Meeting of the Parliament 28 April 2010
Usually when we consider change in legislation on any issue, areas where there is confusion become clearer and areas where there are controversies become more or less controversial. That is life in the Scottish Parliament. The experience of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill has been no different, but the bill could bring major change to the delivery of our legal services. It is clear that the profession is divided on the way forward and that the Government and we in the Parliament must ensure that the concerns that have been expressed are heard and properly considered. We should not attack people whose views differ from ours.
We should remember that the most important outcome is to ensure that all of us—regardless of where we live or how much we have in our pockets—have access to justice. To have that, people need to be able to access an independent solicitor.
We may be where we are because of the super-complaint that was made on consumers’ behalf, but the committee received little evidence that the public had been consulted on the matter and no solid evidence that the public would get a deal financially or otherwise, leaving me with concerns that the complaint was brought in the interests not of the public but of the big business model.
Encouraging business is not a bad thing—it is good to have a playing field that allows our legal profession to compete in the international market—but it must not be at the cost of destroying the profession’s confidence. A one-door approach to legal, financial and accountancy services may seem attractive to some, and modernisation of our system may be due, but there are too many ifs, buts and maybes to rush through the measure. If the Parliament agrees to allow the bill to progress, the next stages cannot be rushed to meet the Government’s timetable—we need to get this right.
The issue of the so-called Tesco law has split opinion in the legal profession in Scotland. John McGovern, president of the Glasgow Bar Association, has been quoted as saying:
“The professional interests of high street solicitors are clearly different to the professional interests of big commercial firms.”
That is true. The needs of small communities and individuals for legal services must also be considered.
There is a case for saying that a number of smaller, independent firms could be overshadowed by the larger conglomerates. The problems that are faced by the main street butcher or baker when a new superstore opens nearby are similar to the problems that small solicitors firms could face. With the possibility that cheaper legal advice could be acquired along with the out-of-town weekly shop, it is understandable that more small partnerships are venting their concerns. There are viable arguments on both sides, but a number of the fears that have been put forward are fair and need to be aired.
That is not the only potential flaw in the bill. Another relates to the plans to allow those without links to the legal profession to hold majority stakes in law firms. To me, that is fundamentally wrong. There is a chance that felonious individuals, entrenched in organised crime or the drug trade, would invest and become the majority owners of legal practices. As a consequence, legal services providers could become puppets to Scotland’s criminal underworld, leaving our lawyers compromised as a result of dodgy investors. It may sound like something out of a Hollywood gangster movie, but those in the organised crime trade are not stupid: if they see an opportunity to gain access to the respectability of a firm that is providing legal services, they will pounce on it. The minister mentioned the fit-to-own test. The test that we have heard about so far is not right. There are questions that need to be asked, answered and fully examined during the bill’s next stages.
Scotland’s legal system is unique. Our approaches on many issues are different from those in the rest of the UK. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is bad, but it is clear that our legal profession is deeply divided—so much so that Ian Smart, who has been doing a good job as the president of the Law Society of Scotland, stated recently that relations could be “unbridgeable”. I do want to disagree with him, as he happens to be one of my constituents, but I hope that in this instance he is wrong and that a resolution can be found. However, the fact is that there is no consensus. The tone of the minister’s speech this afternoon did not do anything to take matters forward. Like Robert Brown, I hope that the minister will think on that.
We must remember that our job is to ensure that the bill gives the best deal to both solicitors and clients, who are our constituents. We must listen to both sides. I am against tampering with the traditions of our legal services on a major scale. As has been pointed out, there are many areas that the Scottish Government must iron out.
In principle, I am willing to support the bill proceeding to stage 2, as are other members who have spoken in the debate. However, I have substantial reservations and I think that the Justice Committee will have a big job to do before we can bring the bill back to the Parliament as one that is worthy of support and of progressing into statute.
We have a job to do—there is a lot of work to be done. I do not think that we should try to keep to the timetable of the Government or of business managers. The committee needs time to deal with the next stages of consideration in a competent manner.
16:15