Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 28 January 2025
On page 32 of the bill, section 41 sets out that, in order for the SLCC to apply the eligibility test, it will need to consult the Lord President, Scottish ministers, all the regulators and the consumer panels with regard to making those decisions. I appreciate that we do not yet have the exact detail to give to Mr O’Kane, but, as the process moves forward, there will be a consultation with all stakeholders.
Moving on, the improvements that are proposed in the bill and in the amendments in my name allow the SLCC to operate a flexible, agile complaints process that allows a proportionate approach to different types of complaints. The amendments in my name have been developed with the SLCC, which has 15 years’ experience of dealing with more than 18,000 complaints. It understands where delays or blockages occur and where improvements could be made to the process.
The bill provides a proportionate and agile approach. Unfortunately, Mr O’Kane’s amendments in this group propose to reintroduce prescriptive provisions to the legislation, which would risk the improvements in the bill that would deliver efficiencies. Those efficiencies would be achieved through a streamlined triage process in particular, which would allow complaints that required further investigation to proceed swiftly either to resolution or to the relevant regulator, and complaints that were not eligible for investigation to be closed. That is in everybody’s best interests.
In its letter of 17 January to the committee, the Law Society said:
“The Bill as lodged contains many important steps to speed up and improve the complaints system. The eligibility process overseen by the SLCC is improved, meaning conduct complaints reach us more quickly”
I am concerned that Paul O’Kane’s amendments would cut across those improvements.
It is important to note that the committee raised concerns in its stage 1 report that we must
“ensure a system is in place to efficiently deal with complaints without merit to avoid clogging up the system and causing unnecessary delay.”
That is still a key component of the proposed system, as the bill requires the SLCC to make rules about its practices and procedures, including with regard to decisions that a complaint does not merit investigation.
In making and varying these rules, the SLCC will be required to consult with the Lord President, the professional bodies, the consumer panels, other consumer groups and groups that represent the interests of the legal profession, as I mentioned to Paul O’Kane. The SLCC will also need to publish the rules. I consider that that provides sufficient checks to ensure that the committee’s concerns will be addressed.
The bill also provides an opportunity to remove some of the, at best, legalistic and, at worst, offensive language, such as “frivolous” and “totally without merit”, that the SLCC is required to use with complainers when it tells them that aspects of their complaint are not eligible for investigation. Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, touched on that at stage 1. She noted:
“There are things in the bill that will help, such as the flexibility to make rules. That will enable some of the language issues to be addressed, because we can represent things in ways that are perhaps more accessible to everyday folk.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 14 November 2023; c 10.]
Paul O’Kane’s amendments serve to add back the complexity and prescription and would increase inefficiency and delay. If his amendments are supported, it would raise significant concerns over the financial assumptions about efficiency improvements that will arise from the bill. I therefore ask Mr O’Kane not to press his amendments in this group. If he does press them, I urge members to oppose them. I ask members to support my amendment 316.