspects of estate administration—for example, in the administration of the correct division of assets among the beneficiaries. That activity is not currently within the scope of confirmation services as described in the bill; therefore, my amendments seek to broaden its scope to include the activities of estate administrators and to provide a definition of that term.
The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners has made strong arguments for expanding the provisions of the bill in that way, including providing examples of fraudulent activity that has occurred at points of the process that, as the bill stands, would not fall within the compass of its provisions for regulation. On that basis, I hope that my amendments will be supported by ministers and by Parliament.
I move amendment 133.
Amendment 133 would allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations for the regulation of estate administrators. There have been suggestions from various parties, including the Scottish Law Agents Society, that, as Richard Baker has said, our regulation of confirmation agents and non-lawyer will writers does not go far enough and that regulation should be extended to the whole executry process, not all of which is a reserved matter requiring the involvement solely of solicitors.
However, additional regulation in those areas would be a significant expansion of the regulatory regime in part 3 and would require further consultation to allow an assessment to be made of the potential impact on those who are currently involved in the process. For example, extending regulation to executors could catch a huge number of people who are involved in administering estates, perhaps including relatives of the deceased, who are often named as the executors. I am sure that it is not Richard Baker’s plan that an ordinary individual who is winding up his dad’s or his mother’s estate, which may not involve a lot of money, should be involved in regulation or additional expense. There is no reason why people in that situation should have to incur additional burdens and costs. They can do the work themselves, often with a bit of help from sympathetic court staff and others. However, regulation could potentially prevent such people from being involved, leading to the additional cost of employing appropriately qualified persons to wind up an estate in every case.
The matter has not been debated. In considering the bill, we have pursued an approach of avoiding pushing through things that have not been properly debated and consulted on. This is an example of an area in which more thought and consultation is needed before we act. For those reasons, I do not support Richard Baker’s amendments and respectfully invite him to withdraw amendment 133 and not to move amendment 153.
16:00
The minister raises valid issues, but I am not quite convinced that they are impediments to making this change, which he says that they are. To be fair to the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, it raised the issues with members prior to stage 2 and stage 3, and they have been carefully considered. Once more, I will err on the side of caution when it comes to regulation. I think that the bill is a logical vehicle by which we can address the issues that the society has raised. I think that there is not a huge gulf between us in terms of getting to the right position, but the bill would be made more robust by the inclusion of the provisions, so I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 40, Against 69, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 133 disagreed to.
After section 91
Group 15 is on firm-level regulation. Amendment 134, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 138 and 139.
Amendment 134, combined with the other suggested amendments to the 1980 act, would set up a system of annual registration of practice units. The amendment tries to promote a level playing field between licensed providers and traditional firms of solicitors. Under part 1, licensed providers, which can only be entities, are required to be licensed by an approved regulator. That could mean that licensed providers have a more efficient and cost-effective licensing regime than traditional firms. The amendment would give the Law Society discretion to introduce rules for the registration of firms in addition to the current rules on individual registration. The Law Society would not be able to introduce such rules unless they are approved by the Lord President and its membership.
The amendment would allow not only for the creation of a level playing field for licensed providers, but for a consistent approach to be taken to levies relating to all practice units, irrespective of type, and would allow the Law Society to ensure a fair distribution of the costs that are involved in running the society by relating those costs to the type of practice that benefits from the regulatory and representational roles that the society fulfils.
Amendment 138 would modify subparagraph (2A) of paragraph 1 of schedule 3 to the 1980 act by inserting into it the words,
“partners in a registered firm of solicitors, or ... in a case where the registered firm of solicitors is a sole practitioner, a single solicitor practising under the solicitor’s own name or a solicitor otherwise practising as a sole practitioner.”
The amendment is consequential on the earlier amendment.
The Law Society should be able to attract income from specific courses that it might run for the benefit of solicitors. It is only appropriate that it should be able to charge accordingly.
If I receive assurances from the minister that the existing regime is permissive of that, I will seek to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment 134.
I am not particularly enthusiastic about amendments 134, 138 and 139. I know that the Law Society’s position is that bills that affect the solicitor profession do not come along very often so it needs to take advantage of the opportunity, but the amendments are significant in allowing change to the basis of contributions to the society and the Scottish solicitors guarantee fund, and they have not been consulted on by the Government or, I think, the Law Society itself. I believe that the ground should be prepared before the Parliament is asked to approve the changes. I will be interested to hear the minister’s response, but I believe that the matter should be dealt with at another time.
I oppose amendment 134. I am not convinced that the provision should be in the bill or that the Law Society should have the powers that would be vested in it by the change. Specifically, I am concerned about proposed new paragraph 6C of schedule 1 to the 1980 act, which would allow the Law Society to impose a special subscription and, further to that, different types of special subscription. There is no description of why it would do that. There have been tensions recently within the Law Society and allowing it to impose such subscriptions could undermine the harmony that we hope will break out if the bill is passed later today.
Amendment 134 would allow the Law Society to make rules that require firms of solicitors to register with the council and to charge an entity-level fee for that registration. That is in addition to the individual practising certificate fee.
First, solicitors are under a duty to inform the society of their place of business and any changes to it, so a list of firms should already be available to the society. Secondly, given the permissive nature of the bill and the undertaking that I have given throughout that it will not have a significant impact on traditional firms that do not choose ABS, I have serious concerns about making such a fundamental change to the society’s fee-charging structure. Regardless of any requirement for the profession to vote on such a change before implementation, it would appear to be a significant new levy imposed by a bill that I have repeatedly argued will not significantly affect those who choose not to form licensed providers. Indeed, I understand that certain members of the profession have already expressed some reservations about the new fee.
I understand that the society has discussed its proposals with certain groups within the profession. I have discussed the amendment in a meeting with the president of the Law Society and his colleagues and I understand his position and their concerns on these matters. However, I respectfully believe that a more comprehensive consultation should be carried out before significant changes are made. My experience is that changes to fee structures are almost inevitably more complex than they first appear to be, and that they often have unforeseen consequences. Therefore, without proper consideration being given to the implications of the change, I cannot support amendment 134.
Amendments 138 and 139 would allow the Law Society to gather guarantee fund contributions from registered firms at an entity level rather than from individual principals. As with the proposed entity-level fee, I have concerns about that, given the lack of consultation with the profession, especially as it might result in some firms being charged more than at present. I say that having made robust representations to the SLCC that resulted in its reducing the levy by £40 for each solicitor in Scotland, which resulted in a saving of £0.5 million for the profession. In that regard, we have some good form in saving solicitors some cash.
I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 134 and not to move amendments 138 and 139.
I am sure that the legal profession will sleep easier in their beds of a night knowing that the minister is enthusiastically pursuing savings in that respect.
I have listened to the views of my colleagues. There was some value in the amendments and it was appropriate to canvass views on them, but I will not press amendment 134 or move amendments 138 and 139.
Amendment 134, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 91D—Use of Guarantee Fund
Group 16 is on guarantee fund contributions. Amendment 85, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 87 and 90 to 93.
Amendments 85, 87, 91 and 92 make minor technical changes to provisions relating to the guarantee fund in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. They ensure that individual solicitors who are members of incorporated practices are referred to where appropriate. Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, the Law Society is obliged to maintain a compensation fund in relation to independent conveyancing and executry practitioners. Under a memorandum of understanding, the Scottish ministers currently underwrite claims on the fund. The society has recently confirmed that there is little money in the fund and that it is not fit for purpose. As there is only one such practitioner, and no further practitioners are possible in future, further contributions to the fund will be extremely limited.
The Scottish Government and the Law Society agree that an acceptable solution is to allow the sole remaining practitioner to contribute to and be covered by the guarantee fund. That would result in the present liability on the Government being removed, thereby saving public money. Amendments 90 and 93 extend the guarantee fund to cover such practitioners and require them to contribute to it, while repealing the relevant section of the 1990 act.
I move amendment 85.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Amendments 86 and 87 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 135, in the name of Bill Aitken, has already been debated. If amendment 135 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 88.
Amendment 135 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 67, Against 44, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 135 agreed to.
Amendment 136 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 136 disagreed to.
Amendment 89 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 137 not moved.
Amendment 90 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 91E—Contributions to the Fund
Amendment 91 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 138 not moved.
Amendments 92 and 93 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 139 not moved.
After section 91G
16:15
Group 17 is on operation of the Law Society. Amendment 141, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 142 to 144 and 150.
Amendment 141 seeks to modify the provisions of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 relating to membership of the Law Society.
The Law Society has been carrying out an exercise in which it seeks to modernise and revise its constitution. A number of problems have come to light as a result of that exercise. It is not clear who can become an honorary member of the society or whether it can have as associate members solicitors, students or other legally qualified persons. Amendment 141 seeks to remedy that.
Amendments 142 to 144 are consequential on amendment 141.
My amendment 150 seeks to amend schedule 1 by clarifying for the avoidance of doubt that the Law Society can change certain functions that it carries out. The amendment is merely to clarify that those powers exist and are in statute rather than implied.
I move amendment 141.
Amendments 141 to 144, in the name of Bill Aitken, would make changes to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. They relate to membership of the Law Society. I understand that the society is currently revising its constitution and that those changes have been included in the latest draft, which is yet to be debated and voted on. I am not clear why the membership provisions in the 1980 act are thought to be insufficient or why the society wishes to extend its membership to include non-solicitors. That came as something of a surprise to me. I understand that there has been a consultation on the draft constitution, but it is still to be determined whether the profession will be in favour of the changes. The proposals may therefore be subject to further change. Given that the policy behind them is unclear, at least to the Scottish Government, I cannot support amendments 141 to 144.
Amendment 150, which is also in the name of Bill Aitken, would allow the Law Society to charge fees
“in respect of the discharge of the Society’s functions.”
The society has indicated that such fees would not be charged for services that are currently funded by the practising certificate fee, but would be charged in connection with other solicitor or non-solicitor services that are provided. The society currently has the power to charge fees in certain situations, including for the provision of training under section 5 of the 1980 act, so I am unsure about exactly which services it wishes to be able to charge for. Therefore, I do not support amendment 150. In view of the society’s current powers, the lack of clarity that exists and the lack of a concluded and resolved debate within the profession, I respectfully invite Mr Aitken to withdraw amendment 141 and not to move the rest of the amendments in the group.
There is a lack of clarity in the position, although I could suggest a circumstance in which a non-solicitor might be considered as a member of the Law Society. The society might wish to have on board an academic professor of law who may not be a solicitor and may not have either a practising certificate or a qualification in that direction. However, I take the minister’s point that the consultation exercise is not yet complete, and as a result, I will not pursue the matter.
I was gratified to hear from the minister that the Law Society has the ability to make the appropriate charges for specific courses or work that is carried out for a number of specific clients rather than generally. That deals with the point on which I wished to canvass opinion, and I will not pursue the matter now that that is on the record.
Amendment 141, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 92—Council membership
Amendments 142 to 144 not moved.
Section 93—Regulatory committee
Group 18 is on the regulatory committee. Amendment 94, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 95, 145, 96, 97, 146, 147, 98, 148, 149 and 99 to 104.
This group relates to the regulatory committee. To give brief background information, section 93 makes provision requiring a regulatory committee to be established by the council of the Law Society and for all regulatory functions of the council to be delegated to it. Section 93 also sets out rules relating to the committee, which will ensure that it performs its regulatory functions independently. In all other respects, the committee will be the same as any other committee that is established by the council.
Amendment 95 will require the council to ensure that the regulatory committee carries out such functions as are delegated to it under proposed new section 3B(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. That addresses the Law Society’s concerns that, although the council will remain legally responsible for such functions, it might not be able to ensure that they have been carried out, as such action could be classed as undue interference under proposed new section 3B(2A) of the 1980 act.
The policy intention in providing for a regulatory committee is that all regulatory matters that were previously dealt with by the council be transferred to that committee, which should operate independently of the council. A key part of that independence is that the regulatory committee alone should make decisions about regulatory matters. If the council retains the ability to exercise regulatory functions without reference to the committee or to revoke the delegation of functions to the committee, the whole concept of splitting off the regulatory functions would be undermined. Therefore, amendment 96 will clarify that, once the council has delegated its regulatory functions to the regulatory committee, it must not exercise such functions through any other means. However, amendment 97 will ensure that, when specific action is required by the council to ensure that its regulatory functions are achieved, the council has the ability to take such action, but only as explicitly directed by the regulatory committee.
Amendment 145, in the name of Bill Aitken, would remove the wording
“(acting in any other capacity)”
in proposed new section 3B(2A) of the 1980 act. That wording was inserted because the regulatory committee is part of the council and so, in prohibiting the council from interfering unduly in the regulatory committee’s affairs, it is important to clarify that that does not affect the council acting in its particular capacity as the regulatory committee. Therefore, I do not support amendment 145.
Amendments 146 to 149, in the name of Robert Brown, also relate to the regulatory committee. Amendment 146 would allow the council to set performance targets, standards and timescales for the regulatory committee, despite the prohibition on undue interference in the business of the regulatory committee. The Law Society has raised concerns about what would and would not be classed as undue interference in the regulatory committee’s business, so it might be worth setting out the intention behind that provision. The regulatory committee will in most respects be just another committee of the council, so the council will have a legitimate oversight role in relation to it. For example, requiring regular reports to be made, exercising proper financial control and the removal of members under certain circumstances are all reasonable actions and are consistent with the independent functioning of the regulatory committee. Those functions would not, in my opinion, be classed as undue interference.
On the other hand, some of the functions that the Law Society has in mind would likely be classed as undue interference. Examples would be setting the strategic direction of the committee or, as in amendment 146, setting targets, standards or timescales for the committee’s work. Such actions would in my view cast doubt on the regulatory committee’s independence. The committee must be able to set its own strategic direction, free from the influence of the council, and dictate the standards and timescales of its work.
Amendment 147 is unnecessary because, as I said, the prohibition on undue interference would not prevent the council from removing members of the regulatory committee in certain reasonable circumstances, such as the member being insolvent.
Amendment 148 would require the council to appoint one of its lay members as the convener of the regulatory committee, rather than allow the committee to appoint its convener. I do not agree with that proposal. It is vital that the regulatory committee be independent. I believe that removing its ability to appoint its convener would undermine that independence.
Amendment 149 is completely unnecessary, as the 1980 act already provides that any committee of the council can delegate functions to a sub-committee. The Law Society has raised concerns about whether a sub-committee of the new regulatory committee should be required to have a lay member as its chairperson and whether it should be able to co-opt members who are not on the regulatory committee. As a regulatory sub-committee might deal with technical issues, I consider that it might be appropriate for a solicitor to chair it and for the committee to be able to co-opt those who are most able to deal with the issues that are under consideration. Accordingly, amendment 99 makes such provision.
However, I also consider it appropriate that Scottish ministers have a power to prescribe the maximum number of persons on any regulatory sub-committee and what proportion of the regulatory committee or sub-committee may be co-opted. New section 3E of the 1980 act, which will be inserted by amendment 103, provides for that. The society has also raised concerns about potential disputes between the council and the regulatory committee. New section 3D of the 1980 act, which will be inserted by amendment 103, therefore provides that arbitration be used to resolve such disputes, with an arbiter who is to be appointed by the Lord President should the parties fail to agree on one. I hope that that will never be necessary but, in the event of any problems, the provision allows a proportionate response to resolve the issue while avoiding recourse to the courts.
The definition of regulatory functions is expanded slightly in new section 3F of the 1980 act to include the society’s functions in respect of conveyancing, executive practitioners and registered European and foreign lawyers. Further examples are added to the list of particular regulatory functions to improve clarity.
New section 3G of the 1980 act provides that if the society becomes an approved regulator, its regulatory functions include any relevant functions in relation to that role. Amendment 104 defines the regulatory committee for the purposes of the 1980 act.
I respectfully invite Mr Aitken and Mr Brown not to move their amendments.
I move amendment 94.
Amendment 145, in my name, seeks to improve the drafting of the bill and takes out the phrase:
“(acting in any other capacity)”.
I consider the phrase to be imprecise because the Law Society has only one capacity. I have not yet heard sufficient from the minister to enable me not to move amendment 145.
Amendments 146 and 147 might have some merit and I shall listen to Robert Brown’s arguments. Amendment 148 seems to tidy up some wording, although the difference between “non-solicitor members” and “lay persons” is a little obscure and defeats me at present.
Amendment 149, in my name, would simply enable the regulatory committee to delegate its authority to a sub-committee. It would correct what seems to be a deficiency in that the bill envisages that there will be sub-committees of the regulatory committee, but makes no provision for delegation from the regulatory committee to such sub-committees. I need to hear the minister being a little more persuasive under that heading before I decide where to take my amendment.
This is a significant group of amendments that would affect the working of the council of the Law Society and its relationship with the regulatory committee. I agree entirely with the minister’s assessment of the need to define clearly the relationship between the two bodies. That is one of the difficulties that lie behind some of today’s amendments.
I am unenthusiastic about Government amendment 103, which seems far too elaborate. I note in particular provision for arbitration in new section 3D of the 1980 act. We will have lost the plot entirely if the council and the regulatory committee fall out, and I think that the minister agrees with that. I understand that the Law Society takes the view that the provision on arbitration is a disproportionate response. It is fair to say that, where an arbitration arrangement is in place, it acts as a slight disincentive to sorting the problem directly. I will not vote against the amendment because it contains lots of other measures, but I will be interested in the minister’s response to my comments.
I am also bothered by amendment 97, which provides for the regulatory committee not just to decide things in its remit but to give directions to the council on such matters. As the minister suggested, that might follow from the society’s independent statutory status, but it does not sound right. I hope that the minister will elaborate on the need for that provision and the circumstances in which it might apply. It seems a trifle odd that the provision has been thought of only at stage 3; I do not think that we considered it at an earlier stage.
The Law Society’s view is that the regulatory committee should be independent of the council, but I agree with it that that does not mean that the regulatory committee should be unaccountable or unconnected to the council. Amendments 146 to 148 are designed to allow the council to set standards of performance for the regulatory committee. I do not agree with the minister that that would impinge on its independent role. They also provide for what happens if a member of the committee becomes unable to discharge their functions, or unsuited to doing so. In that regard, given the confusion that surrounds this issue, it does no harm to have that specifically laid out, against the background of the other things that say that the council cannot interfere with the regulatory committee.
It is important to link the committee properly with the council by providing that it be convened by a lay member of the council. At present, that is not required. The difference between a lay member and a non-solicitor member is not really the issue; the point at issue is that the committee should be convened by a member of the council who is not a solicitor.
I accept that this is a tricky area and that there is a sometimes delicate balance between the regulatory and representative functions of the Law Society. It has been said that there is a degree of tension in the Law Society following the debates about the bill in general. There need to be appropriate linkages to improve confidence, facilitate good working and produce a corporate response on some of these issues. The amendments in my name, which, subject to the minister’s comments, I intend to pursue, will help.
16:30
It is important that disputes between the regulatory committee and the council of the Law Society can be resolved. Of course, ultimately the council is the accountable body of the society, including the regulatory committee. There must be clear provision for the council to resolve any dispute that it might have with the regulatory committee.
We understand why the society has promoted amendments that would give the council a limited ability to intervene in the function of the regulatory committee but, ultimately, we do not agree with that approach.
We have raised the issue that the Law Society is now to be a representative, disciplinary and regulatory body. We believe that the regulatory role should at least be clearly separate from the society’s other functions.
We lodged amendments at stage 2 that would have created even clearer delineations between the different functions and committees.
We support the model for resolving disputes in the amendments in the name of the minister and we believe that he has proposed the right approach. However, we do not support the approach that is proposed in the amendments from Robert Brown and Bill Aitken.
We heard Bill Aitken’s argument about sub-committees and, like him, we will be interested to hear the minister’s response on that issue.
I took some time to set out the arguments on this matter—longer than I took in debates on previous groupings—because of the importance of getting it right. Section 93 is a significant, important section. Along with the consideration of the guarantee fund issue, there has been a lot of debate, thought and work on this issue over the summer.
I appreciate the points that Mr Brown made and the Law Society’s position. The amendments that we have lodged offer the correct approach. As Mr Baker has said, the regulatory committee needs to have a measure of independence and to be able to operate separately. That will be possible under the provisions that we have introduced.
I want to respond in detail to some of the points that have been made. First, Mr Aitken raised a point about amendment 145. This is a somewhat technical and legalistic argument, but amendment 145 would remove the words
“(acting in any other capacity)”
from new section 3B(2A) of the 1980 act, which is inserted by section 93 of the bill. That wording was inserted because the regulatory committee is part of the council and so, when prohibiting the council from interfering unduly in the affairs of the regulatory committee, it is important that that does not include the section of the council that is legitimately carrying out those regulatory functions—the regulatory committee. Therefore, we do not support amendment 145, as the removal of those words could lead to some ambiguity about the different roles of the council.
I think that I addressed some of Mr Brown’s arguments in my lengthy opening remarks. Suffice it to say that I do not think that providing for arbitration is disproportionate. We in the Government encourage arbitration. It need not be a long or complex procedure. The role of the Lord President is to appoint an arbiter, not to adjudicate. Arbitration will not be conducted before him or the inner house of the Court of Session. It will be conducted by an arbiter. It is a simple process that avoids litigation and going to court. That is the point of arbitration. I do not believe that providing for it is disproportionate and I do not believe the argument that creating a provision for arbitration is a disincentive to use it. That is a surprising proposition and we do not support it.
I do not believe that confusion surrounds this section, which is straightforward, clear cut and based on principle. I commend it to the Parliament. I respectfully invite Mr Brown not to move the amendments in his name. I invite Bill Aitken not to move amendment 145.
Amendment 94 agreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 145 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 70, Against 43, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 145 agreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 97 moved—[Fergus Ewing.]
The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 85, Against 29, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment 146 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 100, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 146 disagreed to.
Amendment 147 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 100, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 147 disagreed to.
Amendment 98 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 148 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 100, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 148 disagreed to.
Amendment 149 not moved.
Amendments 99 to 104 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Section 94A—Notification if suspension lifted
Group 19 is on disciplinary provision. Amendment 105, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 106 to 110, 112 and 113.
The amendments in the group relate to discipline.
Members: Oh!
I hear that members are listening—that is encouraging.
At stage 1, an amendment was lodged that sought to alter the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 so that a solicitor’s practising certificate would automatically be suspended if they had been convicted by any court of an act involving dishonesty or had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Such suspensions are already possible in those circumstances, but the Law Society wishes to prevent convicted solicitors from practising without waiting for the completion of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal process.
The amendment was not moved at stage 2, but I undertook to discuss the issue further with the Law Society, which has agreed that automatic suspension is not appropriate and that a discretionary power for the council of the society to suspend practising certificates in such circumstances is more suitable. We have also agreed that there should be a right of appeal to the court. Amendments 105 to 107, 112 and 113 make necessary amendments to achieve those objectives.
I move amendment 105.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Amendments 106 to 110 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 94A
Group 20 is on the accounts fee. Amendment 111, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
During my discussions with the Law Society, it was suggested that it might make the purpose of the guarantee fund clearer if the society could charge a separate fee to cover financial compliance work. The society suggested that, as with the guarantee fund fee, only principals and incorporated practices should pay. The guarantee fund contribution would be reduced accordingly and would cover only the costs of administration of the fund and grants from it. Amendment 111 inserts new section 37A into the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to make provision for the new accounts fee.
I move amendment 111.
Amendment 111 agreed to.
Amendment 112 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 150 not moved.
Before section 98
Amendment 113 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After section 98
16:45
Group 21 is on amendments to the 1980 act. Amendment 151, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendment 156.
These two amendments seek to amend the 1980 act, and they are in consequence of or in connection with the amendments that were made to the complaints procedure in the 2007 act. Amendment 156, the principal amendment of the two, is necessary in order to dovetail the new complaints procedure into the 1980 act and to make it work more effectively. That is the crux of the argument, and I shall listen to the minister with interest.
I move amendment 151.
Bill Aitken’s amendments 151 and 156 make certain changes to the 1980 act that were proposed by the Law Society of Scotland some time ago. They were said to be consequential to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.
Although such changes could ordinarily have been made using the power to make ancillary provision that is contained in the 2007 act, that power is currently limited in scope, owing to changes made through the UK Legal Services Act 2007. However, I lodged a stage 2 amendment to amend the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to ensure that the power to make ancillary provision can be used as intended, including in areas that have been altered by the UK Legal Services Act 2007. That stage 2 amendment now appears in the bill as section 98A.
Given that the issues can be addressed through that section, and that I undertake to consider addressing them in subordinate legislation, I respectfully invite Bill Aitken—if he agrees that that deals with the issues adequately—to withdraw and not move amendments 151 and 156 respectively.
On the basis of the ministerial undertaking that has been provided, I will not proceed with the amendments.
Amendment 151, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 99—Regulations
Amendment 152 moved—[Richard Baker].
The question is, that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 85, Against 28, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 152 agreed to.
Amendment 114 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Amendment 153 not moved.
Section 99A—Further modification
Amendments 154 and 155 not moved.
Amendments 115 and 116 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Schedule 3—Censure
Amendment 117 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
After schedule 8
Amendment 156 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
O’Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 99, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 156 disagreed to.
Schedule 9—Index of expressions used
Amendment 118 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
Long Title
Group 22 is on the long title. Amendment 119, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 120.
Amendments 119 and 120 will amend the long title so that it reflects the provisions that were inserted at stage 2 in relation to the regulation of non-lawyer will writers and lay representation.
I move amendment 119.
Amendment 119 agreed to.
Amendment 120 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.