Chamber and committees

What are the figures, roughly?

It has already been asked.

My questions have been asked, Presiding Officer.

The independent regulator should report directly to the Lord President, definitely not the Scottish Government.

It is to the minister’s credit that ministers’ powers to intervene were removed at stage 2, following calls from the legal sector and the Scottish Conservatives. At stage 3, our overriding concern is that the bill fails to decouple the complex complaints process from the system of self-regulation by the professional bodies. That was a recommendation of the Roberton review, as well as the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee at stage 1.

I note comments from the SLCC’s Consumer Panel. It said:

“We are concerned ... that most of the attention and concessions in the debate so far have been given to the views of the legal profession, while there has been limited engagement with the views of consumers or consumer groups.”

The reality is that, for consumers of legal services, it is not always clear where self-regulation ends and self-interest takes over. The view among consumers is that it feels like David against Goliath.

The complaints process is overly complex, impossible to navigate and glacially slow. At stage 2, I lodged probing amendments that proposed using the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s existing infrastructure to investigate all conduct and service complaints.

My key point is that the bill merely tinkers with the status quo. The changes do not go far enough, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will vote against the bill later today.

I have nothing further to add, other than that I am pleased to hear that the amendment is supported on a cross-party basis. I will press the amendment.

Amendment 137 agreed to.

After section 88

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 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?

When the bill process started, there was an unacceptable situation, which the legal profession reported directly to Scottish ministers. It was absolutely absurd and threatened the independence of the judiciary. The bill that we are debating and voting on today is not the one that existed at the start of the process.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s consumer panel is clear that the bill will make the current regulatory landscape even more complex and difficult to understand. We had an opportunity to overhaul that landscape, but the bill simply tinkers around the edges of a byzantine system.

Secondly, there has been considerable debate on who should regulate the legal profession. The Roberton review concluded that there should be a single independent regulator and a single streamlined complaints process. I note that, in its stage 3 briefing on the bill, Consumer Scotland echoed that call.

There is huge concern that consumers have been forgotten in the bill. What is your view on that?