Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Legal Services Board is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, who is a UK minister with a number of statutory roles in relation to the board and regulation of legal services. Our bill contains provisions to introduce a role for the Scottish ministers in reviewing and protecting regulation of legal services but, as the committee is aware, we will lodge amendments to transfer the functions to the Lord President and remove responsibility from the Scottish ministers.

When the bill was introduced back in April—with the call for views following in August—I was conscious that it was viewed as being all about the Scottish ministers making a power grab. Officials have therefore been looking at lodging amendments so that the bill does not focus so much on the powers of the Scottish ministers. There could instead be more of a focus on provisions on which there is general agreement among stakeholders and the legal profession.

I return to the Scottish Government’s response to the consultation analysis published in December 2022. We set out that

“there should be a process for intervention by Scottish Ministers in the light of concerns being raised on how and whether regulators are delivering their regulatory objectives and the operation of regulation in relation to public interest.”

When the consultation came out last year, the legal stakeholders were very positive because I think that they were focused on the possibility that an independent regulator would be proposed and it was not. At that stage, in 2022, there was no resistance to the Scottish ministers’ role; that came only after the bill was introduced in April 2023.

The proposed amendments are complex and we need to engage and get agreement with the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland and all stakeholders. Until we have that agreement, we will not be in a position to get the lawyers to draft the stage 2 amendments. That work is on-going among officials, stakeholders and the Lord President’s office.

One of the main aims is to simplify the complaints process for the general public. The SLCC will remain the single gateway for all complaints against legal practitioners, although there will be a limited number of exceptions—for example, where a complaint is identified by a regulator.

In the consultation that we did, most respondents—87 per cent—agreed that the single gateway for all legal complaints should be retained. It was argued that a single gateway for all legal complaints is sufficient to bring clarity and transparency to the process for the profession and consumers and that it makes it simpler for consumers to access legal advice.

Thank you for that question. In transferring functions to the Lord President, we will be expanding the current oversight role in legal services regulation. That does not create a new function for the Lord President but expands a role that already exists and operates without any concern about politicisation.

Although the senators indicated to the committee that they cannot agree to any transfer before they have seen the details, it may be helpful to remind members of the senators’ written response, which showed that the principle of transferring the review powers to the Lord President was acceptable and that that should be done.

In respect of the consumer voice, the bill expands the remit of the consumer panel, giving it a role in undertaking research to provide quality, evidence-based advice in the sector, in order to ensure that decisions are shaped to meet the needs of the different consumers of legal services, including individuals, businesses and the third sector. The consumer voice is essential in legal services regulation and we are reflecting on the comments of stakeholders that represent the consumer interest in relation to how we might strengthen the bill in that regard.

Sure. It might be easiest if I point the committee to the evidence that has been heard across the board welcoming the changes to make the complaints system easier. Neil Stevenson, the SLCC’s chief executive, said that the bill takes

“tremendous steps forward that will reduce complexity and give”

the commission

“extra discretion to deal with particular situations, which should benefit consumers and practitioners.”

Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, said that the bill’s approach in relation to quality assurance and continuous improvement is

“not just best practice—it enables the development of best practice.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 14 November 2023; c 8, 23.]

Rachel Woods of the Law Society of Scotland said:

“We welcome the changes that it brings in with regard to making the system faster and more streamlined, and less complex”

for the consumer. She welcomed

“the ability for the Law Society to raise and begin investigating a complaint directly”,

and she welcomed the reintroduction of hybrid complaints, which she said will, for the consumer,

“speed things up and make things less expensive”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 21 November 2023; c 22-23.]

I could go into all the different sections in further detail, but the information is outlined in the letter to the committee.

I will bring in Jamie Wilhelm to answer that question.

The judiciary are raising important constitutional principles about the separation of powers between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and we recognise the absolute necessity of those principles. It is important to be clear about what the bill does: it does not impinge on the independence of the legal profession or the judiciary. I wrote to the committee on 29 November to make clear my intention to amend the bill to address the issues.

The bill builds on the existing legislative framework, which provides a role for ministers to act in the public interest to ensure that regulation is being carried out effectively and transparently. The bill adopts existing checks and balances that require the Lord President’s consent and parliamentary scrutiny of use of delegated powers to ensure that any action is in the interests of legal practitioners and the public.

Ministers have had a role in legal regulation in Scotland since 1990. In 2007 and in 2010, Parliament placed further functions on the Scottish ministers in respect of legal services regulation. Having said that, we understand the concerns that have been raised, which is why we have committed to lodging amendments at stage 2, because we want the bill to strike the right balance for the various stakeholders.

When we made the decision back in August, officials did start to engage with stakeholders and with the Lord President’s office about the sections that were highlighted and about where to make amendments and come to an agreement.

I appreciate what Ms Gallacher says, but when the bill was introduced, I felt that there was strong opposition to the ministerial powers in the bill and, when Esther Roberton gave evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, she did not believe that ministers should have a role. I did not want that to detract from the general principles of the bill—although, in a way, it has done that. The general framework of the bill, which will renew the Scottish legal complaints system and make it easier for consumers, is all good and we can move forward and focus on that. I was just trying to take away the part about Scottish ministerial powers. As I said, we will update the committee about any progress on that as soon as we can.

I saw the evidence from Bill Alexander, who said that it was challenging and sometimes traumatic for the Association of Commercial Attorneys to become a regulator. I think that that is the only organisation to have become a regulator since 1980. I also saw that Lady Dorrian said that it should be challenging to go through that process, so I think that we are striking a balance.