Seòmar agus comataidhean

The key phrase in that quotation was “many aspects”.

The Roberton report sets out the extremely complex landscape of Scotland’s legal services regulation, which can often be difficult for the public to understand. Why is the bill making it even more complicated for members of the public to understand?

How will striking the right balance be measured?

No.

On the back of the discussions that we have had, I am struggling to understand. There seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation here. We have had to take evidence on a bill that will be substantially amended. Minister, why did you think that it was appropriate for ministers to be directly appointed as a legal regulator? Why has there not been more engagement regarding the amendments? As Paul O’Kane rightly said, the devil is in the detail, but the committee does not know that detail and it seems that senior professionals in the legal field do not know that detail. If you had concerns back in August, when you were getting evidence in response to the call for views, why did you not begin engagement then? I feel that we are clambering around trying to find a way to scrutinise legislation that we will have to look at all over again when we come back after the new year.

That does not echo the evidence that we have heard in the committee so far. Is it fair to say that, as the bill stands—we have not seen amendments thus far—you have managed to upset all sides of the debate surrounding legal regulation in Scotland?

Minister, we heard from Esther Roberton last week. I am a little bit confused. Why, despite commissioning it, did the Government reject her report recommending a single legal regulator in Scotland?

My question is on the issue that Maggie Chapman has raised about striking the right balance between the consumer and the legal profession. We have heard a lot about that this morning, but we have had no real explanation of how it is measured. We need the minister to explain that to the committee and the public. Will the minister summarise the reforms that the bill will bring in a way that will be easy for the public to understand? I am not sure that we are in that space yet, given the discussion that we have had this morning.

As it stands, the Parliament is scrutinising legislation that the Scottish Government itself intends to amend, and that aspect has been part of the discussion that we have had thus far. We are looking at the bill at face value, but we know that significant and valid concerns have already been raised, and we do not know whether the forthcoming amendments will make those in the legal profession more amenable to the bill.

I throw this question out there. Is there a risk that if the intended amendments are not forthcoming as soon as possible, the legal profession could lose confidence in the principle and direction of the bill? Given that we might have to invite witnesses back to re-scrutinise the amendments once we have sight of them, could that set back the implementation of the intended principles of the bill?

I go back to the first answer that you gave. Do you think that where we are now is far removed from where you started in terms of your review? If you were to give any advice to the Scottish ministers at this point, would it perhaps be to relook at the original principles that you outlined?

I must admit that, after the line of questioning from Paul O’Kane, I am concerned about the current status of the bill. You rightly summed it up at the start by saying that the bill seems to have upset everyone. That is certainly true.

I am worried because we could end up having to heavily amend the bill, which would involve scrutinising the amendments that were forthcoming from the Scottish Government and engaging with all stakeholders involved. That goes beyond the legal side; it also relates to the consumer side, because the intention of the bill is to streamline the legal process to make sure that people can access it where possible.

I do not know whether you have any further comments on that, but I will put that aside and move on to the concerns relating to the independence between the legal profession, the judiciary and, of course, the Executive. Many concerns and arguments have been raised that, with the new legislation, the Lord President could be drawn into a collaborative Administration with the Scottish ministers.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the proposed powers for the Scottish ministers and whether there is any way of manoeuvring to make sure that the judiciary remains completely independent.