Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am deeply concerned by the start to this morning’s evidence session. I had hoped, after the evidence we heard last week, that the minister would be in a better position to tell us about the way forward. I share concerns about what is a big change to the Lord President’s role, and I want to understand the situation.

It is clear that there is an uncomfortableness in the faculty and in the Law Society about the provisions, and it is clear that there are on-going discussions, to put it in its most positive sense, with the Lord President. If the power was in the bill, what would prevent negotiations and strong-arming happening to get agreement to changes to the principles or changes to regulations?

That offers me zero reassurance. I am very proud of the Scottish legal system and of our unique traditions. Aiming to model our legal system on what happens in England and Wales is not the approach that we should be taking. We have a very different and distinct system. I am sad to hear that from a Scottish Government minister. Furthermore, I have spoken out in relation to the Scottish law officers and on politicians having less of a direct role in their involvement in the legal profession. I do not think that pointing to the situation with the UK Government is helpful in that regard.

On section 20(6), which confers a power on Scottish ministers to make regulations specifying other measures that they may take in relation to a legal regulator following a review of their regulatory performance, measures already set out in the bill include setting performance targets, imposing financial penalties and changing or removing some or all of a regulator’s regulatory functions. Last week, stakeholders told us that they were fundamentally opposed to that provision and have called for its deletion. Is there any movement on that?

Obviously, there are hundreds of smaller independent law firms. Thinking about my constituents, I would say that most people probably interact with smaller independent firms.

You said that, overall, you do not feel that the bill is an improvement. You think that it makes things more complex.

My concern is that we could end up in a situation in which the Parliament says that it is okay to proceed but in which the Lord President says that it is not. I would like to get a sense of how big a problem you think that would be. I fear the politicisation of the Lord President’s role. As you said, Parliament is here to make the law. Parliament might think that something should be the law of the land, but the judiciary might block that. Are there examples of the Lord President having that sort of role in other areas of the law? How might an impasse like that affect the legal profession?

No answer at all?

You have made strong representations at the meeting and throughout the process. Do you get any sense that the Government is listening to that feedback? What is the engagement on the issue? Given that you have said that it is “No, no, no” for you, is there a sense that that is being listened to?

So you do not have a firm view on the specific delegated powers.

I do not deny that. I just felt that it was important to clarify that the sector is probably still a bit more diverse than just 16 firms.

Yes, I have a question about section 5. I want to understand the evolution of the regulatory objectives and professional principles. The Government is saying that the power in section 5 is needed because that would be a more efficient way of making any changes that are needed in the future. What is the timescale over which the current objectives and principles emerged? How quickly does strategic change happen?