Chamber and committees

I have nothing further to add, and I press the amendment.

Amendment 127 agreed to.

Amendment 128 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to.

Section 54—Commission process relating to complaints

Tess White spoke about the challenges that the bill presents, particularly with regard to the independence of the judiciary. However, I am not sure whether she is supportive of having an independent regulator, so it would be useful if she could clarify that. Does she recognise what the Faculty of Advocates said in its evidence to the committee, which was that it considers that to be

“a hare that was ... shot long ago”?

I think that our exchange of views on the issues raised by this section of the bill has been useful, and I am grateful to Maggie Chapman and the minister for their comments. Given the minister’s assurances, I choose to withdraw amendment 116.

Amendment 116, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 18—Professional indemnity insurance

I am pleased to speak to amendment 116 and to my other amendments in the group. As we begin today’s proceedings, I set out my thanks to all stakeholders for their engagement and briefings in advance of stage 3 and throughout the bill process, as well as my thanks to the minister and her team, who have largely been co-operative and responsive to many of the concerns through what has been a long process. Although I sense that we might still end up with some disagreement today, we will certainly start off in a positive vein.

I will speak first to amendment 116. Section 7 sets out the meaning of regulatory functions. However, section 7 does not specifically detail that administering any compensation fund that is required under section 14 of the bill will be a regulatory function. The existing fund, which is maintained by the Law Society of Scotland under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, is a crucial consumer protection, and the administration of that fund—the guarantee fund—is currently defined as a regulatory function under the 1980 act. I note that the minister told me in writing in advance of this afternoon’s proceedings that she considers that the issue has already been covered in the bill. If she could set out in her remarks how that is the case and the Government’s full position that it is a regulatory function, that would be most helpful to me and, I am sure, to colleagues in the chamber. I might not then press amendment 116.

Amendments 129 and 139 to 141 seek to restrict the conduct complaints that are brought against solicitors in relation to them discharging regulatory functions on behalf of regulators, as defined in the bill. The concern behind the amendments is that an increasing number of spurious conduct complaints are being brought against solicitors discharging regulatory functions, which has a real impact on their ability to carry out those functions. In my opinion, that can be to the detriment of the public interest. The time spent dealing with such complaints places a burden on the regulator, and such conduct complaints can drive risk-averse behaviours by those exercising regulatory functions. It can also impact on the regulator’s ability to recruit and retain solicitor members of regulatory staff. All of that leads to a slowing down, with difficulties in completing regulatory processes.

I, too, press the minister on the concerns that have been expressed by the Law Society and others regarding amendments 34, 38 and 42. Throughout the bill process, the Government and members across the Parliament have been trying to strike the right balance between effective and efficient regulation and the interests of consumers and their protections.

I am concerned that introducing the appeal mechanism that is provided for in amendment 34, on top of existing and other court actions, for situations in which a regulator has intervened in a failed firm and given directions to safeguard client interests, could delay the ability to act at speed. Tess White gave the example of a client filing to complete an urgent conveyancing transaction when it might be impossible to complete that transaction. That is a serious issue. I am sure that many of us are familiar with the circumstances of being in a chain and needing speed when involved in conveyancing. Has the minister weighed the potential consequences for consumers? Why does she feel that the proposed additional right of appeal is so critical?

On amendment 38, I ask what consideration the minister has given to the unintended consequences of the catch-all mechanism that she has created for triggering safeguarding mechanisms under proposed new section 46A of the 1980 act, given that there are reasons for cessation of practice, such as retirement, that do not necessitate safeguarding mechanisms being triggered.

Similarly, on amendment 42, I worry about the practicality of requiring all sole practitioners who cease practising to prepare and submit interim accounts and to notify all clients within 21 days, when a date for cessation is often not determined until well after the fact.

Regarding the appeal rights and directions from the regulator for which amendment 42 provides, I refer members to the arguments that I outlined earlier in relation to amendment 34.

As they stand, I am concerned that the amendments, both individually and together, are unnecessary. I think that they are impractical and contrary to the interests of consumers, and members on this side of the chamber are minded to oppose them.

I, too, press the minister on the concerns that have been expressed by the Law Society and others regarding amendments 34, 38 and 42. Throughout the bill process, the Government and members across the Parliament have been trying to strike the right balance between effective and efficient regulation and the interests of consumers and their protections.

I am concerned that introducing the appeal mechanism that is provided for in amendment 34, on top of existing and other court actions, for situations in which a regulator has intervened in a failed firm and given directions to safeguard client interests, could delay the ability to act at speed. Tess White gave the example of a client filing to complete an urgent conveyancing transaction when it might be impossible to complete that transaction. That is a serious issue. I am sure that many of us are familiar with the circumstances of being in a chain and needing speed when involved in conveyancing. Has the minister weighed the potential consequences for consumers? Why does she feel that the proposed additional right of appeal is so critical?

On amendment 38, I ask what consideration the minister has given to the unintended consequences of the catch-all mechanism that she has created for triggering safeguarding mechanisms under proposed new section 46A of the 1980 act, given that there are reasons for cessation of practice, such as retirement, that do not necessitate safeguarding mechanisms being triggered.

Similarly, on amendment 42, I worry about the practicality of requiring all sole practitioners who cease practising to prepare and submit interim accounts and to notify all clients within 21 days, when a date for cessation is often not determined until well after the fact.

Regarding the appeal rights and directions from the regulator for which amendment 42 provides, I refer members to the arguments that I outlined earlier in relation to amendment 34.

As they stand, I am concerned that the amendments, both individually and together, are unnecessary. I think that they are impractical and contrary to the interests of consumers, and members on this side of the chamber are minded to oppose them.

I have nothing further to add, and I press the amendment.

Amendment 127 agreed to.

Amendment 128 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to.

Section 54—Commission process relating to complaints

I will broaden the question out to other witnesses, too. In your experience, do councils consider writing off council tax debt for women in particular who are leaving a financially abusive relationship, or are we not seeing enough progress on that at a council level? In addition, in your view, do we need bigger legislative change in order to make that provision?

Erica Young, do you want to comment from a Citizens Advice Scotland point of view?

No, convener; I said that I would indicate if I wanted to come in.

Of course.

That has been a really helpful start to the session, and there is plenty for the committee to consider.