Chamber and committees

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.

I wish to confirm that the provision will not affect the ability of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s consumer panel or Consumer Scotland to request a review.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Section 20—Measures open to the Scottish Ministers

When I agreed at stage 2 to support Tess White’s amendment in respect of safeguarding the interests of clients, I said that I would revisit the provisions at stage 3 to ensure that they worked fully with the wider legislation and that I would make any adjustments that were necessary to reflect the wider policy intention.

Given the implications for practitioners, and following consideration of a query from the senior judiciary, I have lodged amendments 34 and 42, which would provide an appeal mechanism on the 14-day appeal timescale and would make the appeal final. That would allow directions to be appealed before the court in a timely manner, as the power is wide and can affect a variety of persons. An appeal on a genuinely urgent matter may be expedited by the court to avoid delay.

Regarding the Law Society’s concerns about what amendments 38 and 42 would require from a business that is being wound down, perhaps due to a solicitor retiring, I do not consider that the duties that would flow from that would be unreasonable. The right for the client accounts to vest in the Law Society would apply only in relation to a practitioner who had been disqualified and would therefore not create undue requirements.

The other duties that are set out in amendment 42 are to prepare interim accounts that would, in particular, detail all sums held on behalf of clients, and to send a copy of those accounts to the Law Society. In the case of the orderly winding down of a business, that would be straightforward and would involve notifying clients of the intention to cease practice and of the powers that the Law Society has to safeguard clients and, finally, satisfying the Law Society that it had complied with the requirements to inform clients.

I ask members to support my amendments.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

I am pleased to have worked with Tess White on her amendment 137, which will require the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the principal changes to the regulation of legal services arising from the legislation. I am grateful to Ms White for taking on board my concerns, and I am content to support the amendment.

Amendment 75 replaces with a regulation-making power the Scottish ministers’ order-making power to increase the maximum amount that the SSDT can fine a solicitor in certain circumstances, which was inserted at stage 2. That reflects modern practice and is consistent with other ministerial regulation-making powers provided by the bill.

Amendment 82 restricts the SSDT from publishing any information that identifies or is likely to identify any person other than the solicitor against whom the complaint was made, unless it is considered to be in the public interest to do so and that person consents. That mirrors the approach taken in relation to the disclosure of information about complaints by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and relevant professional organisations, and it provides the SSDT with additional flexibility in relation to publishing information about cases.

The bill currently makes provision allowing the SSDT to take decisions and determinations relating to previous complaints into account when deciding whether a solicitor has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The SSDT considers that that is inappropriate. Amendment 69 allows the SSDT to instead take into account decisions and determinations in respect of previous complaints when it is deciding whether the censure of a solicitor is to have effect for a specified period only and whether to direct the solicitor to pay a fine or undertake training or to order their practising certificate to be subject to certain conditions.

Amendment 74 makes a broadly equivalent amendment in respect of the powers of the SSDT on appeal.

Amendments 68, 70 to 73, 76, 77, 80 and 81 make minor changes to tidy up provisions following changes made at stage 2.

The bill amends the 1980 act to enable the Law Society to appeal to the Court of Session against decisions of the SSDT to dismiss a complaint without inquiry. Amendments 78, 79 and 107 move those provisions from schedule 4 to the 1980 act into a new section.

Presiding Officer, there is an error in amendment 78, which should refer to leaving out line 22 on page 149 of the bill, rather than line 23. With your agreement, I have lodged a manuscript amendment, amendment 78A, to correct that error.

I ask members to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 68.

I am slightly confused by Ms White’s contribution. She said that the Scottish Conservatives would fully support having an independent regulator, but then she referenced the legal profession’s position. Does she appreciate that the profession was 100 per cent against having an independent regulator? We have to be on one side or the other—we cannot sit on the fence or be on both sides.

No, thank you, Presiding Officer.

Amendment 68 agreed to.

Amendments 69 to 77 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 78 moved—[Siobhian Brown].

Amendment 78A moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 78, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 79 to 89 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendments 139 to 141 not moved.

Amendment 142 moved—[Tess White]—and agreed to.

Amendment 90 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to.

Amendment 91 moved—[Siobhian Brown].

I am pleased that we have completed stage 3 of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill with so much consensus on the final amendments to the bill, just as we had at stage 2.

The bill’s journey from its introduction to this final stage has been a rigorous and collaborative process involving extensive consultation and discussion. I start, therefore, by acknowledging the contributions of all stakeholders, particularly the legal professionals, regulatory bodies, consumer representatives and members of the public who have shared their insights and views. I thank them for their input, which has been invaluable in shaping the bill and ensuring that it reflects the interests of all those who interact with the legal system.

I thank the members and the clerks of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their scrutiny work and engagement with me throughout the passage of the bill. Last, but definitely not least, I express my deepest gratitude to the bill team, who predate my responsibility for the bill and have been a huge support throughout, for working tirelessly on the bill for two years.

There is no doubt that the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is a technical piece of legislation that may seem dry to many. However, it has provided Parliament with a major opportunity to modernise and improve the way in which we regulate legal services in Scotland. The bill will enhance the standards, accessibility and transparency of the legal profession, making it better equipped to serve the people of Scotland in an ever-evolving legal landscape.

At its core, the bill seeks to deliver a framework that ensures that Scotland’s legal services are accessible, accountable and of the highest quality.

I am. I think that adopting the text that the Law Society has provided and putting it in the explanatory notes will ensure that that will be done. As I said earlier, Paul O’Kane’s amendments could have unintended consequences.

I therefore ask Mr O’Kane not to press amendment 117 and not to move his other amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments 123 and 126. If amendment 117 is pressed or if any of the other amendments is moved, I urge members to oppose it. I ask members to support my amendment 1 and Mr O’Kane’s amendments 123 and 126.