Chamber
Plenary, 14 Dec 2006
14 Dec 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
I pay tribute to the minister's endeavours today. I concur with the tribute that the minister paid to everyone in the bill team.
The bill has been a long time coming. As the minister correctly pointed out, the issue was considered by the Justice 1 Committee at the start of the millennium. At that stage, the perception was that it would be a simple case of taking matters from the Law Society and creating an independent body. It has become clear that the issue is highly complex, for a variety of reasons.
The issue is difficult, as we must balance various rights. We must consider not only the profession that we seek to have some regulation of—rather than its being self-regulated—but the requirement to balance rights within the profession and elsewhere. Also, the situation is fluid, which is perhaps shown by the fact that in addition to establishing the commission, we are addressing the provision of legal services. The legal profession is changing as we speak. It is important that we address that.
Some aspects of the bill may not work out in practice because of issues that we have not foreseen. We will have to consider and return to them, but it is to the credit of the Law Society that it accepted, perhaps belatedly, that the situation could not go on as it was and that there had to be an independent, impartial body. It was no longer acceptable to the general public or to the body politic that it said that it was a well-run, well-regulated profession that could self-regulate. It may well be such a profession—I think that all members concede that the number of people who err and fall below the high standards that are set by the Law Society are few—but there have been instances when matters have not been dealt with appropriately. There are occasions when the conduct of solicitors and the service that they provide are not appropriate. Those matters must be considered. It is clear that there has been division on the issue, but we must regulate.
I hope that the matters that have been raised today will be addressed. John Swinney was right to say that the provision of a right of appeal against a decision of the Scottish legal complaints commission creates problems. We have acted correctly in trying to ensure that there is a focused approach, but we should warn the legal profession that it must not abuse the system. If complaints to the commission become just one part of the process because practitioners who do not like the decision will appeal, thereby dragging the process out and imposing financial constraints on people who complain about service, the Parliament will review the situation. It is not the Parliament's will or understanding that such an outcome is the intention of the amendment that was agreed to today. The Executive was correct to accept amendment 3 on the basis that appeals would be allowed in limited circumstances and that that approach would preserve rights rather than create a perverse situation that could be abused.
It did not take the wisdom of Solomon to support amendment 1, which would have reduced the maximum compensation payable from £20,000 to £15,000, but the Executive did not support it. Although we regret that the amendment was not agreed to, it is disingenuous of people in the legal profession to suggest that the maximum fine will always be imposed.
When I was a practising solicitor many years ago, people would come in to discuss an offence that might carry a level 5 fine, which could be a significant amount—£3,000, £5,000 or even £10,000. I would say, as would any sensible solicitor worth their salt, "Don't be silly. You will not be fined the maximum amount; you will be required to pay a fine that is reasonable given your circumstances and the offence you committed." I would prefer the maximum compensation to be £15,000, but the profession's fears should be allayed—practitioners will not pay a mandatory amount of £20,000. A balance will be struck and matters will be resolved.
We must acknowledge that circumstances have changed. The profession was quite right to accept that the current system could not continue, although I still receive letters from solicitors who seem unaware that the body that represents them has acknowledged that there should be an independent commission. Those solicitors must deal with their representatives; we have addressed the matter today. We trust and hope that we have got the balance right but we acknowledge that the profession will change as society changes. If the new system does not work, we will review it.
We welcome the changes to the legal aid system, which were vastly overdue. There are significant problems and I do not think that we have seen the last of changes to the system, but that is a matter for another day. In the meantime, we commend the bill and are happy to support it.
The bill has been a long time coming. As the minister correctly pointed out, the issue was considered by the Justice 1 Committee at the start of the millennium. At that stage, the perception was that it would be a simple case of taking matters from the Law Society and creating an independent body. It has become clear that the issue is highly complex, for a variety of reasons.
The issue is difficult, as we must balance various rights. We must consider not only the profession that we seek to have some regulation of—rather than its being self-regulated—but the requirement to balance rights within the profession and elsewhere. Also, the situation is fluid, which is perhaps shown by the fact that in addition to establishing the commission, we are addressing the provision of legal services. The legal profession is changing as we speak. It is important that we address that.
Some aspects of the bill may not work out in practice because of issues that we have not foreseen. We will have to consider and return to them, but it is to the credit of the Law Society that it accepted, perhaps belatedly, that the situation could not go on as it was and that there had to be an independent, impartial body. It was no longer acceptable to the general public or to the body politic that it said that it was a well-run, well-regulated profession that could self-regulate. It may well be such a profession—I think that all members concede that the number of people who err and fall below the high standards that are set by the Law Society are few—but there have been instances when matters have not been dealt with appropriately. There are occasions when the conduct of solicitors and the service that they provide are not appropriate. Those matters must be considered. It is clear that there has been division on the issue, but we must regulate.
I hope that the matters that have been raised today will be addressed. John Swinney was right to say that the provision of a right of appeal against a decision of the Scottish legal complaints commission creates problems. We have acted correctly in trying to ensure that there is a focused approach, but we should warn the legal profession that it must not abuse the system. If complaints to the commission become just one part of the process because practitioners who do not like the decision will appeal, thereby dragging the process out and imposing financial constraints on people who complain about service, the Parliament will review the situation. It is not the Parliament's will or understanding that such an outcome is the intention of the amendment that was agreed to today. The Executive was correct to accept amendment 3 on the basis that appeals would be allowed in limited circumstances and that that approach would preserve rights rather than create a perverse situation that could be abused.
It did not take the wisdom of Solomon to support amendment 1, which would have reduced the maximum compensation payable from £20,000 to £15,000, but the Executive did not support it. Although we regret that the amendment was not agreed to, it is disingenuous of people in the legal profession to suggest that the maximum fine will always be imposed.
When I was a practising solicitor many years ago, people would come in to discuss an offence that might carry a level 5 fine, which could be a significant amount—£3,000, £5,000 or even £10,000. I would say, as would any sensible solicitor worth their salt, "Don't be silly. You will not be fined the maximum amount; you will be required to pay a fine that is reasonable given your circumstances and the offence you committed." I would prefer the maximum compensation to be £15,000, but the profession's fears should be allayed—practitioners will not pay a mandatory amount of £20,000. A balance will be struck and matters will be resolved.
We must acknowledge that circumstances have changed. The profession was quite right to accept that the current system could not continue, although I still receive letters from solicitors who seem unaware that the body that represents them has acknowledged that there should be an independent commission. Those solicitors must deal with their representatives; we have addressed the matter today. We trust and hope that we have got the balance right but we acknowledge that the profession will change as society changes. If the new system does not work, we will review it.
We welcome the changes to the legal aid system, which were vastly overdue. There are significant problems and I do not think that we have seen the last of changes to the system, but that is a matter for another day. In the meantime, we commend the bill and are happy to support it.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5223, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that Parliament agrees that the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scot...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont):
Lab
I thank the Justice 2 Committee for its thorough consideration of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill. A number of refinements were made to th...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to 5.30 pm.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 11.2.4 of Standing Orders, Decision Time on Thursday 14 December be taken at 5.30 pm.—Ms Margaret Curran.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I pay tribute to the minister's endeavours today. I concur with the tribute that the minister paid to everyone in the bill team.The bill has been a long time...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I joined the Justice 2 Committee as convener on day 1 of stage 2 of the bill, which gave me a real introduction to the trenches in the front line—I had to re...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I will refer to the debate at stage 1 and to the committee's stage 1 report. The main areas of consideration at that stage have been substantially addressed,...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
I record my appreciation of the sterling support that the clerking team and the Scottish Parliament information centre have given the committee.No one would ...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Government for introducing the bill and the ministers for steering it through Parliament. I imagine that the volume of correspondence that I have...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
As other members have said, there were many issues for the Justice 2 Committee to consider in scrutinising this 80-page bill, which was probably dwarfed by t...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
The fact that the bill is a completely different animal from what appeared at stage 1 is a good advertisement for the parliamentary process. I pay tribute to...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I add my thanks to those of other members who were on the Justice 2 Committee during stages 1 and 2. I thank the clerks and my fellow committee members, who ...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
Like Kenny MacAskill, I recognise the fact that the bill has been a long time in the making. I thank the parliamentary committees—not just in this Parliament...