Chamber and committees

I will.

I thank all members and stakeholders for their constructive engagement in respect of the bill. I understand that Paul O’Kane has lodged his amendments in this group on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland.

I consider that amendment 116 is not necessary, as the bill already provides that the establishment and management of a compensation fund is a regulatory function of the Law Society as a category 1 regulator. That is because section 7 of the bill, which provides that “regulatory functions” include “complying with the requirements” under the bill, is to be read with section 14, which places a requirement on the Law Society to “establish and maintain” a compensation fund. It is clear from section 14 that a category 1 regulator “must establish and maintain” a compensation fund. That requirement is then caught by the definition of “regulatory functions” in section 7.

Amendments 129 and 139 to 141 would make provision to restrict conduct complaints that are brought against solicitors in relation to them discharging regulatory functions. The Law Society raised that matter with the Scottish Government following stage 2. Although I appreciate and understand the concerns that were raised, I consider that amendment 531, which was agreed to at stage 2, will give all relevant professional organisations the flexibility to discontinue a conduct complaint that has been remitted to it if the relevant professional organisation considers that it is in the public interest to do so. It provides a route to address the concerns that are raised.

As Mr O’Kane alluded to at the start of his speech, there are competing views, and, as we know, there is a history with this bill of trying to find a balance for both sides. Given the SLCC briefing that has been sent to members, I will continue to engage with the Law Society to monitor the operation of the new provisions. I consider that the matter would benefit from further consultation and consideration. I therefore ask Mr O’Kane not to press or move his amendments in the group. If he does so, I urge members to oppose his amendments.

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 practitioners’ 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 Legal Services Act 2007. 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 Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. 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.

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.

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.

The Scottish Government recognises the distress that is caused to victims of crime and fully supports the activity to reduce that harm. Police Scotland has published an action plan that aims to provide a visible and measurable impact on retail crime. That includes stopping people from becoming perpetrators of acquisitive crime, bringing perpetrators to justice, with a focus on repeat offenders and organised criminals, and strengthening collective protection against retail crime.

I regularly engage with the legal profession, and that issue has not been specifically raised with me in my meetings. I know that the Scottish Legal Aid Board can and often does provide funding for solicitors to allow services to be delivered to people all around the country. I also know that there are some gaps in our rural communities at the moment, and SLAB is looking at the geographical issues. That is one of the issues that we consider in the discussion paper on how we can improve things.

The handling and recording of non-crime hate incidents is an operational matter for Police Scotland, and revised guidance on the handling of non-crime hate incidents was published by Police Scotland in August last year.

We have regular discussions at official and ministerial level with Police Scotland on tackling hatred and prejudice, in line with our engagement with Police Scotland across the Government on a range of issues.

Legal aid funding allows solicitors to deliver their services to people across Scotland, and those services can be delivered remotely as well as in person. Every year, legal aid helps many people with civil problems. Legal aid expenditure is on track to be more than £170 million this year, which is the highest ever level.

However, I recognise that improvement is needed and that there are challenges in certain areas with certain types of legal aid work. Our programme for government commits us to taking forward the reforms that are set out in the recently published legal aid reform discussion paper, which will simplify the system for solicitors and those who need legal assistance, along with longer-term proposals for funding and improving the delivery of services. That includes a review of legal aid fees that will help develop regular assessments to ensure that systems remain fair and sustainable and deliver for the public purse.

As I have said previously, we are unable to do legal aid reform in the current parliamentary session, but I am committed to making improvements that we can make in this session.

The discussion paper sets out three key strands of work that we will undertake to improve and reform legal aid. In the immediate short term, we will simplify the judicare model by bringing regulations to Parliament this year. It is our intention to make changes to criminal, civil and children’s legal aid. We will make summary legal aid available for guilty pleas and cases continued without pleas in summary prosecution cases. A lot of work is set out in the discussion paper, but that is what we will be aiming to do in this parliamentary session.