Chamber and committees

I turn first to the amendments in my name.

Section 54(7) of the bill repeals section 12 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which specifies how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission must notify the complainer and practitioner of a decision to uphold or not uphold a services complaint. The SLCC and I agree that that is too restrictive, so the amendments provide for minor and technical changes to add additional flexibility. As a result, amendments 9, 83, 84, 85 and 88 amend paragraph 26 of schedule 3 to the bill to remove the express requirement that notice under sections 3, 8, 16, 17 and 24 of the 2007 act must be given in writing.

Amendment 5 repeals section 45 of the 2007 act, which relates to the giving of notices, and amendment 89 is a consequential amendment.

New section 20A enables the complainer and the practitioners to whom the complaint relates to apply to the SLCC for a review of its decisions as listed in the provision. An amendment that was passed at stage 2 now allows the SLCC to discontinue the investigation of a complaint if the practitioner accepts a settlement that is proposed by the SLCC but the complainer does not. Amendment 7 ensures that that decision by the SLCC is reviewable, thereby securing a right of review and enhancing transparency and accountability in the complaints process.

Section 61 of the bill inserts new section 17A into the 2007 act, giving the SLCC the power to request practitioner’s details in connection with complaints. Amendments 12 and 13 expand the powers in section 17A to cover the investigation and reporting of handling complaints. The changes also enable the power to be used by the SLCC where it initiates a conduct or regulatory complaint.

Amendments 86 and 87 amend section 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007 by adding a reference to new section 2A, following the stage 2 amendments that inserted complaints initiated by the SLCC and handling complaints, to the list of sections mentioned in the 2007 act. That is to address and rectify an SLCC concern regarding the omission of handling complaints from the powers in sections 17 and 17A.

Amendment 14 amends section 66 of the bill, which in turn amends paragraph 1 of schedule 3 to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which lists what the rules for the practice and procedure of the SLCC must include.

The effect of amendment 14 is that the rules must include provision to require complaints that are

“frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit to be considered ineligible”,

which would mean the SLCC need not take any further action other than to give notice of that fact to the complainer, the practitioner and any other person as required under the rules.

Amendment 6 and consequential amendment 8 remove the ability to review the decision to categorise a complaint as a conduct complaint or as a regulatory complaint. We agree with the SLCC’s view that these decisions should not be open to review, particularly given the introduction of hybrid complaints, which means that complaints can now be categorised as both types—conduct and regulatory.

Amendments 15 and 16 make small changes to section 66 of the bill, which amends schedule 3 to the 2007 act. The changes mean that the SLCC practice and procedure rules—that relate to the recategorisation of a services complaint—include regulatory complaints.

I turn now to Mr O’Kane’s amendments. I cannot support amendment 135, as it would weaken the SLCC’s authority to set standards in complaints handling. The minimum standard setting was introduced in response to calls for more independent regulation of legal services from stakeholders that represent consumer interests. Consumer bodies support the strengthening of the SLCC’s independent oversight of the setting of minimum standards for complaints handling. As members will remember, the committee heard evidence from Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, that this is best practice. Giving the Lord President a direct role in determining whether guidance that sets minimum standards is to be complied with—or not—may be viewed as a step away from the consumer-focused approach. I do not think that allowing a veto on the setting of minimum standards, potentially prior to SLCC consultation, is in the consumer’s interest.

The current procedure in the bill for setting and issuing minimum standards is aimed at providing greater quality assurance and continuous improvements in complaints handling. As currently drafted, the process is open and transparent. Prior to issuing any guidance that sets minimum standards, the SLCC would carry out a consultation to seek the views of those persons—or their representatives—who would be affected. The SLCC must consult the Lord President, the regulators, practitioners and any other appropriate persons on the initial proposals. The SLCC must again consult the regulators and other appropriate persons on any subsequent drafts. It must take into account any representations that have been made and, further to that, publish a document that summarises the consultation that has been undertaken, the responses and any changes that have been made to the guidance as a result. The SLCC must also give its reasons for including the minimum standards. As a statutory consultee, the Lord President will have had an opportunity at that initial stage to express their views on the proposed minimum standards.

The intention is that the regulators and the Lord President have an opportunity to raise any concerns or challenge any proposed minimum standards through the initial statutory consultation process. As an iterative process, ultimately, given the role of the Lord President in approving a regulatory scheme—which must contain practice rules about the making and handling of complaints, as well as any revisions to it—the Lord President could withhold consent to any subsequent practice rule changes to reflect those standards if they retained concerns with the proposals. That would require the SLCC either to address any concerns that the Lord President raised or to abandon the proposal. The SLCC considers that adding even more stages to the process would add cost to the system and potential delay in addressing emerging consumer protection issues.

Moving on to Mr O’Kane’s other amendments in this group, I am pleased to have been able to work with him on his amendments 11 and 90, which provide relevant professional organisations with the power, when they are considering initiating a complaint against a practitioner or an authorised legal business, to give notice to the practitioner—or the practitioner’s firm or the authorised legal business—requiring the production and delivery of the documents that are specified in the notice relating to the complaint. The amendments will allow all lawyers who are working for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be exempt from any requirement that is placed on them to provide information to prevent interference with their prosecution functions and independence. I am grateful to Mr O’Kane for taking on board my concerns and I am content to support amendments 11 and 90.

I am also pleased to have been able to work with Mr O’Kane on his amendments 22 and 23, which provide expressly that the Law Society of Scotland, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 52(1) of the 2007 act, and that the SLCC, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 41(1) of the 2007 act. I am therefore content to support amendments 22 and 23.

I urge members to support amendments 5 to 9, 12 to 16 and 83 to 89, in my name, and amendments 11, 22, 23 and 90, in the name of Paul O’Kane. However, I ask them not to support amendment 135, in Mr O’Kane’s name.

I move amendment 5.

Amendment 28 makes it clear that different licence fees can be charged to different types of applicants for different types or categories of a licence to reflect the fact that there are now many types of business models entering the legal services market, such as those providing incidental financial services. The amendment allows for the charging of bespoke fees to be permissible under the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010. Allowing the charging of such fees would be part of the regulatory scheme rules. They would need to be approved by Scottish ministers, with the agreement of the Lord President, thus ensuring a check on the fee charging. An example of a licence that would apply only to certain businesses would be an incidental financial business licence.

Amendment 29 repeals section 49 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010. That removes the requirement that, for business entities to be eligible to be a licensed provider, they must be at least 10 per cent owned by solicitors or members of other regulated professions. That simplifies the regulatory framework and potentially broadens the pool of eligible professionals, which will encourage more diverse ownership structures within the legal profession and foster innovation and competition while maintaining high standards of professional conduct.

Under the 2010 act, an approved regulator must be satisfied that all non-solicitor investors are fit to have an interest in a licensed provider, for example in terms of their financial position and character. Section 64(4) of the 2010 act provides that, if a non-solicitor investor is a body, the regulator must be satisfied as to the fitness of both the body and any person having ownership or control of that body.

Amendment 30 relaxes that requirement so that it only applies in respect of persons who have significant control or ownership, as determined by the approved regulator, taking a more proportionate approach.

The bill repeals section 1 of the 2010 act, removing the duty on regulators to comply with specified regulatory objectives in the act in favour of the new regulatory objectives introduced by part 1 of the bill. Amendment 65 similarly repeals the obligation on legal services providers to have regard to the regulatory objectives under the 2010 act. Instead, those providers will need to adhere to the professional principles set out in part 1 of the bill. That change will reduce the regulatory burden on legal services providers, making compliance more straightforward while maintaining high professional standards.

Sections 77 and 78 of the 2010 act are, therefore, not needed. Section 77 requires approved regulators to act compatibly with the regulatory objectives in that act, and section 78 requires approved regulators to issue a policy statement in relation to section 77. Amendment 66 repeals those sections, and amendments 65 and 67 make related consequential changes.

I move amendment 28.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Section 80—Majority ownership

Amendment 29 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

After section 80

Amendment 30 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 86B—Safeguarding interests of clients

I turn first to the amendments in my name.

Section 54(7) of the bill repeals section 12 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which specifies how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission must notify the complainer and practitioner of a decision to uphold or not uphold a services complaint. The SLCC and I agree that that is too restrictive, so the amendments provide for minor and technical changes to add additional flexibility. As a result, amendments 9, 83, 84, 85 and 88 amend paragraph 26 of schedule 3 to the bill to remove the express requirement that notice under sections 3, 8, 16, 17 and 24 of the 2007 act must be given in writing.

Amendment 5 repeals section 45 of the 2007 act, which relates to the giving of notices, and amendment 89 is a consequential amendment.

New section 20A enables the complainer and the practitioners to whom the complaint relates to apply to the SLCC for a review of its decisions as listed in the provision. An amendment that was passed at stage 2 now allows the SLCC to discontinue the investigation of a complaint if the practitioner accepts a settlement that is proposed by the SLCC but the complainer does not. Amendment 7 ensures that that decision by the SLCC is reviewable, thereby securing a right of review and enhancing transparency and accountability in the complaints process.

Section 61 of the bill inserts new section 17A into the 2007 act, giving the SLCC the power to request practitioner’s details in connection with complaints. Amendments 12 and 13 expand the powers in section 17A to cover the investigation and reporting of handling complaints. The changes also enable the power to be used by the SLCC where it initiates a conduct or regulatory complaint.

Amendments 86 and 87 amend section 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007 by adding a reference to new section 2A, following the stage 2 amendments that inserted complaints initiated by the SLCC and handling complaints, to the list of sections mentioned in the 2007 act. That is to address and rectify an SLCC concern regarding the omission of handling complaints from the powers in sections 17 and 17A.

Amendment 14 amends section 66 of the bill, which in turn amends paragraph 1 of schedule 3 to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which lists what the rules for the practice and procedure of the SLCC must include.

The effect of amendment 14 is that the rules must include provision to require complaints that are

“frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit to be considered ineligible”,

which would mean the SLCC need not take any further action other than to give notice of that fact to the complainer, the practitioner and any other person as required under the rules.

Amendment 6 and consequential amendment 8 remove the ability to review the decision to categorise a complaint as a conduct complaint or as a regulatory complaint. We agree with the SLCC’s view that these decisions should not be open to review, particularly given the introduction of hybrid complaints, which means that complaints can now be categorised as both types—conduct and regulatory.

Amendments 15 and 16 make small changes to section 66 of the bill, which amends schedule 3 to the 2007 act. The changes mean that the SLCC practice and procedure rules—that relate to the recategorisation of a services complaint—include regulatory complaints.

I turn now to Mr O’Kane’s amendments. I cannot support amendment 135, as it would weaken the SLCC’s authority to set standards in complaints handling. The minimum standard setting was introduced in response to calls for more independent regulation of legal services from stakeholders that represent consumer interests. Consumer bodies support the strengthening of the SLCC’s independent oversight of the setting of minimum standards for complaints handling. As members will remember, the committee heard evidence from Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, that this is best practice. Giving the Lord President a direct role in determining whether guidance that sets minimum standards is to be complied with—or not—may be viewed as a step away from the consumer-focused approach. I do not think that allowing a veto on the setting of minimum standards, potentially prior to SLCC consultation, is in the consumer’s interest.

The current procedure in the bill for setting and issuing minimum standards is aimed at providing greater quality assurance and continuous improvements in complaints handling. As currently drafted, the process is open and transparent. Prior to issuing any guidance that sets minimum standards, the SLCC would carry out a consultation to seek the views of those persons—or their representatives—who would be affected. The SLCC must consult the Lord President, the regulators, practitioners and any other appropriate persons on the initial proposals. The SLCC must again consult the regulators and other appropriate persons on any subsequent drafts. It must take into account any representations that have been made and, further to that, publish a document that summarises the consultation that has been undertaken, the responses and any changes that have been made to the guidance as a result. The SLCC must also give its reasons for including the minimum standards. As a statutory consultee, the Lord President will have had an opportunity at that initial stage to express their views on the proposed minimum standards.

The intention is that the regulators and the Lord President have an opportunity to raise any concerns or challenge any proposed minimum standards through the initial statutory consultation process. As an iterative process, ultimately, given the role of the Lord President in approving a regulatory scheme—which must contain practice rules about the making and handling of complaints, as well as any revisions to it—the Lord President could withhold consent to any subsequent practice rule changes to reflect those standards if they retained concerns with the proposals. That would require the SLCC either to address any concerns that the Lord President raised or to abandon the proposal. The SLCC considers that adding even more stages to the process would add cost to the system and potential delay in addressing emerging consumer protection issues.

Moving on to Mr O’Kane’s other amendments in this group, I am pleased to have been able to work with him on his amendments 11 and 90, which provide relevant professional organisations with the power, when they are considering initiating a complaint against a practitioner or an authorised legal business, to give notice to the practitioner—or the practitioner’s firm or the authorised legal business—requiring the production and delivery of the documents that are specified in the notice relating to the complaint. The amendments will allow all lawyers who are working for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be exempt from any requirement that is placed on them to provide information to prevent interference with their prosecution functions and independence. I am grateful to Mr O’Kane for taking on board my concerns and I am content to support amendments 11 and 90.

I am also pleased to have been able to work with Mr O’Kane on his amendments 22 and 23, which provide expressly that the Law Society of Scotland, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 52(1) of the 2007 act, and that the SLCC, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 41(1) of the 2007 act. I am therefore content to support amendments 22 and 23.

I urge members to support amendments 5 to 9, 12 to 16 and 83 to 89, in my name, and amendments 11, 22, 23 and 90, in the name of Paul O’Kane. However, I ask them not to support amendment 135, in Mr O’Kane’s name.

I move amendment 5.

Amendment 2 makes it clear that any request that is made by the Scottish Parliament to the Lord President to review the performance of a category 1 or a category 2 regulator can be made only following a resolution of the Scottish Parliament in plenary.

I move amendment 2.

I thank Tess White for her engagement and contribution to the bill through amendments 130 to 134 and 142. Those amendments significantly enhance the clarity and structure of the provisions relating to the registration of unregulated legal services providers under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The amendments collectively strengthen and enhance transparency and ensure that the process for registration in the voluntary register for unregulated legal services providers is both accountable and consultative.

I ask members to support the amendments in Tess White’s name.

No.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Section 91—Interpretation

Amendment 138 not moved.

Schedule 1

Amendments 60 to 64 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3

Amendments 65 to 67 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill and the hard work that has gone into bringing it to this point, which includes engagement with members across the Parliament. I thank everybody, including the many members who have spoken today, for all their engagement.

The bill is a significant step forward in ensuring that Scotland’s legal services are accessible, accountable and of the highest quality. The changes that we are debating today are about not just regulatory frameworks or the legal process, but the people of Scotland—the people who rely on legal services and the professionals who serve them.

We are crafting a legal services system that is robust and also flexible, transparent and equipped to meet the needs of a modern society. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to introduce changes that will enhance transparency for consumers, enhance access to justice and create a framework that fosters both public confidence and professional respect. The bill empowers the Lord President, bringing much-needed oversight, while ensuring that the legal profession in Scotland continues to uphold the high standards that it is known for.

I acknowledge that the bill is not the end of the journey but rather the beginning of an on-going process of refinement and improvement. We have created a foundation for a regulatory framework that can adapt to future changes, and it will be vital that we remain open to further improvement as the legal landscape evolves, including during the implementation of the eventual act by secondary legislation.

I am confident that, with this bill, we are setting Scotland’s legal services on a path to greater fairness, accessibility and accountability for years to come. Over the course of today’s debate we have heard a range of important contributions from members on this critical piece of proposed legislation, and I will take a moment to reflect on some of them.

First, I thank Scottish Labour, the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Lib Dems for all their engagement and for backing the bill today. I have to say, however, that I am really disappointed in the Scottish Conservatives for not supporting the bill at stage 3, and I am confused by their stance.

I think that consumer groups would be extremely concerned by Tess White stating that the independent regulator should be regulated by the head of the judiciary, the Lord President. For clarity, I note that Esther Roberton sought accountability outwith the judiciary. It is disappointing that the Scottish Conservatives do not appear to have a clear understanding of the history of all the work that has gone into the bill or of the asks of consumers or the legal profession. That is very sad.

I will reflect on a few other contributions. The lead committee recognised the differing views of the legal profession and consumer groups on the question of regulatory reform, as well as the fact that there is broad support for the improvements that will be introduced by the bill. As members will note, I have sought to work in a collaborative way with members and stakeholders, considering their concerns and making concessions where I consider that it is sensible. I believe that the bill provides balance and delivers key priorities to stakeholders.

Members have the opportunity today to vote on a bill that will reshape how legal services are delivered for, and experienced by, professionals and consumers alike. Our goal is clear: a legal services system that works for everyone. I therefore ask members to support the motion in my name and to pass the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.

Amendment 92 will allow the Law Society to contact a solicitor who was required to complete training before being enrolled to ask whether they plan to complete the training, and, if they do not respond within eight weeks or if they fail to complete the training within six months of entering a training contract, the Law Society may remove the solicitor from the roll.

Section 12D of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was amended at stage 2 to give registered European lawyers the right to appeal to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal where the Law Society decides not to restore the lawyer to the register. Amendment 94 ensures that the provisions applying to appeals to the SSDT include appeals under section 12D(2A) of the 1980 act.

Amendments 95 and 96 correct terminologies to make it clear that the power of the SSDT or of the court is to “order the restoration of” the foreign lawyer’s name to the register rather than to carry out the restoration itself.

Amendment 97 will ensure that the SSDT has consistent powers to award expenses in relation to all matters that it deals with, including applications for restoration, rather than just complaints and appeals, as is currently provided for.

I ask members to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 92.

I know that Tess White has become a member of the committee only recently. Throughout the bill’s passage, it has been incredibly difficult to find a balance between the legal profession and the consumer side, starting from day 1, when it was suggested—before my time as minister in charge of the bill—that there be an independent regulator, and we decided not to pursue that. We have engaged constructively with the legal profession, and—as Tess White will know—on some of the amendments that have been considered today, to strengthen the consumer side. I am not going to say that the process has been easy—it has been difficult to get the bill through and find that balance. However, I hope that, as we move forward today, we have achieved that.

The framework delivered by the bill aims to balance the interests of stakeholders—who, although they have differing views, all support this bill—and ensure that Scotland’s legal sector remains trusted, transparent and effective in meeting the needs of those that it serves.

I will briefly remind members of the bill’s key provisions. It will provide a more consumer-focused approach by introducing a more flexible and consumer-focused regulatory structure that ensures that individuals who seek legal services receive high standards of service and clarity on their redress options. For too long, consumers of legal services have struggled to understand the complexities of the complaints system. The bill aims to remedy that by establishing clearer processes for consumers to seek redress and hold legal providers accountable. The bill also strengthens the consumer voice by providing the consumer panel with a robust footing and a wider remit.

The bill will also ensure improved oversight and accountability. As the ultimate regulator of Scotland’s legal sector, the Lord President is empowered by the bill to oversee and improve the functions of legal services. For example, I lodged amendments at stage 2 in order to transfer to the Lord President the ability to review a regulator’s performance. I have also lodged amendments that would require the Lord President’s consent to be gained before any changes may be made to the regulatory category of a regulator.

Finally, the bill will increase access to justice, as it will introduce provisions to widen access to legal services. It will enable innovative service delivery models, including alternative business structures. This change will help to ensure that legal services are available in a way that meets the needs of a modern, diverse society. The bill also removes restrictions on third sector bodies, to allow them to employ solicitors and represent some of the most vulnerable in society.

Let me also reflect on the broader context within which this legislation has emerged. Scotland’s legal sector plays an integral role in maintaining the rule of law and upholding justice. From individuals who are seeking advice in family law matters to businesses that are navigating complex commercial disputes, the demand for accessible, efficient and accountable legal services is growing.

However, as we know, the landscape of legal services has changed dramatically over the past decade, and that change has accelerated in recent years. The rise of technology, the increase in diverse legal needs, and the challenges that consumers face have highlighted the need for reform.

The bill is a direct response to those challenges and a recognition that, although our legal services sector is one of the best in the world, it is not without areas for improvement.

Throughout the consultation process, many views were expressed on the idea of having a single independent regulator. We have taken great care to ensure that the regulatory framework that the bill provides is proportionate, balanced and sensitive to the autonomy of the legal profession while ensuring that the public interest remains at the heart of the regulatory process.

This bill is a vital piece of legislation that has the potential to reshape the legal services landscape in Scotland, which I am sure we all welcome.

Ultimately, the bill is about improving the everyday experience of people who need legal help and ensuring that legal services are delivered in a way that is fair, equitable and accessible for all. It is about empowering both consumers and professionals to build a stronger, more resilient legal system that reflects the values of our society and meets the expectations of our citizens.

I am confident that the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill can deliver a robust regulatory framework that serves both the interests of the legal profession and the people of Scotland, and I urge all members to support it.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I will.