Chamber and committees

I could not agree more with my colleague Michelle Thomson. In all of this, it is the voice of the consumer that I am concerned about. It was the voice of the consumer that I was concerned about in 2006, when I sought a number of reforms and changes that would have strengthened the process then. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful on that occasion. On this occasion, I might be more successful in addressing the consumer interest issues that Michelle Thomson has correctly put to me.

I am interested in Michelle Thomson’s point about the accountability of the Lord President. I believe that there has to be some degree of accountability, but I am unclear about the mechanism in that respect. Can Michelle Thomson enlighten me as to what that is in the current environment?

I want to take Meghan Gallacher back to a comment that she made a little while ago, on our needing to get to a position where everybody agrees on this. Does she accept—this is, in a sense, a hypothetical question—that it is sometimes difficult to get all stakeholders to agree on something? Does she see it as a necessity that everybody has to agree on everything? Alternatively, do we need to apply some of the judgments that Mr Findlay and Mr Balfour have put on the record today about addressing the consumer interest while taking account of legitimate issues on which we might not get universal agreement?

On 2 May 1997, the day after my election as the member of the United Kingdom Parliament for North Tayside, my campaign office took my first call from a constituent, who sought an urgent meeting with me as his newly elected member of Parliament. My constituent had been working for some years with my predecessor, the Conservative MP Bill Walker, to resolve difficulties that he had experienced with the legal profession. My involvement with that case lasted for more than a decade. During that time, I observed my constituent assiduously and tenaciously pursue his concerns, with my active support, but in a way that consumed a huge part of his life.

That case, and others like it with which I have dealt, led me to take an active part in the proceedings on the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which this Parliament passed in December 2006. That bill was designed to improve the system for regulating the legal profession and to make it easier for complaints about poor conduct and service to be handled effectively. Eighteen years later, we find ourselves having to revisit those issues because significant concerns remain about the conduct of some elements of the legal profession and there is a lack of confidence in the current arrangements to adequately protect the consumer interest.

That is not where the historical comparisons end. During the passage of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the legal profession pushed back against some of the reforms. That is exactly what Parliament faces in today’s consideration of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. I believe that the Scottish Government is absolutely correct and absolutely justified to confront the issues in question and to propose reforms to the way in which the system operates.

Many strong words have been used to express opposition to the bill—we have heard some today. The most significant of the accusations is that the bill is a threat to the independence of the legal profession. I have no desire for the independence of the judiciary or the legal profession to be compromised in any way, and I believe that the minister has given assurances that such concerns will be adequately addressed in the later stages of the bill. However, concern about that point cannot be used as a reason for refusing to proceed with the reform agenda.

I am going to burst into violent agreement with Mr McArthur today, although it is not particularly new for Mr McArthur and me to agree on many things. There is a sensitive balance to be struck. However, the point that I am making in my speech—if I can cut to the chase—is that some of us here are not going to allow the consumer voice to be emasculated, as has happened in the past.

I am not going to raise specific cases of poor conduct: several have been well rehearsed in the public domain and we all know who they involve. What is clear is that the current arrangements have not adequately addressed those cases.

In their submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation, the senators of the College of Justice say:

“At present the legal profession is regulated by the Lord President. He is a regulator who is independent from government and parliament, and independent from those whom he regulates.”

I accept that that is the case, but what flows from that statement is that the Lord President must understand and address the fact that many of us deal with members of the public who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the arrangements over which he presides.

The Government has introduced the bill to address the concerns of the consumers of legal services, who are our constituents and whom we represent. Those reforms are unpopular with some parts of the legal profession. The Government has indicated that it will lodge amendments after dialogue with the Lord President. Parliament is yet to see those amendments, although we have seen a letter from the minister that sets out the territory in which they will be set out.

That sums up the uncomfortable spot in which Parliament finds itself today. As the Government tries to reach agreement with the Lord President about how to reform the regulation of the legal profession while maintaining its independence, I encourage it to hold fast to the necessity of delivering measures that will effectively address the genuine and legitimate concerns that previous reforms have failed to address. Many of us will engage in the debate to ensure that we deliver reforms that do exactly that.

I am grateful, Presiding Officer.

I very much associate myself with how Mr Balfour has put that particular point. We must maintain the independence of the legal profession, but the consumer interest must also be strengthened. That is an objective that Mr Balfour and I perhaps share at this point in the debate.

Does that highlight a fundamental lack of respect for the role of the Scottish Government and the legislative responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament?

I find it very strange that the proposal was announced on 15 September and the first formal written notification to the Scottish Government advising of a ban was on 29 September. That was 14 days after the proposal appeared on the BBC News website. Is that an indication of respectful behaviour by the United Kingdom Government?

I will pursue you further on that, Mr Wilson. I assume that, in advance of the announcement on 15 September, you regularly and assiduously considered the type of activity that you have just placed on the record, and that officials in the Scottish Government and ministers explored the ideal regime for dog control in Scotland and considered it in dialogue with DEFRA officials.

My final question is on the Scottish Government’s current position and, in essence, the lack of clarity that arises out of the legislation that has been enacted in England and Wales, which creates a problem in Scotland. Is that a fair representation of the challenge that the Scottish Government faces, given the fact that Mr Wilson has just placed on the record that there has been regular work to ensure that the dog control regime in Scotland is as appropriate and robust as it can be, subject, of course, to further legislative change? Has the necessity of the order coming to the Scottish Government been precipitated by the lack of clarity that the legislation that has been implemented in England and Wales has created?