Chamber
Plenary, 15 Nov 2007
15 Nov 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Legal Services Market
Like previous speakers, I welcome the debate. It gives the Scottish Government the opportunity to respond to the super-complaint from the consumer group Which? and the Office of Fair Trading's findings. I sincerely hope that it will allow us to develop and kick-start further discussions on ways to improve Scotland's legal system.
As has been mentioned by other members, including John Wilson, Which? believes that removing the restrictions on solicitors providing joint services with advocates would provide a much better service to consumers, with savings on overheads and better economies of scale being passed on to those consumers. In general, Which? believes that multidisciplinary practices would enhance services and bring costs down for clients.
Whether or not there is agreement on the Which? proposals, it is clear that there is a need for change, but we must ensure that any change is carefully considered. As we move forward to do that, it is important that the Parliament and the Government work with industry to ensure that we find a regulatory framework that is fair and appropriate to Scotland's specific circumstances, as has been acknowledged by the cabinet secretary. Indeed, in its response to the Which? complaint, the OFT—despite regarding the current regulation of legal services as restrictive—said:
"the OFT notes that the legal services market in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. The OFT also considers that it is important to develop an appropriate Scottish solution to any perceived problems … the OFT has not assumed that the changes currently being made in England and Wales will be automatically suitable for the Scottish market."
Of course, the debate is not just about ensuring service delivery, or whether there should be regulation. As Pauline McNeill's amendment shows, it is about the kind of regulation that we should have and equal access to justice, especially for those who need it most and those who would be most at risk of losing that access in an unregulated market. As highlighted by Rhoda Grant, with her experience of the Highlands and Islands, that is particularly important in rural communities. It is also true of the areas that make up the South of Scotland region. We must not leave the industry to the whims of the free market, as that would be bad not only for practitioners but for consumers.
I spoke to a local solicitor in Carluke, who told me that, like every other industry, solicitors have witnessed a lot of changes to their working practices over the years. I was told that it is becoming increasingly difficult for rural offices to recruit new trainees—and to recruit people, full stop—and that more and more small, individual firms are being merged and amalgamated. The Law Society of Scotland concurred with that when it said:
"Rural practices report difficulty in attracting staff and family law practices may be withdrawing from legal aid provision."
In addition, when small firms try to concentrate on and specialise in specific areas, such as conveyancing, there is a latent fear that, eventually, the bigger, amalgamated firms will take away their business. Given that that is the fear now, the situation can only get worse, especially if the free market is allowed to prevail, so careful consideration must be given not only to supporting small firms but to allowing bigger firms to use their expertise to compete in a growing international arena. At present, Scottish solicitors work in 44 countries throughout the world. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck.
The situation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that any regulations are appropriate, that they meet the particular needs of our dispersed communities, and that they recognise the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal practice and its growing international influence. However, no one is saying that the status quo should remain. That is the view not only of the small firm in Carluke but of the Law Society of Scotland, as expressed in its consultation on alternative business structures. The consultation is a useful document that excellently and thoughtfully gets across what we must strive to obtain from people in the legal world. The Law Society acknowledges that things need to change, but it urges us to be mindful that change must never come at the cost of quality or of the much-cherished independence of our legal system. Independence is one of the most important elements of the system's operation; the independence of advocates and of solicitor firms is fundamental to the legal profession.
I am no legal expert, but I know what I do not want as a consumer: I do not want to be ripped off or given legal advice that discloses confidential information about me or that is not in my best interest. Instead, I want any solicitor whom I hire to respect me and the rule of law, and to behave with honesty and integrity. It is encouraging that the Law Society's council shares those views and is conscious that any changes in business delivery models must protect not just the core values but the client.
Smaller Scottish legal practices should have the opportunity to expand and innovate in a way that provides communities and individuals who have recourse to the law with the access that they need.
We must protect our legal system. I think that there is agreement that while the quasi-liberalisation practices that have recently been endorsed in the UK's other legal jurisdictions—England and Wales—may be suitable for those countries, they are certainly not suitable for Scotland. We need only look at what is happening to the Post Office to realise what happens when industries that provide vital and specialised public services are forced to deregulate and open up to the wrong kinds of competition. Thousands of local post offices are being closed or are proposed for closure, and the range of services that is provided by the few, increasingly centralised, branches that remain is being reduced.
We can learn lessons from such an approach to regulatory reform. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government will listen carefully to the points that have been made in the debate and will work closely with the Scottish legal profession to ensure that it is in the best state to serve 21st century Scotland.
As has been mentioned by other members, including John Wilson, Which? believes that removing the restrictions on solicitors providing joint services with advocates would provide a much better service to consumers, with savings on overheads and better economies of scale being passed on to those consumers. In general, Which? believes that multidisciplinary practices would enhance services and bring costs down for clients.
Whether or not there is agreement on the Which? proposals, it is clear that there is a need for change, but we must ensure that any change is carefully considered. As we move forward to do that, it is important that the Parliament and the Government work with industry to ensure that we find a regulatory framework that is fair and appropriate to Scotland's specific circumstances, as has been acknowledged by the cabinet secretary. Indeed, in its response to the Which? complaint, the OFT—despite regarding the current regulation of legal services as restrictive—said:
"the OFT notes that the legal services market in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. The OFT also considers that it is important to develop an appropriate Scottish solution to any perceived problems … the OFT has not assumed that the changes currently being made in England and Wales will be automatically suitable for the Scottish market."
Of course, the debate is not just about ensuring service delivery, or whether there should be regulation. As Pauline McNeill's amendment shows, it is about the kind of regulation that we should have and equal access to justice, especially for those who need it most and those who would be most at risk of losing that access in an unregulated market. As highlighted by Rhoda Grant, with her experience of the Highlands and Islands, that is particularly important in rural communities. It is also true of the areas that make up the South of Scotland region. We must not leave the industry to the whims of the free market, as that would be bad not only for practitioners but for consumers.
I spoke to a local solicitor in Carluke, who told me that, like every other industry, solicitors have witnessed a lot of changes to their working practices over the years. I was told that it is becoming increasingly difficult for rural offices to recruit new trainees—and to recruit people, full stop—and that more and more small, individual firms are being merged and amalgamated. The Law Society of Scotland concurred with that when it said:
"Rural practices report difficulty in attracting staff and family law practices may be withdrawing from legal aid provision."
In addition, when small firms try to concentrate on and specialise in specific areas, such as conveyancing, there is a latent fear that, eventually, the bigger, amalgamated firms will take away their business. Given that that is the fear now, the situation can only get worse, especially if the free market is allowed to prevail, so careful consideration must be given not only to supporting small firms but to allowing bigger firms to use their expertise to compete in a growing international arena. At present, Scottish solicitors work in 44 countries throughout the world. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck.
The situation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that any regulations are appropriate, that they meet the particular needs of our dispersed communities, and that they recognise the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal practice and its growing international influence. However, no one is saying that the status quo should remain. That is the view not only of the small firm in Carluke but of the Law Society of Scotland, as expressed in its consultation on alternative business structures. The consultation is a useful document that excellently and thoughtfully gets across what we must strive to obtain from people in the legal world. The Law Society acknowledges that things need to change, but it urges us to be mindful that change must never come at the cost of quality or of the much-cherished independence of our legal system. Independence is one of the most important elements of the system's operation; the independence of advocates and of solicitor firms is fundamental to the legal profession.
I am no legal expert, but I know what I do not want as a consumer: I do not want to be ripped off or given legal advice that discloses confidential information about me or that is not in my best interest. Instead, I want any solicitor whom I hire to respect me and the rule of law, and to behave with honesty and integrity. It is encouraging that the Law Society's council shares those views and is conscious that any changes in business delivery models must protect not just the core values but the client.
Smaller Scottish legal practices should have the opportunity to expand and innovate in a way that provides communities and individuals who have recourse to the law with the access that they need.
We must protect our legal system. I think that there is agreement that while the quasi-liberalisation practices that have recently been endorsed in the UK's other legal jurisdictions—England and Wales—may be suitable for those countries, they are certainly not suitable for Scotland. We need only look at what is happening to the Post Office to realise what happens when industries that provide vital and specialised public services are forced to deregulate and open up to the wrong kinds of competition. Thousands of local post offices are being closed or are proposed for closure, and the range of services that is provided by the few, increasingly centralised, branches that remain is being reduced.
We can learn lessons from such an approach to regulatory reform. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government will listen carefully to the points that have been made in the debate and will work closely with the Scottish legal profession to ensure that it is in the best state to serve 21st century Scotland.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S3M-847, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on competition, regulation and business structu...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):
SNP
I appreciate that the level of excitement about today's debate is not quite on all fours with the anticipation for Saturday's 5 pm kick-off at Hampden Park, ...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that, in its assumptions about the Scottish legal system, the Consumers Association made a number of errors, which ...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
We have been in regular contact with the OFT. We have always been at pains to point out that we accept the need for consumers' rights to be preserved and pro...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
I note that at your request, Presiding Officer, the minister extended his speech. I hope that you do not receive a fee note for that, given that he previousl...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
I intervene at Mr Martin's request. We accept that although the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates each perform a pivotal role for their professions, t...
Paul Martin:
Lab
I welcome that commitment from the cabinet secretary and agree with that way forward.A number of key issues are worth raising today, some of which were menti...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Bill Aitken. Mr Aitken, as you have picked up, you basically have as long as you like.
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
Gee, thanks.The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I have exchanged some harsh words this week, but he will no doubt be relieved to learn that that is highly ...
David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):
Lab
Okay, so the legal profession contributes £1.2 billion to the Scottish economy, but is Bill Aitken saying that legal fees should go up instead of some way be...
Bill Aitken:
Con
No. Mr Whitton will be relieved to learn that I am saying that we should expand the market and bring in more business. As a good public relations man, he sho...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I now call Mike Pringle, to whom the instructions that I gave Mr Aitken also apply.
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
That is probably a first.Although this subject is important, the English 2007 act that covers these issues does not become effective until 2011, so we are di...
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the motion and Pauline McNeill on her amendment. The Scottish Government is clearly attempting to develop...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
When we are debating legal structures, it is important that we focus on the people who require access to the legal system. Their needs must inform our decisi...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
I am grateful for the points made about civil legal aid. The Government's position has always been that we are happy to provide facilities for civil legal ai...
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
I understand the minister's point, but we have to consider the consumer—the person who needs the service. If they are saying that they are unable to access s...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am sure that many members in the chamber are as delighted as I am at being dragooned into being here this morning.Scotland has a unique situation regarding...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
Excuse me, Mr McMillan.I do not know how many times I have to say this to members, but phones have to be switched off. Off.
Stuart McMillan:
SNP
Of course, funding problems are not solely related to community law centres. The Scottish Legal Aid Board's legal funds have been significantly drained thank...
David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):
Lab
I speak to the amendment in the name of my colleague Pauline McNeill, with particular emphasis on widening choice and on easier access to more affordable leg...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
No, they have not. What the member says seems rather to contradict Mr Martin's points. Is Mr Whitton telling the chamber that he supports Tesco law?
David Whitton:
Lab
I support the move to make the law more affordable and more accessible to ordinary people in the street. One of the reasons why people want to introduce what...
Aileen Campbell (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Like previous speakers, I welcome the debate. It gives the Scottish Government the opportunity to respond to the super-complaint from the consumer group Whic...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
In the context of an extensive debate, I will address one specific issue that has not been mentioned much—advocates. The argument is made that it is uneconom...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
Presiding Officer, I crave your indulgence for my late arrival in the chamber.We are sentimental about the law because the law and the office of Lord Advocat...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
Again, we have had an interesting debate. It has been interesting listening to colleagues trying to fill not only their time, but that of other members. I en...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con):
Con
I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of England and Wales. I was a practising solicitor with Brodies until June 2007.Like many others who hav...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I declare an interest in that my husband is a practising advocate. However, competition, regulation and alternative business structures are not often the sub...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
Order. The member may wish to draw her remarks to a conclusion, to allow the minister adequate time to respond.