Chamber and committees

Yes, convener. The first section that has been highlighted with regard to ministerial powers is section 5, which allows for the regulatory objectives and professional principles to be amended to update them to reflect regulatory best practice. It was included in the bill in response to calls from stakeholders for a permissive and enabling framework of primary legislation that would be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the legal services market by allowing future amendments through secondary legislation. The Scottish Government will, however, accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the bill be amended to remove section 5, and we will lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

The next section is section 8, on the creation of a category system for regulators. It seeks to create an inherent requirement for flexibility to respond to any changes or proposed changes to how a regulator operates or in its membership numbers, and it is intended to future proof the regulatory framework. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the DPLR Committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove section 8 from the bill. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 8(5) are necessary to ensure that the bill accurately reflects any changes to the regulatory framework in respect of new accredited regulators receiving approval, any regulator ceasing to operate or a change in a regulator’s name, as recently evidenced with the name change of the Association of Construction Attorneys.

We will—

I recognise a significant problem for the SLCC with regard to the fact that, each year, more than 300 solicitors do not respond to the request for files. We are working with the SLCC and looking at amendments to strengthen the bill so that it gets the information that it needs. Leanna MacLarty might want to come in on that.

I am open to any considerations that the committee would like to suggest at stage 1. However, at the moment, we are striking a balance with the powers that the SLCC already has. Was it regarding something in particular?

Over a quarter of solicitors do not respond when the SLCC requests their files, so we are working with the SLCC to see how we can strengthen the bill to ensure that the SLCC gets the information that it needs.

We hope to have the amendments agreed by the new year. I will share the information with the committee, but we hope for agreement in the new year.

Yes. The McClure situation shows the necessity for justice reform to ensure that situations such as that at McClure’s do not happen again. I am aware of the number of families who are facing issues as a result of McClure’s going into administration. As MSPs, we will all have been contacted by constituents on that.

I cannot comment on individual cases, but the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to help to mitigate such situations. Such cases show the need for legal regulation that centres on the public interest and protection of the consumer. The bill will introduce the authorisation of legal businesses. That will bring benefits such as consistency in the way in which legal firms are regulated, with all entities having to meet the same high standards; and greater collation of data, which would enable the regulator and the legal profession to identify and address deficiencies early and take the necessary preventative action.

I know that this is a different bill but, as part of the process for my Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament—we have just had stage 2—I heard of the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees may have in administering trusts when a trustee who was appointed in their professional capacity is no longer a member of the profession. I therefore lodged amendments at stage 2 of that bill to ensure that that would not happen in future. With the justice reform bills that are going through, we can address situations such as that at McClure’s and prevent them from happening in future.

I do not believe that it is too complex; I believe that we are improving the system. Regulatory complaints already exist in respect of licensed legal services providers and the bill will extend that type of complaint to authorised legal businesses by the introduction of entity regulation. I do not believe that that is making the system more complex; I believe that it is simplifying the system for consumers to access legal advice.

The committee has heard about the differing views on who should be responsible for regulation. However, there is broad support from stakeholders for the wide content of the bill. The introduction of entity regulation reform of the complex complaints system, the reduction in restrictions in respect of alternative business structures and the ability for bodies such as Scottish Women’s Aid to directly employ legal professionals to support their clients in court all represent significant improvements to the status quo.

I am afraid that I do not think that there would be any winners if the bill was not supported. The question is not necessarily about an alternative bill as such. As the committee is aware, no approach would completely satisfy all the groups. The bill provides a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities for all the stakeholders.

I will bring in Leanna MacLarty to answer that.

As the committee has already heard, there were vastly differing views on Esther Roberton’s primary recommendation. That was backed up by a consultation that showed that views were evenly split between support and opposition to it. However, there are many areas where there is broad agreement between the stakeholders.

The bill takes a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver stakeholders’ key priorities. It requires that all legal service regulators exercise regulatory functions independently of other functions or activities and introduces greater transparency and accountability of legal services regulation.

On the whole, it was simply due to both sides—the legal profession and the consumers—having polarised views on the recommendation for an independent regulator that the decision was made not to go down that track.