Committee
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 21 January 2025
21 Jan 2025 · S6 · Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Item of business
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
The amendments in this group are probing amendments. I lodged them because my colleagues and I believe that the bill does not go far enough in creating a simplified and streamlined complaints process for consumers. However, the issue is not just about an administrative process; it cuts to the core of the balance of power between lawyer and consumer. It is about who does what in the regulatory and complaints handling landscape. Lawyers play an important role in challenging Governments on behalf of their clients, but who guards the guards? Is it right that a membership body for the legal profession should also regulate the misconduct of its members? That is a very important point. It should not be a David and Goliath situation, but that is what we have at the moment when things go wrong. For consumers of legal services, it is not always clear where self-regulation ends and self-interest takes over. The Scottish Conservatives’ view is that those issues have not been satisfactorily addressed in the bill. Against that background, my amendments in this group form a package that seeks to change the system of complaints handling so that only the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and not the professional bodies, would consider complaints. It is clear from the 2018 Roberton review that the existing complaints and redress process is not fit for purpose. Esther Roberton’s diagram of the current system is eye-opening and quite alarming. As my colleague Russell Findlay said at stage 1, the Tokyo metro map is easier to understand. Although I was not a member of the committee when the stage 1 report was published, I note the finding at paragraph 144, which states: “The Committee is concerned that the Scottish Government may have missed an opportunity to take a simpler, more user-friendly approach in creating a single streamlined complaints process which would have benefited consumers and regulators alike.” I have worked with the legislation team on how best to address the recommendation against the backdrop of a complex and legalistic framework. Members will appreciate that the single complaints process that was proposed in the Roberton review depended on the creation of an independent regulator, but I acknowledge that the ship has sailed—that quote has been used—at least for now. At the moment, we have a single gateway for complaints, but we do not have a single investigation process. As such, my amendments in this group would use the SLCC’s existing infrastructure to investigate all conduct and service complaints. I have engaged with the Law Society of Scotland on that proposal and I note its position on my amendments as set out in correspondence to the committee on 17 January. I also note the submission that we received last night from the Faculty of Advocates, which argues against a single complaints process. The regulators’ position is not unexpected or surprising. I recognise that they believe that more regulatory powers are essential in order to improve the complaints process and that they strongly oppose any structural change. Of course, it is their right to do so. However, in its latest response, the Faculty of Advocates says that the proposal is “a hare that was considered to have been caught and shot long ago.” I respectfully disagree. Just because the regulators oppose a single complaints process, that does not mean that we should not continue to discuss or debate the proposal. The consumer must also have a voice. The SLCC has engaged constructively on my amendments, arguing that a single complaints process would be in the “best interests of the public, consumers, the legal profession and the representative bodies” and that it would be “more efficient and allow greater flexibility ... reducing inefficiency, duplication and delay.” The approach would, in many ways, satisfy paragraph 144 of the committee’s stage 1 report, on complaints, but it is not a cure-all. I recognise the stakeholder concerns about cost implications and the complexity of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which was foundational for the SLCC. My amendments in the group are probing and I will value the opportunity to work collaboratively with the minister and stakeholders ahead of stage 3 if it means that we can further improve the complaints process for consumers. I move amendment 541.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Karen Adam)
SNP
Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies. Our first...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4 and 38 to 46. I call the minister to move amendment 1 and to speak to all the ame...
The Minister for Victims and Community Safety (Siobhian Brown)
SNP
Good morning. I will make a few remarks before we turn to amendment 1. We have an extraordinarily large number of amendments before us, so I intend to keep m...
Maggie Chapman (North East Scotland) (Green)
Green
Good morning, minister. With regard to amendments 40, 41 and 42, the named regulatory authorities need carry out their regulatory duty only so far as practic...
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Yes, certainly. Amendment 41 makes it clear that the requirement to exercise regulatory functions in a way that contributes to sustainable economic growth ap...
Maggie Chapman
Green
Thank you. I thought that it would be helpful to have that on the record.
Paul O’Kane (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Before we move into lengthy consideration of the amendments that are before us, I thought that it would be helpful to put on the record some general comments...
Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
Minister, I would be grateful if, when you wind up, you could address the SLCC’s concerns about amendment 40. The amendment looks like a minor drafting adjus...
The Convener
SNP
I invite the minister to wind up, please.
Siobhian Brown
SNP
I thank Paul O’Kane for his comments. I know that the bill has been on a bit of a journey since it was introduced in April 2023. When we went into stage 1, c...
Tess White
Con
And the SLCC? You mentioned discussions with the Law Society in relation to the amendment.
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Yes, after engagement, we decided that amendment 40 is the right way forward. Amendment 1 agreed to. Amendments 2 to 4 moved—Siobhian Brown—and agreed to. ...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 47, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 5 to 26, 28 to 38, 412, 413, 461 to 466, 507 and 522.
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Amendments 47, 522 and 466 will make the necessary changes to legislation to reflect the change of name of the Association of Commercial Attorneys to the Ass...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 48, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 49 and 50.
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Amendments 48 to 50 have been lodged in response to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and legal stakeholders that section 8 mi...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 51, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 53 and 52, 54 to 67, and 69 to 92. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emptions set ou...
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Amendments 51 to 72 bring the provisions relating to a category 1 regulator’s exercise of its regulatory functions by an independent regulatory committee est...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 541, in the name of Tess White, is grouped with amendments 542, 546 to 548, 561, 566 to 570, 574 to 577, 579 to 581, 583 to 589, 591 to 604 and 607...
Tess White
Con
The amendments in this group are probing amendments. I lodged them because my colleagues and I believe that the bill does not go far enough in creating a sim...
Paul O’Kane
Lab
I put on the record my thanks to the many stakeholders who provided briefings in advance, some of which were referenced by Tess White, including the Law Soci...
Maggie Chapman
Green
I thank Tess White and Paul O’Kane for the discussion, because it is useful for us to air our views. I ask the minister to talk specifically about the conce...
Siobhian Brown
SNP
The Scottish Government recognised the differing views on the primary recommendation in Esther Roberton’s report, so it committed to seeking a wide range of ...
The Convener
SNP
I invite Tess White to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 541.
Tess White
Con
I thank the minister for her remarks. I am not going to press my amendments in this group at stage 2, but I welcome the opportunity to get it on the record t...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 68, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 93 to 101, 105, 104, 102, 103, 106 to 121, 310, 311, 122 to 178 and 459.
Siobhian Brown
SNP
Section 20 currently allows Scottish ministers to intervene in the event of concerns being raised that a regulator is failing to exercise their regulatory fu...
The Convener
SNP
If amendment 542 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 77, which was debated with amendment 51 in group 4, because of pre-emption. Amendment 542 not moved. ...
The Convener
SNP
I propose that we suspend the meeting for five minutes for a comfort break. 10:42 Meeting suspended. 10:51 On resuming— Section 21—Power to direct speci...
The Convener
SNP
Welcome back. Amendment 179, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 180 to 188, 543, 189, 190, 544, 191 to 199 and 545.