Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5223, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that Parliament agrees that the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank the Justice 2 Committee for its thorough consideration of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill. A number of refinements were made to the bill at stage 2 and I thank the committee members for their careful consideration of the issues. There is no doubt that a consensual approach was taken early on—perhaps my late involvement did not tamper too much with that.
The bill has attracted much interest and comment from stakeholders, MSPs and the media. Although the Executive may not have agreed with all the concerns that have been raised or all the suggestions that have been made, we have listened carefully to what was said. There is clear evidence of a dialogue throughout the process and of movement and development as the bill has progressed through Parliament, which gives the lie to the false notion that the Executive introduces bills and then repels all boarders who wish to change them. In particular, we have taken on board concerns about the inequity of applying the complaints levy to all complaints, whether they are upheld or not. We have also taken seriously the questions that were asked about the bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights so, to strengthen the bill, we have taken action to reinforce the Scottish legal complaints commission's independence and provide a right of appeal.
The bill strives to build a new working relationship between practitioners and their clients. I believe that it now strikes the right balance in respecting the rights of both. A strong, independent and well-regulated legal profession in which the public have confidence is one of the cornerstones of the justice system. When they use lawyers, consumers need to understand their rights, the level of service that they can expect and their own responsibilities. When things go wrong, an effective process must be in place to ensure that the right remedies and redress are available and are provided quickly.
The need to reform the current arrangements for handling complaints was originally highlighted in a report by the previous Justice 1 Committee in 2002. That committee's diagnosis was reinforced by the public response to the Executive's consultation paper last year. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill takes forward the agenda for change by proposing a quick, efficient and consumer-friendly way of resolving disputes when people who have genuine complaints have been unable to resolve their complaints directly with their lawyers.
The bill will set up the Scottish legal complaints commission, which will be an independent complaints-handling body that will act as a single gateway to receive complaints against members of the legal profession and which will handle them impartially, transparently and efficiently. That core proposal has been broadly supported; indeed, Parliament overwhelmingly endorsed the general principles of the bill following the stage 1 debate.
However, there have been differences of opinion on matters of process. I understand that, at stage 2, there were a number of lively debates on a variety of issues, such as the appointment and dismissal of the commission's board members, powers of enforcement for the commission's recommendations and the appropriate maximum level of compensation for complainers.
However, the most controversial issue that was debated at stages 2 and 3 was the bill's compliance with the European convention on human rights. Many members will be aware that the legal profession expressed concerns at stage 1 about how the bill would provide for the independence and impartiality of the commission. Notwithstanding the fact that the Presiding Officer certified that the bill is ECHR compliant and that the Executive was, and remains, assured of the bill's compliance, further concerns were expressed at stage 2 and today. Although the Executive does not accept the legal argument that was put forward, several amendments were lodged for the purpose of reinforcing the independent status of the commission as a regulatory body in a specialised area of consumer complaints handling. In particular, we introduced several measures to ensure compliance with article 6 of the ECHR and we removed ministers' powers to issue general directions to the commission. I add that there was never any intention to use those powers to influence the commission's decisions, although they could have been seen as enabling ministers to do that.
We also clarified the appointments provisions to make it clear that appointments are for a fixed period, and we secured a consultative role for the Lord President of the Court of Session on the appointment of board members. The Lord President will also now have a role in dismissal of the members and chair of the board. The bill already required the commission to make rules about its practice and procedures, and we lodged amendments to require that the Lord President be consulted on those rules.
We also lodged an amendment to reinforce the demarcation between the commission's investigative function on the one hand and its determination function on the other. That amendment makes it clear that the determination committee cannot include any person who has been involved in earlier consideration of the complaint.
We acknowledged the concern that the practice of the commission in fixing awards may differ from that of other courts, so we made it clear in the bill that the commission must, in considering levels of awards, take account of levels of damages that have been awarded by the courts in similar circumstances.
Finally, the legal profession called for a full right of appeal of the commission's decisions to the court, again for ECHR reasons. We considered that carefully, and we accepted the need for a right of appeal. However, I emphasise that an appeal will proceed only with the leave of the Court of Session. That will ensure that only cases in which there are substantial grounds for appeal will proceed. We recognise that, for the new complaints handling system to work effectively, it must secure the confidence of both the users and providers of legal services. It must also be based on a secure statutory foundation. I hope that in developing the package of measures, we have reinforced the bill's ECHR compatibility and reassured the legal profession of the commission's independence.
Those were the concerns of the legal profession, but I remind everyone that the central aim of the bill was to put the users of legal services at the heart of regulatory arrangements. People seek legal advice at critical times in their lives, so lapses from high standards, however rare they are, can have severe consequences for clients. The people of Scotland have the right to complain in such circumstances, and they deserve to have their complaints dealt with quickly, efficiently and transparently. When a complaint is upheld, redress needs to be appropriate and delivered swiftly.
There was discussion both at stage 2 and this morning about the appropriate level of compensation for service complaints. The Justice 2 Committee questioned the basis for the maximum of £20,000 in the bill. We responded by saying that the figure is necessary to ensure that the commission can consider as many complaints that involve low-level negligence as possible. At present, all cases involving negligence must be pursued through court action, regardless of the amount of damages that is sought. It is vital for access to justice that ordinary people can pursue a complaint involving low-level negligence without facing the uncertainty and expense of a court action. That is why we resisted attempts to have the figure lowered.
It is also important that clients receive full redress for what they have lost and all that they have suffered. That is why we resisted calls for the £20,000 limit to represent a cap that also covers other measures of redress, such as the limitation of fees or the cost of rectification. The maximum level of compensation will be £20,000, and the sum will be in addition to the value of the other remedies available. As we have said, the figure is a maximum—any anxieties on the part of the profession that it might become an average level of award are completely unfounded.
On the legal aid provisions, the bill will also implement some of the key recommendations from our "Advice for All" consultation where amendment of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 was required. The changes are part of a range of improvements that will pave the way for the development of a more flexible and proactive system of publicly funded legal assistance. We want to progress to a system in which unmet needs can be identified and addressed in a co-ordinated way and in which advice can be provided by whoever is best equipped to do so.
In the stage 1 debate, Hugh Henry announced that he had asked the Scottish Legal Aid Board to set up a network of solicitors who are employed by the board to provide civil legal assistance where there are gaps in private sector provision. I am delighted to announce that that project is now under way. In response to the difficulties that some applicants have encountered in finding solicitors who will deal with domestic abuse cases in the Highlands and Islands, the board has advertised for a solicitor to provide that service. The key focus will be work with local organisations and women who have experienced domestic abuse. I know that that news will be welcomed in particular by Maureen Macmillan, who raised the issue with Hugh Henry and the chief executive of the legal aid board.
We have listened to the views that were expressed by stakeholders in response to our formal consultation and during discussions that were arranged by officials while the committee took evidence at stage 1. That is why we lodged amendments at stage 2, including amendments to provide SLAB with a grant-funding power. That is not only to provide another funding stream for advice provision, but to give SLAB a strategic tool that it can use to help develop and support provision in areas where the problems are more fundamental than mere unavailability of advisers. We have also listened to views that were expressed by committee members during their thorough consideration of the bill, and by John Swinney and Bill Aitken, who diligently attended the stage 2 meetings and contributed to the discussions. In response to an issue that was raised by Bill Aitken, we lodged an amendment at stage 3 to require the code of practice for registered advice organisations to include arrangements for complaint handling.
We are committed to ensuring access to justice. It is important to recognise that the vast majority of legal aid provision comes from hard-working solicitors in private law firms. It is therefore important that we continue to monitor the legal aid system and its remuneration levels to ensure that an adequate supply of solicitors provide this crucial service. A report by SLAB—with the Law Society and the Executive—indicates that the civil legal aid reforms that were introduced in October 2003 and in 2004 are operating reasonably well, but it also identifies areas in which we could make further improvements.
We hope to be able to introduce regulations soon, which will make important changes to the civil block-fee system, which will improve both flexibility and the reward for solicitors. Although I am sure that that will be welcomed, I have asked my officials to work with SLAB in the new year to review the overall level of fees that are payable to solicitors in civil legal aid cases, given that the new system was introduced in 2003. We will also review the financial eligibility rules for legal aid to ensure that it is not only the best and worst-off people in our society who can receive help to get their legal problems resolved.
There has been a great deal of interest in the bill from the legal profession, members of the public, MSPs and consumer interests. I thank everyone for contributing their ideas, expressing their concerns and challenging the bill's provisions in a positive and rigorous way. I believe that the bill strikes the right balance in dealing with complaints in a way that is fair and accountable to all parties. It incorporates safeguards to reassure the profession that the Scottish legal complaints commission will act in a reasonable way in handling complaints. Equally important is that the provisions in the bill will give a voice to consumers and provide them with an opportunity to work with the legal profession in raising the standard of legal service provision in Scotland.
I thank again all those who have been involved, in particular the bill team, who had to deal not only with a very complicated bill but with a new minister at a very late stage. Their tolerance of me was very much appreciated.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to 5.30 pm.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 11.2.4 of Standing Orders, Decision Time on Thursday 14 December be taken at 5.30 pm.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]
Motion agreed to.
I pay tribute to the minister's endeavours today. I concur with the tribute that the minister paid to everyone in the bill team.
The bill has been a long time coming. As the minister correctly pointed out, the issue was considered by the Justice 1 Committee at the start of the millennium. At that stage, the perception was that it would be a simple case of taking matters from the Law Society and creating an independent body. It has become clear that the issue is highly complex, for a variety of reasons.
The issue is difficult, as we must balance various rights. We must consider not only the profession that we seek to have some regulation of—rather than its being self-regulated—but the requirement to balance rights within the profession and elsewhere. Also, the situation is fluid, which is perhaps shown by the fact that in addition to establishing the commission, we are addressing the provision of legal services. The legal profession is changing as we speak. It is important that we address that.
Some aspects of the bill may not work out in practice because of issues that we have not foreseen. We will have to consider and return to them, but it is to the credit of the Law Society that it accepted, perhaps belatedly, that the situation could not go on as it was and that there had to be an independent, impartial body. It was no longer acceptable to the general public or to the body politic that it said that it was a well-run, well-regulated profession that could self-regulate. It may well be such a profession—I think that all members concede that the number of people who err and fall below the high standards that are set by the Law Society are few—but there have been instances when matters have not been dealt with appropriately. There are occasions when the conduct of solicitors and the service that they provide are not appropriate. Those matters must be considered. It is clear that there has been division on the issue, but we must regulate.
I hope that the matters that have been raised today will be addressed. John Swinney was right to say that the provision of a right of appeal against a decision of the Scottish legal complaints commission creates problems. We have acted correctly in trying to ensure that there is a focused approach, but we should warn the legal profession that it must not abuse the system. If complaints to the commission become just one part of the process because practitioners who do not like the decision will appeal, thereby dragging the process out and imposing financial constraints on people who complain about service, the Parliament will review the situation. It is not the Parliament's will or understanding that such an outcome is the intention of the amendment that was agreed to today. The Executive was correct to accept amendment 3 on the basis that appeals would be allowed in limited circumstances and that that approach would preserve rights rather than create a perverse situation that could be abused.
It did not take the wisdom of Solomon to support amendment 1, which would have reduced the maximum compensation payable from £20,000 to £15,000, but the Executive did not support it. Although we regret that the amendment was not agreed to, it is disingenuous of people in the legal profession to suggest that the maximum fine will always be imposed.
When I was a practising solicitor many years ago, people would come in to discuss an offence that might carry a level 5 fine, which could be a significant amount—£3,000, £5,000 or even £10,000. I would say, as would any sensible solicitor worth their salt, "Don't be silly. You will not be fined the maximum amount; you will be required to pay a fine that is reasonable given your circumstances and the offence you committed." I would prefer the maximum compensation to be £15,000, but the profession's fears should be allayed—practitioners will not pay a mandatory amount of £20,000. A balance will be struck and matters will be resolved.
We must acknowledge that circumstances have changed. The profession was quite right to accept that the current system could not continue, although I still receive letters from solicitors who seem unaware that the body that represents them has acknowledged that there should be an independent commission. Those solicitors must deal with their representatives; we have addressed the matter today. We trust and hope that we have got the balance right but we acknowledge that the profession will change as society changes. If the new system does not work, we will review it.
We welcome the changes to the legal aid system, which were vastly overdue. There are significant problems and I do not think that we have seen the last of changes to the system, but that is a matter for another day. In the meantime, we commend the bill and are happy to support it.
I joined the Justice 2 Committee as convener on day 1 of stage 2 of the bill, which gave me a real introduction to the trenches in the front line—I had to read hundreds of submissions. I pay tribute to all the people who sent evidence to the committee at an early stage and wrote copious amounts of mail to us thereafter—demonstrating that people acknowledge the usefulness of the work of the Parliament and its committees.
I thank the committee clerks and the former Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, who provided much help to the committee during its initial consideration of the bill. I welcome the new Deputy Minister for Justice's continuation of the open dialogue that the committee and the Executive have had throughout the bill's progress. I hope that such dialogue continues as other parliamentary committees consider all the forthcoming proposed legislation.
In thanking the people behind the scenes, I mention the bill team, who played a vital role. I was very saddened to hear that Andrew Dickson, who was the bill team leader during the early part of the bill's progress, died last week. I believe that he was a devoted and respected civil servant. We send our regards and sympathy to his family.
The Conservatives have acknowledged for a long time that the legal complaints system needed to be modernised. There was a need for balance, to ensure not only that complainers' rights were guaranteed but that there was a fair deal for practitioners who were complained against. We are not completely satisfied that our concerns on the ECHR are past us yet, but what ministers have done has taken us pretty well there. I look forward to the roll-out of that provision.
The point that Kenny MacAskill and others, including the minister, made about £20,000 being the maximum compensation payable is important—one need only look at what happened in Northern Ireland, with its compensation limit of £3,500 and the fact that Scotland has only recently moved its figures. We have to ensure that there is no public doubt that £20,000 is not a given. It is not the level of most of the settlements that have been made.
We welcome the legal aid changes. People in small communities and remote areas find it particularly difficult to get access to legal aid through a solicitor. We welcome what has happened on the voluntary sector front, as long as the sector is properly funded, accountable and accredited.
I turn to appeals without leave of the court. We accept that that is what the minister has done—she has moved a long way since the bill was introduced, at which time there was no thought whatever of an appeal system. We also welcome the new role of the Lord President. We on the Conservative benches like practical legislation—legislation that works—but we want to ensure that there is public confidence in it and transparency in all the processes.
Huge regard was paid to the evidence that we received—some of which we may have to return to—including that of the in-house lawyers, who may not continue to pay their Law Society registration if there is no requirement to do so. That could lead to the loss of members. A critical mass is required—all this has to be funded. I hope that ministers are mindful of that.
Solicitors in small practices may decide that they are not prepared to take on anything that seems risky—perhaps because the £20,000 limit has led to a lack of confidence. I hope that that will not deprive people of access to legal services.
That said, I thank the Executive for the treatment that the Parliament and the committee have had during the passage of the bill. I thank everyone concerned. We will, at last, be able to support the bill, because of the work of the minister and her team.
I will refer to the debate at stage 1 and to the committee's stage 1 report. The main areas of consideration at that stage have been substantially addressed, both at stage 2 and today. There were three main considerations: that the bill would put at risk small solicitor firms, in respect of which there is a higher than average complaint rate; that the commission would not operate in a fair, transparent or accountable way; and that the absence of an appeal mechanism could lead to ECHR concerns and issues of fairness for the complainer and the solicitor who is the subject of the complaint.
Before I explore those considerations, I will touch on a series of questions that can be seen as a test of the bill. First, will the bill make it easier for someone who believes that they have received inadequate service from a solicitor to make a complaint? Secondly, will the process be quicker than it is at present? Thirdly, will the complaint be concluded fairly and in a straightforward manner that is easy for the complainant to understand? Finally, will the process be much less expensive than using the courts? In short, does the bill address the deficiencies of the current system, which relies almost wholesale on the Law Society? From the committee's stage 1 report, one can see that the short answer is yes. The Executive has reinforced that conclusion by addressing the concerns that were raised at stage 1.
It is appropriate to recognise the work of my committee colleagues and that of other members such as John Swinney—whose contribution has been mentioned in the debate—and Bill Aitken, who took an active and constructive role in the consideration of the bill. Indeed, their assistance to the committee shows the value of having non-committee members attend committee meetings at stage 1 and stage 2. That does not happen often, but their experience—from a constituency and an experience perspective—was helpful.
The previous Deputy Minister for Justice listened and responded genuinely to the debate. The new Deputy Minister for Justice, who took office at a developed stage of the bill, managed to gain a remarkable grasp of the details of the bill at stage 2, as did our convener. The Executive's willingness to work with all the parties and take a constructive view does it credit. It is good for the Parliament and the public to see the democratic process working constructively.
I want briefly to consider the areas that have caused concern throughout passage of the bill. The first relates to the concerns that were voiced at stage 1 by solicitors who practise in an area in which there is a higher than average rate of complaints. Their main concern was that the complaints process would not be fair for them, that there would be no appeal and that the complaints levy would be set at a 50:50 split to raise the revenue, which would mean that it would be a de facto fine. That was addressed at stage 2 and has been further addressed at stage 3. That is welcome.
There is concern about financing the commission through the annual levy and the retrospective complaints levy, but that is for the commission to determine. It is incumbent on the commission to develop a strong relationship with the legal profession to ensure not only that there is a proper processing of complaints but that there is a proper relationship between it and the profession. The changes that have been made in that regard and in relation to the appeals mechanism have made the bill stronger.
When we were faced with an alternative appeal mechanism at stage 2, which involved an automatic appeal to sheriffs, we decided that it was not attractive. What we have agreed today is attractive, as will be the more streamlined approach for the complainer, which will be more efficient, cheaper and better. That is a good definition of the bill that I hope we will pass at half past five.
I record my appreciation of the sterling support that the clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre have given the committee.
No one would disagree that, in recent years, the public's confidence in how the system deals with complaints about lawyers has declined. Despite some changes that were made by the Law Society, doubt remains in the minds of citizens. To be frank, there is a public perception that complaints are not dealt with in an unbiased way and that the odds are stacked against individual complainers.
If we pass the amended bill that is before us, I believe that public confidence can be won back. I welcome the fact that the commission will be led by a board with a non-lawyer majority and a non-lawyer chair and will receive complaints about lawyers that cannot be resolved at source. I believe that that is sensible, as is the intention that the commission should handle complaints about inadequate professional services. I am also content that responsibility for professional discipline will remain with the legal professional bodies and that the relevant discipline tribunals will be involved because the commission will oversee the manner in which such complaints are handled.
I believe that the Parliament's decision to support the Executive in maintaining £20,000 as the maximum compensation when a services complaint is upheld is correct. The minister was correct when she said that the commission will behave competently and professionally when it decides compensation. I welcome the Parliament's decision.
The right of appeal against commission decisions is much knottier. I thought that John Swinney's comments on the matter were eloquent, sincere and detailed but, in the end, not persuasive. Given that the amendment in the name of my colleague, Ms Baillie, was eventually passed nem con, I hope that, during the debate, Mr Swinney took comfort in the clarification that Mr Wallace and Mr MacAskill, among others, offered.
I am content that what was passed does not tilt the balance in favour of the legal profession at the expense of the individual citizen. If I had thought for a moment that it did, I would not have supported the amendments. I believe that the amendments provide only the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Session and that the application for leave to appeal would need to be sought from and granted by the Court of Session before it could proceed. Appeal would be possible only on the restricted ground that it does not challenge the merits of a commission decision. That is only right and proper. The commission will be party to any appeal. I concur with the minister's wise words this morning: the amendments preserve the essence of the current policy and do not undermine it.
The policy intentions behind the bill are vital to its overriding aim of creating a system of justice that is efficient, effective and accessible for all the citizens of Scotland, and that is seen to be so.
I thank the Government for introducing the bill and the ministers for steering it through Parliament. I imagine that the volume of correspondence that I have passed to them on the subject might have made the issues involved somewhat difficult to avoid, but I am glad that we are having this debate.
Mr Butler asked from where I took comfort. Much as I hang on every word of Mr Wallace and Mr MacAskill, I found the deputy minister's comments on appeals this morning particularly clear and specific. I welcome the fact that she went to great lengths to set out the fact that there would not be a general, widespread right of appeal, and that it would apply only in limited circumstances.
The bill contains many desirable and welcome provisions. I hope that it will create a new atmosphere in the way the minority of individuals who have a bad experience of solicitors find recourse through the system.
I hope that the bill will create recognition in some of the professional organisations that there has to be a cultural shift in their outlook on the world. We see that in some organisations, but not in others. I was intrigued by an interview that the chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland gave to The Herald on 30 October, in which he said, in relation to the provisions of the bill that would provide the commission with oversight of the master policy:
"If they try to do this, I believe the insurers and the Financial Services Authority will tell the Scottish Parliament to take a hike."
If I were to capture a sentence that illustrates the cultural shift that is required, it would be that one. We are living in a different world. We are living in an age when the consumer in every walk of life has every right to expect the highest standard of service from any organisation. I hope that the bill will lead to a cultural shift in some of the organisations that have been far from responsive to some of the changes that have taken place in consumer attitudes in the past.
I hope that the bill will achieve the objectives that the Government has set, which I think recognise that there has been a problem in the design of the system. The Government has made a serious attempt to tackle that problem. I hope that in passing the bill later this afternoon, we will see public confidence in the legal system begin to be rebuilt over a period of time and that consumers can achieve the satisfaction to which they are entirely entitled.
As other members have said, there were many issues for the Justice 2 Committee to consider in scrutinising this 80-page bill, which was probably dwarfed by the hundreds of submissions from throughout the country that we had to read.
In the three minutes that I have, I will address just two aspects of the bill: the need for greater public confidence in the complaints system and widening access to justice. The Executive introduced the bill, which I welcome, in response to the overwhelming demand from the public for a legal complaints system that they can trust and on which they can rely for a quick and fair resolution to their reasonable concerns. The current self-regulatory procedure is disliked and criticised because it is seen as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates investigating themselves. It is also seen as cumbersome, costly and weighted against the interests of consumers.
I acknowledge that the Executive introduced the bill on that basis. However, the public's preferred option in the initial consultation of a wholly independent commission dealing with all complaints is not among the options before us in the bill. That is a mistake, because we will still get a sense that, as the Scottish Consumer Council put it, the system
"needs to put the users of legal services at the heart of the regulatory arrangements."
I am not sure that the bill achieves that. As Linda Costelloe Baker, the outgoing Scottish legal services ombudsman, said when she appeared before the Justice 2 Committee to vent her frustration, the remit of the commission will be limited to addressing complaints of poor service. The rights of advocates and solicitors to self-regulation should be scrapped. The commission will not, however, be the regulator of the adequate practice of the profession. We will move from self-regulation to partial co-regulation. The minister was right to acknowledge the unease about the separation of conduct and service complaints, but we will see how that develops in due course.
My final point is on the evidence that the committee heard about the huge unmet demand for legal advice. We received a great deal of evidence that the cost of accessing even basic assistance is prohibitive to many people, so the provisions that will increase people's access to advice and low-level assistance are particularly welcome.
I again draw the minister's attention to paragraph 233 of the Justice 2 Committee's report on the bill, which highlights the need to commence the provisions in sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 to provide more choice and legal protection for consumers. The fact is that those provisions have not been commenced in 17 years. The Executive has made a commitment to commence the provisions in March, before the dissolution of Parliament, and I hope that it does so.
The Scottish Socialist Party will support the bill at decision time, even though we would have preferred all complaints to be handled by the Scottish legal complaints commission.
The fact that the bill is a completely different animal from what appeared at stage 1 is a good advertisement for the parliamentary process. I pay tribute to the Justice 2 Committee, under the able convenership of David Davidson, and to the Executive, which listened and acted.
We had two principal concerns about the bill. One was about the appeals system and the other was about the independence of the new body and how it will be set up. The Executive has not moved as far as we would have liked on those matters, but it certainly listened and reacted. It has reassured us to the extent that we can vote to pass the bill today.
It is important to recognise that the bill is about service complaints and not about embezzlement or negligence. In the case of embezzlement, in addition to any criminal sanction, the indemnity fund will kick in, and in the case of negligence, acts such as a failure to lodge a reparation action timeously or the purchase of a house without a proper title will result in professional indemnity insurance kicking in. The limit that has been put on service complaints is indicative of the fact that, in most cases, they are not terribly serious, but they cause considerable concern and irritation along with some hardship to those who make complaints.
The legal profession must think that it is being selected for special treatment. People have problems with plumbers, electricians and joiners as well, and I look forward to a plumbing and electrical trades (Scotland) bill being lodged at some distant time. However, the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill is a job well done and it reflects well on all concerned, particularly the Deputy Minister for Justice and her predecessor. We will vote for the bill in a few moments' time.
I add my thanks to those of other members who were on the Justice 2 Committee during stages 1 and 2. I thank the clerks and my fellow committee members, who worked hard in examining the bill, and I also thank the committee's adviser. I do not know whether anyone else mentioned the adviser we had at stage 1, but I would certainly like to thank them.
One of the most important aspects of the debate, certainly at stage 1 and particularly at stage 2, was about the maximum level of compensation, which the bill sets at £20,000. It is important to emphasise yet again that that is not the normal level, but the maximum level. As Mr MacAskill said, we do not have punitive damages in this country. Instead, the sum that is awarded represents compensation for loss. The truth of what the bill is about was lost in some of the rhetoric during the early stages of the bill. I hope that the profession now understands what the bill is about, rather than the fear stories that were put about regarding the £20,000 level.
The need for an appeals process was much debated at stage 1 and, particularly, at stage 2. Although it was an interesting debate, there has been a welcome outcome in the fact that we now have an appeals process. After listening to the evidence, I felt that there was a solid case for an independent appeals process. I hope that it will assuage some of the fears that have been raised about ECHR compliance, and I welcome the comments on the bill's ECHR compliance that the minister made earlier.
It is interesting that so little has been said today about the separation of service complaints and conduct complaints. Perhaps we talked ourselves out on that matter at stages 1 and 2, although Colin Fox raised the issue again today. I think that we will have to wait and see how that works out. If there is a problem later on, we will perhaps have to reconsider it; however, I think that we have got the balance just about right.
Bill Butler emphasised the important fact that the board will have a non-lawyer majority. That is central to the whole shift in culture that my colleague, John Swinney, mentioned. I echo his comments on that. It is very important that we have that cultural shift and move away from the problems that we have had with some lawyers in the past. It is broadly accepted by most people that it was time for a change to an independent complaints commission. That is an important shift, and it is time that we introduced that measure.
The underlying principle is that an efficient and effective lawyer should welcome a process that targets the small minority—I emphasise the fact that it is a small minority—of lawyers who are failing their clients. I hope that the bill will assist in raising standards in the legal profession, and I am glad to support it.
Like Kenny MacAskill, I recognise the fact that the bill has been a long time in the making. I thank the parliamentary committees—not just in this Parliament, but in the previous Parliament—for all their work in bringing the bill to fruition. I also commend the committee clerks for their hard work in ensuring that business was conducted sensibly and timeously.
I thank in particular the bill team, who have done a tremendous amount of work. As has been mentioned, the bill team leader, Andrew Dickson, unfortunately took ill during the preparation of the bill and, after a short illness, sadly passed away. I am sure that the chamber will want to send condolences to his wife, Wilma, and his family in advance of the funeral tomorrow. Thanks are also due to Louise Miller for stepping in to lead the bill team and bring the bill here today.
Thanks should also go to the former Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, who pursued various issues in the bill with zeal and passion, and to Johann Lamont for coming to a complex and technical bill at a late stage. However, it was pretty much certain that anybody who could manage the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill would be able to manage this one.
It is important to recognise that we are generally served well by members of the legal profession. The number of complaints about the services that they provide is very low in the context of the overall volume of business that they transact on behalf of their clients. It is largely thanks to the profession that Scotland enjoys such a high international reputation for a justice system that is based on fairness and integrity.
Nevertheless, we know that things go wrong, and not just from the letters in John Swinney's mailbag, over which we have had robust exchanges concerning specific cases, and from the examples that have been brought to me by other MSPs from their casework. The Galloway Gazette, the local newspaper in the south-west of Scotland, also undertook a campaigning role at one stage in the process. That is why we have produced a bill that will create an independent commission chaired by a non-lawyer and with a non-lawyer majority. That will give consumers confidence that they are represented where it matters most—at the decision-making level.
It is important that the legal profession and its clients will now have the opportunity to form a true partnership in which they can work together to resolve disputes at the local level. The bill encourages lawyers and their clients to resolve problems at source. When that has not been possible, the commission will provide a quick, user-friendly and fair system of complaints handling.
We have had a robust debate about the bill's ECHR compliance. We have listened carefully, as we always do. As justice ministers, we have prided ourselves on ensuring that we have listened to Parliament. I am confident that the bill is ECHR compliant and that our amendments reinforce the commission's impartiality and independence, particularly through including a procedure for appeal on restricted grounds against a commission decision. That was a sensible way forward that will achieve the correct balance.
The bill will change several aspects of legal aid. I hope that people will in particular welcome the progress that Johann Lamont talked about on the new network of solicitors whom the Scottish Legal Aid Board will employ to provide civil legal assistance where gaps exist in private practice. As Kenny MacAskill said, we will need to consider other issues in due course. That is for another time.
I am glad that we have reached consensus on the bill in Parliament. That sends a strong and powerful message to the legal profession and to consumers that they can have confidence in what we are doing and we will have confidence that they will make progress. I hope that that support will be translated into votes.