Hansard

I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and confirm that we will support the bill at decision time this evening.

As we have heard already in contributions, the process has been long for all involved—not merely this afternoon, although I appreciate that for colleagues it might have felt like two years when, in fact, it has been only two hours. We have been at the bill for two years, and it has been more than a decade since some stakeholders who have been calling for reform of the regulatory system began working for it. On that point, I thank all the organisations and individuals who have engaged on the bill, not least the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and many others, including people who have experience of complaints against solicitors in Scotland. Their time and efforts have certainly moved the bill into a much better place than where it started.

It would be remiss of me not to reflect on why the bill has taken so long to come to its conclusion. As we have heard, the bill was controversial when it was introduced, as the Scottish Government attempted to take control of legal services regulation through ministerial powers. Such was the significance of the threat to the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession, which is a fundamental tenet of a well-functioning democracy, the senior judiciary was left in the unprecedented position of speaking out on the proposals. It might be the first time in the Parliament’s history that the senior senators of the College of Justice have come to give evidence on a piece of legislation that directly related to their functions and the function of legal services in Scotland.

I am sure that many, in and outwith the chamber, were baffled that a policy could be formed and a bill introduced that so fundamentally threatened the profession’s independence, when there were no calls or recommendations for such a position to be taken.

I recognise that the minister listened to the depth and breadth of concern about the proposals and lodged significant amendments at stage 2 to reverse that position. However, I think that serious learning remains to be done by the Government about how it took that position in the first place.

I pay tribute, though, to the minister. She came into office part way through the bill process and inherited the bill in the condition that it was in. She has sought to listen and engage and has been constructive and co-operative through the stages of the bill—certainly with me. I genuinely appreciate her time and engagement and those of her officials and the wider bill team.

I continue to have some concerns about the stage 3 consideration process that we have just completed. The fact that an issue as significant as the status of registered foreign lawyers and multinational practices was left to the final day of the bill’s passage to be resolved is quite concerning and shocking. We are talking about the ability of some of the biggest law firms in the United Kingdom to operate in Scotland and about—as I said in my remarks on the amendments—thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of clients. The Law Society and others have been highlighting those issues for the two years since the bill was introduced. It is my understanding that, although the Law Society is the regulator and the body responsible for administering the legislation, there have not been detailed discussions with it on those matters preceding the correspondence that was issued last night, which I referred to earlier.

I believe that, ultimately, over the course of stages 2 and 3, the bill has been brought to a better place. It will provide tangible improvements to the legal system and legal services and much-needed additional protections to consumers and the public.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives will not join us in supporting the bill this evening, although I appreciate that they are speaking of their concerns about what it means for consumers. I point out to Tess White and others that an independent regulator is not being widely called for by people involved in the process, particularly the Faculty of Advocates, which I referred to earlier, but also the Law Society and others. If an independent regulator were answerable to the Lord President, I do not think that it would be an independent regulator. There is a challenge in the position that the Conservatives have arrived at. I believe that their previous position was to support the tenets of the bill and not to support an independent regulator.

I welcome the powers that I have worked on with the minister that have now been included in the bill. I highlight to the minister, however, that amendment 42 not passing and the related subsequent or previous amendments passing might cause some challenges in the legislation. It would be useful if, in a return to Parliament or in her summing up, she clarified how she intends to take that forward, given that it will be a challenge in the statute book. The post-legislative scrutiny would be a helpful vehicle to seek to deal with those issues. We need to understand what issues will remain in that space, and I hope that she will use the post-legislative scrutiny to do that.

I think that the bill will provide major, overdue regulatory changes for the benefit of consumers and practitioners alike. It will simplify a system that is too complex and will make proactive a system that is too reactive. Consequently, we will support the bill, as amended, this evening.