Seòmar agus comataidhean

It relates to the powers that the bill, as it stands, gives to the Scottish ministers.

At the risk of starting a new debate, I will leave it there, convener. Thank you very much, everyone.

I wish to return to the complaints process and the complainer’s fee. We do not have that in Scotland, but it exists in other places, including South Australia, where I believe there is a complainer’s fee equivalent to £60, which is returned to the complainant should their complaint be successful. Given the pressure on the complaints system, and referencing the delays that were mentioned earlier, has anyone on the panel thought whether it would, in that regard, be better for the legal profession were we to proceed with the bill?

I am happy to throw that out to whoever would like to answer.

Thank you very much, panel.

Thank you.

I will move on to the appeals process. Rosemary Agnew touched on it briefly in the previous tranche of questions. Under the bill, appeals against SLCC decisions would be made not to the Court of Session but to a commission review body of the SLCC itself. I wonder whether that could be seen as the SLCC marking its own homework. Would there be any impact on the independence of the appeals process? I am genuinely interested in that with regard to how we move forward.

Good morning, panel. I will stick with the complaints process aspect. There has been a lot of discussion so far about the complexities. At present, we do not have a complainers fee in Scotland. While I was looking ahead to today’s committee session, I looked at examples in other countries. In South Australia, there is a complainers fee of £60, which I believe is returned to the complainer if they are successful. Given the pressures in the complaints system, including the delays and complexities that have already been discussed with the panel, has the SLCC thought about or discussed such a fee? We probably already know what the cons might be, but what are the pros and cons? I will start with Neil Stevenson.

Good morning, panel. Thank you very much for joining us today.

My questions relate to the separation of powers and the respective roles of the executive and the judiciary. What are the panel’s views on the Law Society’s arguments that independent regulation could lead to increased costs and threaten the independence of the legal profession? Do you believe that the regulatory committee is a sufficient guarantee of independence? Perhaps I can start with Brian Inkster.

Thank you, convener.

Thank you very much.