Chamber and committees

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is considering the Fire Brigades Union’s “Firestorm” report and, where appropriate, will work with the FBU and other staff representative bodies to address the issues that have been raised. The cabinet secretary and I met the FBU the week before last, I think, and the Scottish Government will work closely with the SFRS to identify budgetary requirements for 2024-25.

The Scottish Government has been engaging regularly with the SFA and the SPFL for some time about our shared concerns over the misuse of pyrotechnics in football. Most recently, I met the SPFL, the SFA and the Football Safety Officers’ Association Scotland last week, on 30 November, and we agreed on the need for a multi-agency approach to tackling the issue. I look forward to working with football and other key partners to develop the approach in the coming weeks.

Our preferred solution has always been that the football authorities themselves be proactively involved in delivering a robust and lasting solution to tackle any unacceptable conduct by a minority of people. As I said, from my recent discussions with those involved, I know that there is a collective will to tackle it. As I have indicated, we will be taking forward a multi-agency approach to tackling the issue, and I look forward to working with our partners on it. I know that Police Scotland will continue to engage with the SFA and the SPFL with regard to the new fireworks legislation and on-going issues at individual fixtures.

Thank you for that question. In transferring functions to the Lord President, we will be expanding the current oversight role in legal services regulation. That does not create a new function for the Lord President but expands a role that already exists and operates without any concern about politicisation.

Although the senators indicated to the committee that they cannot agree to any transfer before they have seen the details, it may be helpful to remind members of the senators’ written response, which showed that the principle of transferring the review powers to the Lord President was acceptable and that that should be done.

In respect of the consumer voice, the bill expands the remit of the consumer panel, giving it a role in undertaking research to provide quality, evidence-based advice in the sector, in order to ensure that decisions are shaped to meet the needs of the different consumers of legal services, including individuals, businesses and the third sector. The consumer voice is essential in legal services regulation and we are reflecting on the comments of stakeholders that represent the consumer interest in relation to how we might strengthen the bill in that regard.

I think that we got that balance right. One of the main aspects of the bill is to simplify the process for consumers. Leanna or Jamie, with their deeper understanding of what happened with the bill before I took over, can come in on the history.

The Legal Services Board is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, who is a UK minister with a number of statutory roles in relation to the board and regulation of legal services. Our bill contains provisions to introduce a role for the Scottish ministers in reviewing and protecting regulation of legal services but, as the committee is aware, we will lodge amendments to transfer the functions to the Lord President and remove responsibility from the Scottish ministers.

When the bill was introduced back in April—with the call for views following in August—I was conscious that it was viewed as being all about the Scottish ministers making a power grab. Officials have therefore been looking at lodging amendments so that the bill does not focus so much on the powers of the Scottish ministers. There could instead be more of a focus on provisions on which there is general agreement among stakeholders and the legal profession.

I return to the Scottish Government’s response to the consultation analysis published in December 2022. We set out that

“there should be a process for intervention by Scottish Ministers in the light of concerns being raised on how and whether regulators are delivering their regulatory objectives and the operation of regulation in relation to public interest.”

When the consultation came out last year, the legal stakeholders were very positive because I think that they were focused on the possibility that an independent regulator would be proposed and it was not. At that stage, in 2022, there was no resistance to the Scottish ministers’ role; that came only after the bill was introduced in April 2023.

The proposed amendments are complex and we need to engage and get agreement with the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland and all stakeholders. Until we have that agreement, we will not be in a position to get the lawyers to draft the stage 2 amendments. That work is on-going among officials, stakeholders and the Lord President’s office.

One of the main aims is to simplify the complaints process for the general public. The SLCC will remain the single gateway for all complaints against legal practitioners, although there will be a limited number of exceptions—for example, where a complaint is identified by a regulator.

In the consultation that we did, most respondents—87 per cent—agreed that the single gateway for all legal complaints should be retained. It was argued that a single gateway for all legal complaints is sufficient to bring clarity and transparency to the process for the profession and consumers and that it makes it simpler for consumers to access legal advice.

The judiciary are raising important constitutional principles about the separation of powers between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and we recognise the absolute necessity of those principles. It is important to be clear about what the bill does: it does not impinge on the independence of the legal profession or the judiciary. I wrote to the committee on 29 November to make clear my intention to amend the bill to address the issues.

The bill builds on the existing legislative framework, which provides a role for ministers to act in the public interest to ensure that regulation is being carried out effectively and transparently. The bill adopts existing checks and balances that require the Lord President’s consent and parliamentary scrutiny of use of delegated powers to ensure that any action is in the interests of legal practitioners and the public.

Ministers have had a role in legal regulation in Scotland since 1990. In 2007 and in 2010, Parliament placed further functions on the Scottish ministers in respect of legal services regulation. Having said that, we understand the concerns that have been raised, which is why we have committed to lodging amendments at stage 2, because we want the bill to strike the right balance for the various stakeholders.

When we made the decision back in August, officials did start to engage with stakeholders and with the Lord President’s office about the sections that were highlighted and about where to make amendments and come to an agreement.

I appreciate what Ms Gallacher says, but when the bill was introduced, I felt that there was strong opposition to the ministerial powers in the bill and, when Esther Roberton gave evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, she did not believe that ministers should have a role. I did not want that to detract from the general principles of the bill—although, in a way, it has done that. The general framework of the bill, which will renew the Scottish legal complaints system and make it easier for consumers, is all good and we can move forward and focus on that. I was just trying to take away the part about Scottish ministerial powers. As I said, we will update the committee about any progress on that as soon as we can.