Hansard

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, both at stage 2 and today. There were three main considerations: that the bill would put at risk small solicitor firms, in respect of which there is a higher than average complaint rate; that the commission would not operate in a fair, transparent or accountable way; and that the absence of an appeal mechanism could lead to ECHR concerns and issues of fairness for the complainer and the solicitor who is the subject of the complaint.

Before I explore those considerations, I will touch on a series of questions that can be seen as a test of the bill. First, will the bill make it easier for someone who believes that they have received inadequate service from a solicitor to make a complaint? Secondly, will the process be quicker than it is at present? Thirdly, will the complaint be concluded fairly and in a straightforward manner that is easy for the complainant to understand? Finally, will the process be much less expensive than using the courts? In short, does the bill address the deficiencies of the current system, which relies almost wholesale on the Law Society? From the committee's stage 1 report, one can see that the short answer is yes. The Executive has reinforced that conclusion by addressing the concerns that were raised at stage 1.

It is appropriate to recognise the work of my committee colleagues and that of other members such as John Swinney—whose contribution has been mentioned in the debate—and Bill Aitken, who took an active and constructive role in the consideration of the bill. Indeed, their assistance to the committee shows the value of having non-committee members attend committee meetings at stage 1 and stage 2. That does not happen often, but their experience—from a constituency and an experience perspective—was helpful.

The previous Deputy Minister for Justice listened and responded genuinely to the debate. The new Deputy Minister for Justice, who took office at a developed stage of the bill, managed to gain a remarkable grasp of the details of the bill at stage 2, as did our convener. The Executive's willingness to work with all the parties and take a constructive view does it credit. It is good for the Parliament and the public to see the democratic process working constructively.

I want briefly to consider the areas that have caused concern throughout passage of the bill. The first relates to the concerns that were voiced at stage 1 by solicitors who practise in an area in which there is a higher than average rate of complaints. Their main concern was that the complaints process would not be fair for them, that there would be no appeal and that the complaints levy would be set at a 50:50 split to raise the revenue, which would mean that it would be a de facto fine. That was addressed at stage 2 and has been further addressed at stage 3. That is welcome.

There is concern about financing the commission through the annual levy and the retrospective complaints levy, but that is for the commission to determine. It is incumbent on the commission to develop a strong relationship with the legal profession to ensure not only that there is a proper processing of complaints but that there is a proper relationship between it and the profession. The changes that have been made in that regard and in relation to the appeals mechanism have made the bill stronger.

When we were faced with an alternative appeal mechanism at stage 2, which involved an automatic appeal to sheriffs, we decided that it was not attractive. What we have agreed today is attractive, as will be the more streamlined approach for the complainer, which will be more efficient, cheaper and better. That is a good definition of the bill that I hope we will pass at half past five.