Hansard

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.