It has already been asked.

I thank all the individuals and organisations who have supported and contributed to the parliamentary passage of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. I also thank the minister, who engaged constructively with members ahead of stage 3.

I appreciate that, for many stakeholders, the bill is long overdue, and I hope that my amendment 137, which secures a review of the act, will reduce the timescales for change in the future.

It is clear that the current system, which covers entry to the profession, professional practice, complaints and financial compliance, is not fit for purpose. Much of the relevant legislation is more than 40 years old, but the legal services market is constantly evolving. However, the corresponding regulatory regime is clunky and inflexible.

I am a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which has been hearing about huge issues with access to justice. The whole system is frustrating for regulatory bodies, but it is often the consumer who bears the brunt of its failings. The committee has heard that, sometimes, consumers have to try 100 solicitors before they find one who will act on their behalf. The system is crying out for modernisation.

Scottish Conservatives believe that the bill truly represents a missed opportunity, which is why we will vote against it at decision time. In the brief time that is allocated to me, I want to explain our reasoning carefully, because I understand that the legal profession has expressed strong feelings on the subject. However, it is vital that the consumer's voice is heard during the process.

There are two key issues. The first is that the bill fails to consolidate the existing legislative landscape into a single act, which the Law Society of Scotland called for in order to simplify that fragmentation. At stage 2, the bill was the most heavily amended in the Scottish Parliament’s lifetime.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on section 65, following stage 2 consideration of the bill. Amendments 130 to 134 and 142, in my name, allow the Scottish Government to lay regulations that would give specific organisations the mechanism to request that an unregulated provider of legal services is formally registered.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments from the Law Society that sought to change the voluntary register for unregulated providers of legal services in section 65 to make the register mandatory. The Law Society’s position was that a voluntary register that requires payment of levies and fees and that subjects a service provider to a statutory complaint scheme is

“unlikely to attract a meaningful uptake”,

and I agree.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s stage 1 report called on the Scottish Government to strengthen the provision and consider “creating a mandatory register”. Stakeholders such as the Competition and Markets Authority have made similar calls. However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission raised concerns about how the amendments at stage 2 would work in practice.

My view remains that it is in the public interest to have a mandatory scheme. Consumers currently have no recourse that would enable them to raise complaints about an unregulated provider.

I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government at stage 3 to find a way to strengthen section 65 that satisfies stakeholders. The Law Society states in its stage 3 briefing that my amendments

“significantly toughen up the provisions in the Bill”

and lay the foundations to begin to address the issues in the unregulated sector. The SLCC states that the amendments take

“a proportionate and risk-based approach”.

I am grateful to the Law Society and the SLCC for their expertise and insights during this process, which has led to a positive outcome for consumers. I urge colleagues to support these changes.

I move amendment 130.

I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on amendment 137 following stage 2. Amendment 137 creates a statutory post-legislative review of the act, to begin no later than 10 years after the commencement of sections 8, 39, 52 and 78. It requires the Scottish ministers to consult regulators of legal services, consumers of legal services and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as part of that review, and it leaves the door open for other individuals and organisations to be consulted, too. Following the raising of concerns at stage 2 about the length of the review period, I have agreed with the minister that 10 years is an appropriate length of time and that it should begin from the commencement of specific sections of the bill rather than royal assent.

Post-legislative scrutiny is important; however, in the case of the regulatory framework for legal services, it is essential. That point was made by the Competition and Markets Authority in its stage 3 briefing, which urged

“regular statutory review to assess whether”

the act

“is meeting the needs of consumers”.

Many of the issues that arise in the regulatory system have occurred because so much time has passed since the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was added to the statute book. The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is therefore long overdue. The Law Society has been campaigning for change for at least a decade.

Given that the bill has been so heavily amended, there is a strong case, too, for ensuring that it is operating as expected within what is a fragmented legislative landscape, and that it serves the interests of consumers.

Stakeholders are widely supportive of a post-legislative review, which, I hope, will give all parties involved an opportunity to take stock and recommend further changes in the public interest.

Regulatory issues must not get lost in the weeds for years to come, which is why I urge colleagues to support amendment 137.

I move amendment 137.

I will take the minister’s intervention first.

I am saying that, when the bill process started, the Scottish Government wanted the judiciary to report directly to ministers, which was absolutely absurd. We have now reached a point where we are tinkering around the edges as the bill increases cost and complexity, and consumers are not being fully taken into consideration.

I thank all the individuals and organisations who have supported and contributed to the parliamentary passage of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. I also thank the minister, who engaged constructively with members ahead of stage 3.

I appreciate that, for many stakeholders, the bill is long overdue, and I hope that my amendment 137, which secures a review of the act, will reduce the timescales for change in the future.

It is clear that the current system, which covers entry to the profession, professional practice, complaints and financial compliance, is not fit for purpose. Much of the relevant legislation is more than 40 years old, but the legal services market is constantly evolving. However, the corresponding regulatory regime is clunky and inflexible.

I am a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which has been hearing about huge issues with access to justice. The whole system is frustrating for regulatory bodies, but it is often the consumer who bears the brunt of its failings. The committee has heard that, sometimes, consumers have to try 100 solicitors before they find one who will act on their behalf. The system is crying out for modernisation.

Scottish Conservatives believe that the bill truly represents a missed opportunity, which is why we will vote against it at decision time. In the brief time that is allocated to me, I want to explain our reasoning carefully, because I understand that the legal profession has expressed strong feelings on the subject. However, it is vital that the consumer's voice is heard during the process.

There are two key issues. The first is that the bill fails to consolidate the existing legislative landscape into a single act, which the Law Society of Scotland called for in order to simplify that fragmentation. At stage 2, the bill was the most heavily amended in the Scottish Parliament’s lifetime.

We are fully supportive of having an independent regulator. The regulators and the judiciary were fundamentally opposed to the approach of having a single independent regulator, but we believe that it is important and that the corresponding recommendation of the Roberton review should have been followed through.

In its eternal wisdom, the Scottish Government settled on a so-called workaround in the bill, which satisfied no one. It created sweeping new ministerial powers to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services, prompting widespread condemnation—from the legal profession and beyond—of what was seen as a Government assault on the rule of law. Its approach was considered to be bad law making.

I have nothing further to add, other than to thank the minister and others who were involved for their input and engagement on this package of amendments.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

Amendments 131 to 134 moved—[Tess White]—and agreed to.

Section 66—Unregulated providers of legal services: voluntary register, annual contributions and complaints contributions

The Scottish Conservatives are broadly supportive of the amendments in the group. However, as the minister has said, the Law Society has flagged two amendments, in particular, that it believes are problematic. Amendments 34 and 42 would create a new right for a business to lodge an appeal to the court when the Law Society directs it, as part of its remit to intervene directly in the public interest. The Law Society has raised serious concerns about that approach, which it believes weakens public protections by delaying the ability to take necessary action to safeguard client assets. It gives the example of a conveyancing transaction to demonstrate the need to intervene urgently to protect client interests.

Has the Scottish Government taken into consideration the unintended consequences of the provisions, which could negatively impact the consumer?