Chamber
Plenary, 15 Nov 2007
15 Nov 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Legal Services Market
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 Mr MacAskill describes in a derogatory fashion as "Tesco law" is that it would allow that to happen.
If, as Mr MacAskill has just said, he has not changed his views, perhaps he should let someone else in his department make the decision on the matter, for he is obviously prejudiced against it. He is saying on the one hand that we cannot build a wall against competition, and on the other that he will not allow new entrants access unless quality can be maintained. However, there is no point in relaxing the rules at the top end of the market when—crucially—at the bottom end people are finding that access to legal representation is being priced out of their reach.
I raise these points because of a long-running campaign that has been conducted over many years by a constituent, who is the current chair of the Association of Commercial Attorneys. The association's application for paid advocacy rights was submitted in July. My constituent and the association have been trying for many years to win such rights in Scotland's courts.
The enactment of legislation to free up the advocacy market has lain dormant on the statute books for 17 years. Sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act abolish the ban on non-lawyers applying for rights of audience in Scotland's courtrooms. At the time of the legislation's passage, ministers said that they would not implement those sections until other reforms in the 1990 act, such as the introduction of solicitor advocates, had been given time to settle. Mr MacAskill will be well aware that legal services in England and Wales got rid of that legal closed shop many years ago, so why the delay here in Scotland? His predecessor as justice minister, Cathy Jamieson, wanted that to happen, but it has not.
Guidance notes for those wishing to apply for advocacy rights were issued in March, but they seem subsequently to have got lost. It is certainly true that the wheels of the legal profession grind slowly, but the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, whose members currently enjoy the benefits of the monopoly situation, say that they are relaxed about ending their unique position, providing that non-members who are allowed to represent others in court are subject to the regulatory safeguards. However, section 25 of the 1990 act clearly states that a code of practice will be imposed on those who wish to exercise the right to conduct litigation.
As my colleague Rhoda Grant highlighted, it is well known that accessing legal aid for civil cases is particularly difficult. Getting legal representation if one happens to have a dispute with another solicitor is nigh on impossible. Allowing a qualified third party to break the monopoly can only assist the legal process and make Scotland's courts more accountable and accessible. I urge the cabinet secretary to put aside his earlier prejudice, think again about the issue and give the people of Scotland the affordable choices that are enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom.
If, as Mr MacAskill has just said, he has not changed his views, perhaps he should let someone else in his department make the decision on the matter, for he is obviously prejudiced against it. He is saying on the one hand that we cannot build a wall against competition, and on the other that he will not allow new entrants access unless quality can be maintained. However, there is no point in relaxing the rules at the top end of the market when—crucially—at the bottom end people are finding that access to legal representation is being priced out of their reach.
I raise these points because of a long-running campaign that has been conducted over many years by a constituent, who is the current chair of the Association of Commercial Attorneys. The association's application for paid advocacy rights was submitted in July. My constituent and the association have been trying for many years to win such rights in Scotland's courts.
The enactment of legislation to free up the advocacy market has lain dormant on the statute books for 17 years. Sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act abolish the ban on non-lawyers applying for rights of audience in Scotland's courtrooms. At the time of the legislation's passage, ministers said that they would not implement those sections until other reforms in the 1990 act, such as the introduction of solicitor advocates, had been given time to settle. Mr MacAskill will be well aware that legal services in England and Wales got rid of that legal closed shop many years ago, so why the delay here in Scotland? His predecessor as justice minister, Cathy Jamieson, wanted that to happen, but it has not.
Guidance notes for those wishing to apply for advocacy rights were issued in March, but they seem subsequently to have got lost. It is certainly true that the wheels of the legal profession grind slowly, but the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, whose members currently enjoy the benefits of the monopoly situation, say that they are relaxed about ending their unique position, providing that non-members who are allowed to represent others in court are subject to the regulatory safeguards. However, section 25 of the 1990 act clearly states that a code of practice will be imposed on those who wish to exercise the right to conduct litigation.
As my colleague Rhoda Grant highlighted, it is well known that accessing legal aid for civil cases is particularly difficult. Getting legal representation if one happens to have a dispute with another solicitor is nigh on impossible. Allowing a qualified third party to break the monopoly can only assist the legal process and make Scotland's courts more accountable and accessible. I urge the cabinet secretary to put aside his earlier prejudice, think again about the issue and give the people of Scotland the affordable choices that are enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom.
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.