Chamber
Plenary, 15 Nov 2007
15 Nov 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Legal Services Market
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 legal services. I will confine my remarks to one particular aspect, which is the implementation of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which abolish the ban on non-lawyers applying for rights of audience in Scotland's courtrooms.
While it is all very well to debate the merits of major law firms forming alliances to compete in a national or global marketplace, we must work out how the law can help the ordinary man or woman in the street who needs legal representation but cannot get it or, indeed, afford it. Is there really a desire in Scotland to end the monopoly that is enjoyed by members of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates over paid advocacy in Scotland's courts? I ask the question because an inquiry that the previous Scottish Executive instigated decided that it was time to end that monopoly. However, the monopoly has not yet been broken.
It falls to the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice to make that decision, along with the Lord President. However, I fear that Mr MacAskill's mind may already be made up on the issue. As he reminded us today, he is a former practising solicitor, so at one time he was a beneficiary of that monopoly for paid advocacy. Indeed, in an article in The Scotsman in February 2006, Mr MacAskill commented on sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act, saying that he was
"yet to be convinced that the move would benefit the legal service, rather than make the situation worse".
He went further, adding:
"There are good reasons for having a monopoly-regulated profession; otherwise, how do you regulate those not part of the organisation?"
As he is fond of football analogies, he finished by saying:
"If I watch a football match I want the referee to be SFA-standard, not Joe Smith from off the street."
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to tell us whether his views on that issue have changed since he took up his present position.
While it is all very well to debate the merits of major law firms forming alliances to compete in a national or global marketplace, we must work out how the law can help the ordinary man or woman in the street who needs legal representation but cannot get it or, indeed, afford it. Is there really a desire in Scotland to end the monopoly that is enjoyed by members of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates over paid advocacy in Scotland's courts? I ask the question because an inquiry that the previous Scottish Executive instigated decided that it was time to end that monopoly. However, the monopoly has not yet been broken.
It falls to the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice to make that decision, along with the Lord President. However, I fear that Mr MacAskill's mind may already be made up on the issue. As he reminded us today, he is a former practising solicitor, so at one time he was a beneficiary of that monopoly for paid advocacy. Indeed, in an article in The Scotsman in February 2006, Mr MacAskill commented on sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act, saying that he was
"yet to be convinced that the move would benefit the legal service, rather than make the situation worse".
He went further, adding:
"There are good reasons for having a monopoly-regulated profession; otherwise, how do you regulate those not part of the organisation?"
As he is fond of football analogies, he finished by saying:
"If I watch a football match I want the referee to be SFA-standard, not Joe Smith from off the street."
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to tell us whether his views on that issue have changed since he took up his present position.
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.