Chamber
Plenary, 14 Dec 2006
14 Dec 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill
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 worked hard in examining the bill, and I also thank the committee's adviser. I do not know whether anyone else mentioned the adviser we had at stage 1, but I would certainly like to thank them.
One of the most important aspects of the debate, certainly at stage 1 and particularly at stage 2, was about the maximum level of compensation, which the bill sets at £20,000. It is important to emphasise yet again that that is not the normal level, but the maximum level. As Mr MacAskill said, we do not have punitive damages in this country. Instead, the sum that is awarded represents compensation for loss. The truth of what the bill is about was lost in some of the rhetoric during the early stages of the bill. I hope that the profession now understands what the bill is about, rather than the fear stories that were put about regarding the £20,000 level.
The need for an appeals process was much debated at stage 1 and, particularly, at stage 2. Although it was an interesting debate, there has been a welcome outcome in the fact that we now have an appeals process. After listening to the evidence, I felt that there was a solid case for an independent appeals process. I hope that it will assuage some of the fears that have been raised about ECHR compliance, and I welcome the comments on the bill's ECHR compliance that the minister made earlier.
It is interesting that so little has been said today about the separation of service complaints and conduct complaints. Perhaps we talked ourselves out on that matter at stages 1 and 2, although Colin Fox raised the issue again today. I think that we will have to wait and see how that works out. If there is a problem later on, we will perhaps have to reconsider it; however, I think that we have got the balance just about right.
Bill Butler emphasised the important fact that the board will have a non-lawyer majority. That is central to the whole shift in culture that my colleague, John Swinney, mentioned. I echo his comments on that. It is very important that we have that cultural shift and move away from the problems that we have had with some lawyers in the past. It is broadly accepted by most people that it was time for a change to an independent complaints commission. That is an important shift, and it is time that we introduced that measure.
The underlying principle is that an efficient and effective lawyer should welcome a process that targets the small minority—I emphasise the fact that it is a small minority—of lawyers who are failing their clients. I hope that the bill will assist in raising standards in the legal profession, and I am glad to support it.
One of the most important aspects of the debate, certainly at stage 1 and particularly at stage 2, was about the maximum level of compensation, which the bill sets at £20,000. It is important to emphasise yet again that that is not the normal level, but the maximum level. As Mr MacAskill said, we do not have punitive damages in this country. Instead, the sum that is awarded represents compensation for loss. The truth of what the bill is about was lost in some of the rhetoric during the early stages of the bill. I hope that the profession now understands what the bill is about, rather than the fear stories that were put about regarding the £20,000 level.
The need for an appeals process was much debated at stage 1 and, particularly, at stage 2. Although it was an interesting debate, there has been a welcome outcome in the fact that we now have an appeals process. After listening to the evidence, I felt that there was a solid case for an independent appeals process. I hope that it will assuage some of the fears that have been raised about ECHR compliance, and I welcome the comments on the bill's ECHR compliance that the minister made earlier.
It is interesting that so little has been said today about the separation of service complaints and conduct complaints. Perhaps we talked ourselves out on that matter at stages 1 and 2, although Colin Fox raised the issue again today. I think that we will have to wait and see how that works out. If there is a problem later on, we will perhaps have to reconsider it; however, I think that we have got the balance just about right.
Bill Butler emphasised the important fact that the board will have a non-lawyer majority. That is central to the whole shift in culture that my colleague, John Swinney, mentioned. I echo his comments on that. It is very important that we have that cultural shift and move away from the problems that we have had with some lawyers in the past. It is broadly accepted by most people that it was time for a change to an independent complaints commission. That is an important shift, and it is time that we introduced that measure.
The underlying principle is that an efficient and effective lawyer should welcome a process that targets the small minority—I emphasise the fact that it is a small minority—of lawyers who are failing their clients. I hope that the bill will assist in raising standards in the legal profession, and I am glad 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...