Fawr y cyfnodau i gael i ddiogelfaith o'r 23 ym mwythgaf o'r 2023 o'r 6 o'r Gweithgfaith Ysgrifennu i Gweithgaf Llywodraeth a Gweithgaf Ysgrifennu. Rydw i'n gweithio'n gwybodol o'r oedd oedd o'r ymddangos i gael i gael i gael i gael i'r gweithgaf o'r Gweithgaf Llywodraeth Ysgrifennu. Felly, rydw i'n gweld i gael i'r pêr 1 o'r 2. Mae'r gweithgaf o'r gweithgaf o'r gweithgaf o'r the Minister for Victims and Community Safety included in annexes B to D and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee took evidence from the minister at its meeting last week and has subsequently written to the Lord President for his thoughts on potential changes to the delegated powers provision in the bill. The letter is included at annex E. The DPLR committee expects to report to this committee in advance of our evidence session with the minister on 5 December. But for this morning's session, I welcome Rosemary Agnew, who is the Ombudsman, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Welcome. Colin Bell, the chair of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and to Neil, is that correct? Neil Stevenson, chief executive Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. You're all very welcome this morning. I will now invite each of our witnesses to make some brief opening remarks should they wish to do so. I will start with the offer to Rosemary, please. Good morning. Thank you very much for the invitation. As you probably have seen from our submission, SPSO's expertise is not in the area of legal complaints commission, but is in the area of complaints handling more generally. Although we don't have any comments on the regulatory side of this, we do have extensive experience of handling complaints, myself personally and my organisation. Particularly, we have long-standing experience in setting and monitoring complaint handling standards and the benefits that you can achieve from that over time. The importance and experience in driving best practice through monitoring, supporting and direct intervention in how complaints are handled. Finally, I would be able to draw on my own stakeholder engagement with other ombudsman schemes and other complaints handling bodies across a range of sectors, because there are some things to complaint handling that are fairly standard issues across all of them. What I would like to do specifically is give a perspective on complaint handling and those elements of the bill. Thank you. Thank you for the kind invitation to be here. I am Colin Bell and I am speaking to you today as chair of the Scottish Solicitor's Discipline Tribunal, or SSDT, for short. I am also a practising solicitor for the record. The SSDT is a totally independent judicial body that mainly deals with serious disciplinary issues arising from time to time within the solicitor's branch of the legal profession. The SLCC may refer conduct complaints to the law society, which investigates the complaints and prosecutes the most serious ones to the tribunal, the SSDT. The most severe sanction that we have available to us is to strike an individual from the role of solicitors in Scotland. Importantly, the tribunal has 50 per cent lay participation and hearings normally sit with two solicitor members and two non-solicitor members. All SSDT members are appointed by the world president of the court of session. The hearings are held in public and our decisions are published on our website, for example. The SSDT is pleased to see some aspects of the bill and is working with the Scottish Government on a number of other practical fixes to ensure the smooth running of the tribunal. The tribunal does have some concerns on higher-level issues such as entity regulation, but we may come to that. In conclusion, the tribunal is proposing solutions to the way in which the tribunal can best fulfil its function within the new system. Bearing in mind, of course, principles such as transparency, public confidence, independence, fairness, consistency, proportionality and, of course, natural justice. Likewise, we're really grateful to be here today, so thank you. As you know, the SLCC is the gateway for complaints about all lawyers. We resolve service complaints ourselves and can award compensation, and after performing initial tests and classification, we pass conduct complaints on to professional bodies, as Colin has described. We have 15 years experience, we've resolved over 18,000 complaints, we've worked with 36,000 individuals. It's worth noting that the majority of those are vulnerable, either through personal circumstance or through the legal situation they find themselves in which has led to the complaint. We've supported consumers in receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds of compensation, and perhaps more importantly, thousands of people to receive apologies and work put right. We perform strongly. We have far faster complaint handling times than many public ombudsman, but we are also often hampered by legislation which is prescriptive and requires us to treat all complaints the same. In terms of the draft bill, we see it as really important that the legislation passed by Parliament is good law, that it is well drafted, but we also see it as really important that works in practice for people and for the operational processes needed to deliver it. I want to give you just one very real example of the difference. In our current legislation, we're applied to apply a test of frivolous vexatius totally without merit. We must make a ruling on that in all cases. Now that's good law, that is a term used in other legislation, but coupled with the requirements in our Act to give detailed legal reasoning against each case, we require to use that terminology with individuals. So I want you to imagine the very typical situation for me where perhaps a mother has lost custody of her children. She's very distressed at how the process unfolded. She's concerned as to whether her lawyer did a good job. Now what I want to be able to do is explain in plain English that actually having reviewed the case and investigated, the solicitor did do everything they could and actually her concern is at the court decision and she'll need a court remedy to find a solution. But instead what I have to do is tell this woman distressed and unhappy that her complaint is totally without merit or frivolous because if we don't use the legal terminology that will be held against us if the case has appealed. And that's distressing for parties and actually it undermines confidence in the system because it doesn't make us look like a service focused on users. So just one example of where you can have good law but it doesn't work in practice and a lot of my responses to be questions will be about making sure that the new system works in practice. Finally, three global views on the bill. Firstly, it's not perhaps as bold as we like. The SLCC supported Roberton supported the idea of a singles complaints process but it makes really good progress in a fairer and more transparent system and to some extent we have to decide whether to continue with an academic debate or try and bank improvements which we can deliver immediately for consumers and practitioners. Secondly, the bill is a big compromise. You will have seen that yourself between the views of consumer bodies and the profession. What we don't want to see is the progress in the bill towards that pressing need for change that consumer bodies articulated eroded further as it goes through the parliamentary stages. And finally, I'd ask that we perhaps reflect on what happened in 2007 and 2010 when legal regulatory bills were going through the parliament. Very simple initial drafting was then hugely complicated by amendments all well intentioned but having an operational impact that wasn't anticipated and how the system was delivered in practice. In the case of 2010 legislation that means 13 years later it still hasn't been implemented because it's too complicated and that is not good law. So finally, I hope that helps in setting the context to my answers to some of your questions and I'm really excited to hear about what you're interested in and your aspirations and concerns about the bill. Thank you very much. Thank you Neil and thank you to the panellists for their opening remarks. I'm hoping that we can get underneath some issues in some detail. So I would ask you when you're responding to questions is to stick to the question because my colleagues will come in on other areas in that sense. To start us off I would just like to see whether the witnesses can outline a view that they may have on arguments that a single independent regulator for the legal profession would be beneficial. So just to start us off there. Colin, do you have a view on that? Yes, I do. Would you like to share it? I'm here of course on behalf of the tribunal, the SSDT and it takes a neutral stance on that question. Clearly it's not an option chosen by the Scottish Government but our view is that we have to work together to make the system whatever it may be to work as well as it can for consumers and solicitors alike. Clearly there are differing ways to achieve that as we've discovered. Different bodies have different views. We essentially want to work to achieve the best possible system that we can. This is one of those questions where there is an easy answer which is yes or no but actually I think to get under the skin of it it's more about what we're trying to achieve from this and for me this is about trying to achieve less complexity for the complainer. I'm coming at it from a complainer point of view and a complainer often won't say I wish to make a complaint about the conduct of a solicitor. It'll be through the lens of the service they've received now the difficulty with saying yes to a single regulator is that looking at service issues are very different to looking at conduct or fitness to practice type issues and service issues if I reflect on my own legislation service is about the entity that's in jurisdiction so it would be about the firm. Now there's often an individual named but that's not uncommon if somebody has dealt with one person and that's looking about the level of service and like Neil had outlined what you can do in a service context is you can provide redress you can get all the things like the apologies the trying to put the person back to where they were and to a large extent the sense of justice of having gone through this. Now the regulatory side on the individual is a very different type of thing so if I give you an example from my day job we look at a lot of complaints about the NHS in Scotland and often there will be something about an individual doctor because that's the person they dealt with but we don't regulate doctors that is the job of the GMC so if there are issues about an individual's capabilities or fitness to practice or conduct there is a mechanism whereby if needed that can be sent somewhere else or we can sign post individuals so for me it's not about the single entity it's about ensuring that the right people look at the right things and I'm not convinced the single entity does it in a complaints context and this is where perhaps there was a missed opportunity from from the roverton report a single complaints body is a different issue to a regulatory body because it's the outcome of an investigation that might result in service issues and there can be a remedy for that it might result in something that we think actually this we think is conduct a needs to go to a different entity to look at because it has a different purpose. That was really interesting Neil. So yes the SLCC did support an independent regulator we're now looking at the legislation and want to to make the best solutions out of that but initially we supported an independent regulator we believe it offers something clean easily understandable to consumers and the sector it best meets the better regulation principles it follows the international direction of travel in relation to regulation and we've seen that continue apace even since the the roverton report and it offers opportunities for efficiency I think we will end up discussing a complaint system where you might perhaps still be asking why a simple complaint might go through four statutory bodies the single regulator would have dealt with that if we're going with the model in the bill we need to make sure it can pass as efficiently as possible through those four bodies but I think finally a crucial difference to me is that single regulator would have looked at the legal services market as a whole and that's fundamentally different to a body that looks after one profession so just to explain that in access to justice type debates a body responsible for lawyers will tend to ask how can lawyers help with access to justice a body responsible for the whole market will look at what our citizens needs what legal needs are met and unmet might what might be done to increase supply and thinking of an analogy from the scottish parliament itself when they were looking at increasing dental health in young people there was a regulatory position that only dentists could be involved in teaching tooth brushing it involves in going in the mouth you needed a prescription the scottish parliament actually led the way in the UK in creating smile nurses that have massively increased dental health but that didn't come from a dentist's body that came from stepping back and looking at what was citizen need and what different types of professionals or solutions might help that so we did support it but equally if we are just debating the current bill we're keen to get on and deliver practical improvements too and you know that links to the debate today thanks very much i'd like to bring in my colleague annie who is joining us online this morning thank you convener and good morning panel and apologies i'm not there in person today it's already been touched on about entity regulation and Colin you mentioned it in your opening remarks and i would just wonder if you could give us an idea of what your views are on the need for entity regulation as proposed in the bill yes indeed thank you for the question the tribunal is broadly in favour of entity regulation you may have a situation where you have a firm for example that has some kind of systemic problem within it take for example a firm perhaps which is not controlling its client account correctly or there are potential misuse of the client account if i can put it that way it may be appropriate in those circumstances that there is a complaint made against the entity as as such but and this is where we have a difficulty as as the tribunal in terms of the legislation as drafted but there may also be an element of a conduct complaint against the individual solicitor or more than one individual solicitor now it is our understanding of the bill as drafted that the entity complaint system would have a different destination from the conduct complaint the conduct complaint could potentially land at the ssdt with all of the checks and balances in place there where we've got 50% lay we're independent etc we're a judicial body whereas the entity complaint as i understand it would be determined by the regulator and i'm not aware of any kind of appeal even so the tribunal's position i suppose is something like the english system which may be worth looking at where you can have a complaint against an entity and a complaint against the individual's conduct now it may be that those two complaints would be held simultaneously together for whatever reason that may not be the case but i think in principle we do have concerns that regulatory complaints as they're as they're termed would have a different pathway from the potential conduct complaint i hope that answers your question yes thank you i don't know if any other panel member would like to add anything to that yes thank you so yes the the slcc has supported entity regulation since 2014 when the law society originally consulted like Colin and rosemary have outlined often service issues relate to the way of firm acts delay and responding could be a personal failure actually more commonly it's a systems issue within the business so we do support entity regulation i suppose my one comment extra comment is that this is layering on top of the entity regulation in the 2010 act for a slightly different type of legal business so we support entity regulation it is logical within this bill but it does slightly link back to if you had an entity regular if you had a single regulator you would only need one regulatory scheme for businesses instead of two which is what is being opposed proposed with this additional scheme but we are supportive of it okay um annie do you have any yes just another one question if i may convener and it was just to find out what the witnesses use were on making it a fence to use the title of lawyer with intent to deceive in connection with providing legal services to the public for fee gain or reward i don't know who wants to come in on that first Colin yes happy to come in briefly on that one the tribunals are aware of situations where we have used the power i referred to in the introductory statements striking off and then the individual then practices as a lawyer i think there are difficulties there from a public confidence point of view from public perception and i think in in broad terms i the tribunal is in favour of some kind of powers to be able to act swiftly in those situations i think for the slcc um we do believe in the public protection concept behind this but i suppose it comes down to enforcement Colin has described a situation where the sort of issue is already in front of the regulator um but that this is a new power who is going to police it more generally so not just ex solicitors but other people who use that title because if it's not clear who's policing it and where the funding comes from for that it may actually be a very weak power in in practice the second thing i'd say is that it would be interesting to understand how consumers are confused by terminology in more detail so you have a cat two categories of solicitors um you have those with practicing certificates you have those who don't have practicing certificates so they're not actually allowed to provide legal services but they still get to use the title solicitor so on the one hand you're saying well people can't cause themselves a lawyer because that's confusing but that lawyer might actually be delivering a service that isn't regulated and they're entitled to offer at the moment whereas on the flip side you have a solicitor able to use a title whilst actually prohibited from offering a legal service so again it's perhaps this more we need to step back and look at the the issue of titles generally um it's not that we're unsupportive of this single issue but it's it's perhaps an isolation and there could be confusing with with solicitors who are not allowed to provide legal services as well thank you um are you content annie yes i'm convener thank you very much panel thank you convener thank you um i'd like to now move over to uh Maggie thank you very much and good morning to the panel thank you for for being here this morning i want to take us into the realms of complaints and complaints handling and how we can tackle some of the issues that that you've you've already highlighted in in your opening remarks so far um neil if i can come to you first you talked very clearly about having that compromise between consumers and practitioners can you just say a little bit more about the issues that are currently faced in terms of complexity lack of flexibility those those kinds of things yeah so i think thank you very much for the question i mean we published our diagram of the complaints maze and i think you know few people even working in the sector can fully describe all the hoops that one needs to go through and you know there are some tremendous steps forward in the current bill that will reduce complexity and will give extra um discretion to deal with particular situations that should benefit consumers and practitioners on the flip side that the current situation will still be there that a consumer may have a complaint and we have to tell them that we will deal with the service element we'll judge it on what's fair and reasonable in the circumstance and we can award compensation another heading within the same complaint will go to a law society committee where it will be considered on balance of probabilities as to whether it's unsatisfactory professional practice and a third element of the complaint will be prosecuted by the society at the scottish list to his discipline tribunal on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt now that's a lot of information to give a member of the public who's phoning with an inquiry and as i say often in a distressed state it's a will and executory that's gone wrong it's a family separation um they're in the middle of a conveyance that's gone wrong and we we know how smoothing is stressful so real steps forward in the bill but a lot of complexity still there and and that is the the trade-off for not moving towards a single complaints process so that may not fully answer your question but does that start and what would you like to hear on no no that that is helpful and i suppose i mean you speak very very clearly from the point of view of the consumer sometimes distressed or you know most usually distressed or or in difficulty i suppose are there what would a single is that single system the only way of actually dealing with that complexity from the point of view of the consumer not at all and you know that's it we mustn't make excuses that the system that is gone for remains with two or three bodies in the process we have to make that efficient as possible and not always hark back to it could have been different um but i think equally you will know this from other fields you work in as soon as you have multiple agencies involved you get problems with handoffs handovers computer systems speaking to each other duplication of three separate case management systems between the bodies you just get all of that naturally even if it's well managed i'm also especially grateful for how you phrase that question because yes we're worried about consumers but a lot of the same issues have an impact on practitioners as well so actually it's incredibly stressful having a complaint against you we know solicitors take that very personally so actually things like where there isn't a complaint being able to deal with it very quickly so there's an answer to the consumer but we can reassure of a practitioner equally important even if it's going to be a bad outcome for the practitioner dealing with it swiftly and helping them get over it is often the kindest thing to do so an awful lot of the improvements around pace flexibility to deal with different types of complaints actually genuinely both benefit both parties even in slightly different ways that's really helpful thank you rosemary could i come to you on the same the same kind of issue that just that the questions of complexity and lack of flexibility and the impacts that the the the bill could could have to to mitigate some of that okay i think it's easy for us to say all the things that we would like to be better but i think it's worth acknowledging there are some improvements already and one of those for me is a significant reduction if on the face of the bill of process the current system has a lot of process on the face of the bill which is how you end up with a maze rather than a journey you have to pick your way through it now i i'm well aware that the slct works very hard at trying to guide and support people but the issue for me with this is not just about the complexity all the things neil said but maybe from a different consumer angle we touched earlier on vulnerability and being in a vulnerable situation well it's it's a circular thing having to go through a complaints process can create a vulnerable situation and having to repeat your story having to repeat your issues sometimes up to four times really is not helpful because it it's reliving trauma each time and you know that's not just about the complainer as neil said it's all about also about the impact on the profession but i think it's also worth acknowledging there is an impact on complaints handling bodies as well because it's not trying to just simplify for me it's also trying to make it a less harmful journey for everyone concerned where the focus right from the outset is what's the outcome you want to achieve how can we support you how can we help you now there are some things i think in the bill that will will help so the flexibility to make their own rules and that will enable i think some of the addressing some of these language issues because we can represent things in ways that perhaps are more more accessible to everyday folk and the complexity i think is still there in terms of the relationship between the law society of scotland and the slcc but it is i think recognised at least that there there does need to be some streamlining of that and and that focus on outcomes is is probably the positive step in there um the the one other area that i think is of benefit for consumers is the unpicking of the right of appeal to a court of session from the ability to ask for a review and then ultimately um a judicial review that brings it on a par with with other ombudsman regulatory type bodies because there's much more focus then on trying to achieve resolution as you go through on being able to give yourself the flexibility but it also clearly in an alternative dispute resolution context separates out the legal process from the complaint process and that's where i think this separation between the professions and complainers is is probably helped and has reduced some of the difficulty there because it's it's a big thing to go through a judicial review but actually it's an even bigger thing i think to go to the court of session with a formal right of appeal that is very difficult to do for yourself so i think actually it's improved that area very much convener and good morning panel if i could stick on the complaints process aspects because there's been a lot discussed so far in terms of the complexities and at present we don't have what's called a complainers fee in scotland and whilst i was looking ahead to today's committee session i was looking at examples in other countries for example south australia there is a complainers fee of 60 pounds which i believe is returned to the complainant if they are successful so just given the pressures that we have of the complaint system referencing the delays and the complexities that have already been discussed with the panel through through questions put to them is this something that the slcc has thought of or discussed and i think we already know what the cons might be but what are the pros and cons of this and if i could start with neil please i've i've two strong views both personal and organisational so it's a really good question and we've sympathy why solicitors are looking at ways that complaints might be reduced and you might put in place some restriction equally i think that the first point is the principle although there are some examples this is very very rare and how would we feel if we have a complaint about our bank would we expect to be charged a fee to go to the ombudsman if we have a complaint about our delayed scot rail train would we expect a fee to raise that complaint and i i just don't think we would be um and and so then why in law what makes law different and and the answer to some of this the jurisdictions that do still have the fee is that they are still professional led regulation and they are trying to put in place restrictions and that is legitimate in those models but it's not the uk or scottish approach to to accessing um redress so so i object to it on principle uh the second element is is operational but has an element of principle in it so i've described that most of the people coming to us have vulnerabilities we have people with brain injury in personal accident we have women fleeing domestic violence who have problems with their solicitor around separation and divorce so if if something was going in the legislation do i charge all of these people a fee even when they sometimes don't have access to bank cards or money um or do i have a means testing system will if i have a means testing system you're adding complexity i i need to set up a bureaucracy that can apply that test gather evidence from some of these people and again we have people who are homeless and so on um so we're discounting for some people we're raising a fee on others we're then holding that fee so we need new banking fee arrangements to hold and an escrow account to hold that fee then we need banking charges to rebate it um so actually it might discourage some complainers but it will probably drive up the overall cost of the system as well which i don't think is what the lawyers proposing it are trying to achieve so i i recognise the legitimacy of the debate but i i think it would be a really sad step and if i was being a little mischievous as as someone on on lots of lawyers twitter accounts i'm not sure if that's the service way they expect when they complain about other services in their lives i think if many of them step back and you ask them as an individual do you expect to pay a fee in advance if your uh flight is delayed and you need a refund i think they would say no so i'd want to hear a really compelling case while legal services are truly different to that no thank you very much for that neil and then just moving on if i can to the appeals process and it's something that rosemary touched on um briefly just in the previous tronche of questions um the bill suggests that appeals against slcc decisions be made not to the court of session but to a commission review body of the slcc itself and i'm just wondering terms of independently um you know could that be seen as the slcc marking its own homework um or you know is there any impact there um of the independence of the appeals process it's just something that i'm genuinely interested in in terms of how we move forward so if i can maybe bring in neil and then rosemary please no it's another great question and again really important to be debated because whatever the eventual solution in the bill it's it's part of the process of law is to air these issues and seriously consider them so the first thing i would say is that it is an absolute anomaly in the ombudsman world that there is a direct appeal to the inner house of the court of session the highest court in the land um no other ombudsman we're aware of in the UK has that and the reason for that is when parliament set up ombudsman they're usually trying to create a faster more proportionate route to justice than going to the courts the courts always remain there for people but the point of an ombudsman is to be faster and they have internal processes and checks and balances to to ensure the quality of the decision making i'm also concerned about a little bit of the mythology that seems to have emerged in in some of the comments on this areas in the public so before 2007 complainers had no right of appeal about the predecessor process and lawyers appealed um to the ssdt um so this is a power that the the parliament gave to the court of session in 2007 um they did it at the amendment stage and in stage three i believe it wasn't part of the original bill it's not some long standing jurisdiction of the the courts that has never looked any different um and actually what we're asking is that perhaps what we see as a mistake made in the very late stages of the last bill that takes us totally out of line with other ombudsman is is put right in in this case i also just want to acknowledge some of the awkward situations the court of session create so when there is an appeal because of the rules around who can appear in that court i have to appoint both a solicitor firm and an advocate to represent me um we've had disputes in court which have been about a matter of mere hundreds of pounds um in compensation that have cost us 30 000 pounds in legal fees the court will award that against a member of the public if we win and and we usually win our our cases our statistics are published in our annual review so a member of the public can end up owing ours 30 000 pounds for for an appeal process and then once that's awarded by the courts with duty bound as a public body and the finance public finance manual rules to make reasonable efforts to recover that i mean that is a totally um i think unacceptable level of risk for a member of the public to have to go through and it happens in real life and also the aggregate of that has added over three million in cost to to us over the last um 15 years so when the legal profession is asking why is it more expensive than other ombudsman the answer is because we are using the most expensive dispute resolution forum in the country for the final stage of the process and and my final uh comment so i'm not uh not ranting too much apologies but my final comment would link back to that frivolous vexatius totally without merit point if you have a court that's scrutinising final decisions they all end up drafting in legal manner because the steer that parliament is giving is that they expect these decisions to sit in that court and be analysed in that way so that has an effect right through the system into the type of reasoning we provide because we know we can end up there so thank you for bearing with me and i know you wanted to hear from the others as well thank you new thanks i think you may have left me a little bit to say i think it's worth just going right back to the fundamental point about the point of a complaints and redress scheme is to be an alternative to the courts so you build the courts into the system and you've conflated two systems now in practical terms what that means for slcc decisions is they are not necessarily the final decision maker the final decision maker may end up being the court there is no other ombudsman scheme i know of anywhere where that's the case the whole point about the alternative dispute resolution is they should be the final decision maker now that isn't to say the court doesn't have a role but it's more that of supervisory role over decision makers in a judicial review context which looks more at how decisions are made than the merits and technicalities in that sort of sense in the same way that the appeal does now where i think that's problematic is there is a disproportionate balance of power it's not simply about cost it's also about the idea that you're having to go through a right of appeal through a legal route that's all about legal profession and i think there is something about the the impression that that would give that may put people off for reasons other than cost there's also then when you come on to so this internal right of review in practice i think it is a much more customer focused consumer focused because it can look at things in a different way it doesn't have to look through a legal lens it can look through a decision making lens it can look through the language of how that challenge was brought to you now i do accept that there will some who say isn't that somebody mocking their own homework but can you ever be completely at the end point you will hear occasionally someone say oh there should be some an ombudsman overseeing ombudsman oh well who's going to oversee the overseers and i think we have to put the trust in the body that we have put in place to actually be that decision maker now that doesn't mean that they're absolved of responsibility how that mechanism is set up is really critical so whilst there may be some who perceive it not to be independent the questions that i would be asking are do people feel that they've been heard that they've been listened to they may disagree with the final outcome but have they been given a fair shot at it and i think there are ways that you can put a review process in place i have one myself for any decisions that are made under my delegated authority there is an automatic and we call it a right to review it's not technically a right but in my eyes being people focused it's a right you have a right to challenge us and i think if you go into the internal review approach with that sort of thinking what you're then doing is looking at how you can co-design something to set it up that people have confidence in it that's not the same as them always agreeing the outcome of what goes before it that's my run thank you thank you very much panel and thank you convener thank you thank you megan i'd actually like to bring maggy back in because we're sort of pursuing this line maggy please thanks cacab colony if i can come to you and thinking about the tribunal process and it's focused obviously on practitioners do you see the do you see challenges around um the connection between the work that the the tribunal does and actually that any potential conflict of interest uh work within either the work of the tribunal the membership and the the cases that that you would be you would be deliberating on as proposed by the bill well we deal with cases dealing with conflict of interest but that's a completely different matter of course but so far as the tribunal is concerned it is split down the middle with solicitors and lay representatives so there's a fair cross-section there of society i think that the solicitors element is critical because if you're determining the standards of the profession then it's important that you have members of the profession that are able to give their experience to that because the definitions change over time what is unsatisfactory professional conduct what is professional misconduct very much along line of of of of behaviour which the tribunal has to deal with you then have the 50% of the tribunal who are non-legal members and i think that takes away much of the difficulty which i think your question is alluding to okay no no thank you that's helpful in your opening remarks you you also spoke about the the important principles of transparency public confidence those kinds of things and you you talked also about natural justice do you see the the proposals in the bill as having these different different routes i'm talking about that balance between consumer and practitioner again do you see any compromises maybe not the right word but do you see any challenge to natural justice with people having having these different avenues and is there is there an alternative model that that you would have liked to have seen in the bill that's not there yes i think entity regulation i talked about briefly earlier i think that could be a challenge not so much for the tribunal if it's not coming our way but as has been said earlier there are good examples of the way in which the tribunals business is being channeled from the the tribunal on terms of for example compensation and it's always been my view that the tribunal is not the appropriate forum to discuss compensation even if that compensation arises from conduct rather than service so that is is a positive step and i think that may alleviate some of the tribunals concerns in that front complexity is always an issue and we're very aware of cases which pass between various bodies as neil alluded to earlier for example you could have a case appearing before the tribunal tribunal decides that there is no professional misconduct in part of the solicitor but there may be a slightly lower level of unsatisfactory unsatisfactory professional conduct we then are under a duty to refer that case back to the law society now it seems sensible that if the tribunal has heard the case held heard all the evidence that the tribunal makes the decision on that and that's one of the many examples that we've given in our written submission of where we think complexity could be reduced thanks for teasing that out that that's really helpful i'll leave it there thank you thank you Maggie so the power is granted to the slc to initiate sort of like complaints in its own name when it becomes aware of a public interest sort of issue i'm just interested in getting a practical example of that please yes so i've been thinking about this because the default position under the legislation is where prohibited is from talking about complaints and it's a criminal offence but i think there's a historic case i can talk about because it was in the media at the time and parties released information that made it obvious the slcc was involved so this would be the collapse of the firm ross harper some years ago now what the slcc started to spot was a high number of incoming complaints about non-payment so some of that was non-payment of advocates used by the firm it was money not being distributed back to clients indeed some suppliers contacted us about not getting paid now those complaints start to build up you get 30 or 40 of those complaints two things particularly hampras and that type of situation so one is that we can't tell anyone we're starting to spot a public protection issue because there's an absolute prohibition in the act from discussing cases and the second element is that without a power to raise a complaint in our own name we can't frame a complaint that says there might actually be a financial crisis or issue in this firm we just have to keep looking at individual cases and to a certain extent keep accepting a response that a mistake could be made and that payment would now be made so we operated very effectively as a complaint body dealing with individual cases but we were hampered taking any public protection role and that firm did go on to collapse and thousands of clients affected and it's not to say earlier intervention would have definitely helped but it is definitely a failing of the current system but that by so demarcating what each body can do we had all that data and we couldn't take steps to protect the public so that's why we've supported us having a power to raise complaints in our own name as the society already does so it's been the body that traditionally had it but with complaints coming to us it was forgotten that we would have that data and therefore it might be us that spotted those public protection issues first okay um thank you for that um rosemary i just wondered what your view was on the powers for professional organizations to investigate complaints on their own initiative where they arise from their own regulatory monitoring systems i wish i had it myself yes the short answer i think again trying to give a perspective through consumer lens here there are we we know as ombudsman there are people who don't complain there are many many reasons why they don't complain but arguably there are many of them who we would want to and should complain and being able to do something under your own initiative very much with the public interest in mind is about being able to focus on a particular situation or a particular type of issue which often you can't do in the context of a single complaint because there's a lot of emotion and what have you comes in so what you're able to do is focus on a particular issue in a particular area and and it is a way of shining at all on and giving voice to the voiceless in many circumstances so people in vulnerable situations um i often ask myself why don't i get many complaints from female prisoners i get plenty of complaints from other prisoners and if i had my own initiative powers i will probably look into that to find out is there something systemic going on that actually with one investigation i can benefit a lot of people um there's often i think a lot a lack of confidence in complaint systems not because they're not good complaint systems but a lack of confidence in individuals to take it through that and they might have challenging in chaotic lifestyles um they may just not be able to face the trauma of doing it and and this isn't about oh we've got a pattern of complaints this is about having the ability to use your intelligence gathering your stakeholder engagement to put a really good focus and it's a really good use of your organisations resources to get a maximum coverage for something that you can achieve so i think you know in this way of um addressing power imbalances and a way of using resources really effectively there is huge merit in being able to do these sort of investigations UK Scotland is a bit out of step with other ombudsman schemes around Europe i have to say because most most have this as do Northern Ireland and Wales actually that's a really interesting example um yep Neil very briefly thank you just a sub point because it's a great example of what this bill does so at the moment if the law society wants to raise a complaint they have to send it to us we do the triage test we have to send it back so this is cutting off several steps from the current process to allow a public interest complaint to go forward um so it's a great example of how it's not solving everything about the system but lots of these small amendments at least reduce the number of steps for particular individuals or particular circumstances okay thank you um so with regards to sort of improving complaints procedures um obviously there's proposals in the bill to give the SLCC new rule making powers with the aim of doing just that um and i'm wondering whether this is an appropriate way to improve procedures um or should there be more detail in the bill um for example we know that mediation isn't compulsory should it be compulsory so it'd be interesting to hear views on that um if i could come to rosemary first and then Neil and call in feel free to just indicate that you wish to come in anytime rosemary please no i'll start with a bit of a confession i worked for the SLCC when it first went live and having to work and write policies and procedures with so much being on the face of the bill was not quite impossible but extremely challenging and as neil had highlighted this many years on still can't do everything that's on the face of the bill so just from that experience and um other public type um complaints functions i would say the more you have that is not on the face of the bill but the face of the bill provides that framework and the parameters rather than the process now what that enables you to do over time is adapt your process for a changing environment so i'll give you a very practical example of something that's on my bill a complaint must be in writing to me well that may have been okay in 2002 but actually it's far from okay now but it's major legislative change to get that removed so if we want the SLCC or to have the flexibility then they they need to have that flexibility to make those rules write those processes without constantly having to go back to something that's on the face of a bill that if somebody else may interpret differently that somebody may say oh no it means you have to do this the legislation should be about how you do it the rules and the flexibility and how you write it should be in how you deliver what the legislation wants in my view thank you thanks it's on record thank you neil so i think firstly i'd like to recognize the challenge you have because you have to ensure that the legislation has sufficient detail to set out what we are meant to do and i understand that but i think the challenge in doing that and i want to give a specific example again is the breadth of work we have to deal with so if you think we might have one customer who walks through the door saying i've been charged £500 and my letter of engagement said it was a £400 fixed fee that's a lot of money for a lot of citizens but that is one level we'll also have a complaint come in that um my solicitor who was representing me sexually assaulted me so right up to that end of the spectrum it is fundamentally different processes that you need to have to deal with those two types of complainers and support them effectively and support the practitioner who has been um that allegation is made against so trying to get into legislation the level of detail of exactly how to administer a case that will deal with that huge pan of play of of situations is really difficult if if not impossible and again an example would be one of the tests i have to apply is is that allegation of sexual assault frivolous um can you imagine how that feels to a complainer but because it was felt that was a test that needed to go into the process and it's it's stuck in legislation so the first element is the challenge of drafting for lots of different types of complaints i mean i think my second point overlaps with rosemary it is the ombudsman norm um that the the act sets a jurisdiction and then the body has to develop a complaint scheme and you see that in our equivalent in england uh the legal services ombudsman but it's not a power without um safe checks um there's a statutory duty to consult on that that includes consulting the lord president um we have to publish that scheme so it's utterly transparent that scheme is capable of judicial review so again we're not trying to have a sort of complete carte blanche to run our own system but what it lets you do is use your experience of 36 000 people and develop different streams for different seriousness of complaint and adapt to emerging situations so whether that's digital and that written complaint issue or a particular issue that faces a sector i remember endowment misselling in the um the the 2000s where thousands of cases were coming forward and you wanted to be able to create a bespoke scheme to deal with those to get redress back to consumers as as soon as possible um so strongly support that discretion because the bill has the safeguards in how we draft the scheme just want to pick up on a point and go back to that point about the mediation should it be compulsory um mediation is a very specific thing um and notwithstanding we don't think it appropriate to have that much level of detail in terms of what must and mustn't happen um if we come back to the consumer side of this what most people want is for things to be put right and for a resolution and as soon as you start putting specific rules in place on the face of the bill what you lose is that opportunity to say to somebody what will put it right a couple of phone calls might actually put it right so without having to go through any process you give yourself the opportunity to resolve complaints rather than always go down a route of investigating them as soon as you put something like mediation must be compulsory unless there's a good reason not to you're not just cutting off that opportunity but you're almost confining that opportunity to one way of doing things thank you uh Neil you wanted back in very briefly i suppose it just links to that risk of late stage amendments because mediation is is one of the services we're proudest of we've made it work well but say an amendment goes in at a late stage to make mediation compulsory it seems a sensible idea it's there another dispute resolution but because we're also the gateway for conduct that might force me to take a woman accusing their lawyer of sexual assault to mediate with that lawyer before they can access the rest of the conduct complaint system and i think women's aid and others would say that's fundamentally wrong so it's an example of it it might not look anomalous in drafting but when you think about how it operationalises the process for real people i mean it could have a really disastrous consequence and that's that's why you need a bit of flexibility in the system um that said we're keen to see the parliament supporting mediation with so much potential in so many cases to use that thanks for that um just to pick up on your written evidence that you put um the you know you've got some concerns about the bill um and um although that you earlier said that it's not a carte blanche however uh you have said that the fact that the responsibility for dealing with complaints remains split between bodies uh the slcc's view is that it will prevent a complaints process being seamless so um can you give a wee example of that that would be helpful absolutely so again this bill makes fantastic progress uh i don't want to take away from that but it's back to that situation i described earlier where even though lots of steps have been cut out and we can hopefully move faster you will have someone who's having a service complaint considered by ours under one legal test fair and reasonable we might uphold certain facts and award a bit of compensation but it will be at a law society committee for unsatisfactory professional conduct um they might be looking at the same facts although the conduct element of it and make an award of UPC um but then it will go the final element of the complaint it will go to the tribe you know and that won't be upheld because it's beyond reasonable doubt so something we've upheld as a fact to support a service complaint would be not upheld as a fact at at the conduct element and again that's perfectly acceptable law but the law can find that thing is a fact and it is not a fact but that's very difficult for a complainer to understand because usually those processes are separated it's it's a criminal offence around a driving misdemeanor and it's a negligence you know a personal injury claim to get compensation they don't see them so directly linked and i think also even with the three bodies running at maximum efficiency you've got a process that then will end up taking 18 months two years because each has to do at stage and pass on so tremendous progress made in the bill around cutting out steps but fundamentally you still have a system based on multiple bodies and that was trying to balance the competing interests that that government and yourselves are wrestling with between consumer bodies and and the profession i'd like to bring in Karen please thank you convener and good morning to the panel it's been fascinating so far so thank you for your your testimonies i'd like to know what the witnesses views are on the rules in the bill which give the slcc greater monitoring and standard setting powers and this is in relation to the relevant professional organisations to investigate and determine complaints can i start with niel please at the moment we have an oversight power in relation to conduct complaints and and backspresses in two forms firstly individuals once that conduct complaint has been investigated can come to us and ask us to review that and we can't interfere with the decision of the law society but we can make findings on whether they followed their own process or not an awarded compensation and then secondly we have a power of audit around conduct complaints and the idea was that even in this multi organisation system that gave one organisation that had a chance of seeing the whole process start to finish from the consumer perspective and sort of publishing data on how that performed so that was the the intention and i have to say we've had very positive cooperation from the law society and dealing with um handling complaints um and very positive response to many of our recommendations but we have had situations where they've pushed back on recommendations or taken far longer than we wanted um you'll see our published what we have a published report at the moment around complaint handling times that would be an example and we feel it appropriate that even if we would usually work formatively and with them and engaging them to get a consensus that if that backstop power is there there is actually the ability to to properly enforce it and so we we support that that change that comes through this legislation and i suppose again it links back to the fact that what the consumer bodies were arguing for fully independent regulation isn't coming but this bill provides that extra little step towards safeguards of professional regulation with with these types of amendment thank you if i've asked other members of the panel rosemary would you like to this is i think quite a significant proposal and if i can bring it to my own direct experience i have the powers to set complaints handling standards they're laid before Parliament with principles which has the effect of making them mandatory now there are a number of benefits to this and that is anybody making a complaint should get pretty much the same type of process the same type of expectation of timescales so in terms of consistency there's there's improvement to be made but actually the the real prize in this comes from improving complaint handling at front line because when you have the monitoring powers that go with it what what we have seen over the years is that there's a significant reduction in some areas of complaints that come to us when really they should be handled at local level so at local level the benefit of front line complaint handling is that's where the greatest learning for the organisation takes place that's where the fastest resolutions and solutions and redress can take place that's the better place for the relationship to start being mended where it's broken down because some services people access they have no choice but to access and and so in that context it's really important that there is good complaint handling at local level now if something comes to us before it's been to a local process it's we refer to it as a premature complaint we refer it back and what we're seeing over the years is a specific example is local authority sector 50% of cases used to be premature that had to get sent back now it's in the low 20s because they're handled at front line but there is also a knock-on benefit to that sometimes it's a little difficult to explain but the benefit to us is if there's good complaint handling locally there's good complaint handling in the first instance the organisation has demonstrated learning they've offered appropriate redress they have done everything that we would have done then it's much easier for us to say actually we'd have done this you know offer pretty much the same we think that you've had a reasonable response that saves it's not just a money issue it's also all these things about not putting people through a process twice that's stressful but from a public purse perspective it's enabled us to be able to make decisions that say there's no point in spending public money on reinvestigating something that's already been done well and that for me all flows from having the ability not just to set standards but to monitor standards and comment and hold public bodies to account if they don't investigate complaints well that's really helpful thank you so not to put words in your mouth but just you feel that this is best practice yet what it actually is it's not just best practice but it also enables development of best practice too because what you can do is you can share learning me we are part of sector network groups because obviously we cover a lot and what you see in those again the local authority complaint handler network is a good example of where organisations learn from each other as well but because of the unique position of being the only one in the the slc as they are what they're able to do is also get a view about the appropriateness of complaint handling in different contexts and different size firms it's a very different thing for maybe a sole practitioner or a two person partnership than it is for you know a huge national legal firm so I think what it does it it it gives some protections for consumers in giving them an assurance that their complaint will be handled appropriately and then there is that final stage of going to the regulator the complaints body if they don't get the resolution that they need thank you condie you have an opinion on this no very little to add other than I think the fact that it wouldn't be appropriate for the slcc to monitor the ssdt for example which is a judicial body but other than that I really can't usefully add anything thanks thank you shall I ask my next question yes please thank you I'd like to know your thoughts on the proposal which would allow the slcc to investigate complaints about unregulated legal service providers where legal services are provided to the public for fee gain or reward would you like to come in Neil yes so again this wasn't actually something that the slcc had pressed from but it came with that challenge that government were wrestling with around the low sodium of profession raising concerns about an unregulated market and if you didn't jump fully to an independent regulator what progress might you be able to make in terms of public protection um so our understanding of these powers is that in the sense gifts of backstop that if there's a serious public interest complaint about a currently unregulated legal services provider um it would allow us to investigate and to provide a remedy and perhaps more importantly and I don't know government's view on this but I suppose it's a very proportionate way to start doing work in that market if you started to see lots of complaints because a mechanism was now there it facilitates a debate about whether a more complex structure is required um but on the flip side it avoids overreacting and creating a sort of prescriptive system for regulation of um other legal services as a first step would anybody else like to come in on that no no well that's fine thank you content brilliant just on the back of that actually um so Colin I think this one is probably for you so you indicated in your response that it's not clear how complaints against legal entities will work as the procedures are based on those alternative business structures in the legal services scotland 2010 act even though this is yet to be tested as there are no alternative business structures in operation so could you expand on that please yes i mean entity regulation is not new it's been around as i think new said earlier for about 13 years but the system under which it was brought in has never really got to a stage where it has been tested as such and certainly i can say that to the best of my knowledge the tribunal has never received a complaint against an entity at all now that may be good news of course it may be that there have been no such complaints but it seems to us that some thought is required as to how entities are going to be regulated given that the legislation is now slightly out of date put it that way that's really the sum and substance of it okay so if you were directing our thoughts on that uh where would you take us i suspect that um you would need to have dialogue with the law society and all other stakeholders to find out whether some form of regulations could be introduced rather than primary legislation uh for example um but um i i i i i i do think that some new form of regulation is probably the best way forward okay thank you very much um i'd like to move on to and bring in my colleague Fulton please thanks convener and good morning to the panel thank you very much for your evidence thus far um you know probably for yourself that you're indicated in your response that the bill does not contain powers to ensure that the s l c c gets access the information it needs in a timely way to handle complaint sufficiently or to be able to conclude complaints uh when that information is not forthcoming wonder if you can just expand a bit on that part of your submission yeah so firstly i'm not quite sure the etiquette here but we have been in on-going with uh discussions with Scottish Government and drafting in this area and we know they're very very receptive to on-going discussion so um we are working on that but i suppose the net challenge is around 300 solicitors a year do not respond when we issue a statutory notice requiring them to give us files and that is actually a legal notice and therefore by not responding they are are breaking the law although that sounds melodramatic they are not complying with with statute um this is causing us huge cost um because again our remedy was put into the court so we have to go to the court session um to get an order um for the solicitor to comply and indeed we've had the situation a few times recently where even with the order of that court the solicitor has not gone on to comply and then we end up in contempt of court proceedings we've a solicitor who's been held in contempt of court on one case and then the very next issue we needed to investigate again did not comply with our section 17 order our statutory request for for file so 300 solicitors a year i've i've already this year spent over 100 000 pounds in legal fees just on getting solicitors to meet an absolutely basic duty of their regulation now the flip side of this is we understand the very personal impact of a complaint on individual solicitors there will be an element of panic there will be an element of putting their head in the sand there will be an element of being very busy servicing clients and perhaps not prioritising their regulatory duties um but it needs addressed and actually what we see in systems where there is a more proportionate middle step is that you get a quicker response so we're slightly stuck between our own reminder letters and jumping to the inner house of the court of session that is a big leap up the legal enforcement scale if we were able to write and say um actually we will apply a 500 pound statutory fine um if you don't comply with the next 14 days our hope would be that a tranche of those not responding suddenly see an immediate consequence a tangible one and actually rather than the fines we actually get the files because that's what we want to be able to move the case on for parties but i mean i have to know i was attending an international conference recently with regulators from other jurisdictions in some countries if you don't respond to your regulatory requirements there's an administrative suspension of your practicing certificate because why should you get the economic benefit of being able to deliver a reserved set of services that only you can deliver if you're not willing to comply with your own regulatory arrangements so we are not proposing that but again the way they used that was the threat of that was actually what often triggered getting the file which is what everyone wants because that sorts the issue for the complainer and it starts relieving that stress on the practitioner so yes we see a systemic problem 300 a year not responding initially significant cost and we just want more proportionate things that actually helps solicitors comply it's not about punishment but it's those nudges that will get the system moving so a case doesn't sit 60 70 100 200 days waiting on us getting the file and i suppose the final point in that is it then undermines confidence of the public because if you if i have to go back to a public member and say well actually the solicitor isn't complying with their regulations but there's nothing we can do what does that say about public confidence in the system so hopefully really positive discussions with government on that really grateful for the question because it's an important issue but it it does need tackled. When you were saying there was about 300 a year can you just let me know what that is as a sort of percentage it's 300 quite a big part your case load or is it tiny just so that i'll understand yeah it's probably about a quarter so i think last year around 1200 complaints so around a quarter but i do you know a system shouldn't be about blame as i say i understand the pressures on those practitioners and we do have sympathy during our reminders we'll also be referring them to mental health advice services low care that provides support for solicitors so i don't want to come across as unsympathetic but equally it's really important we keep that complaint moving for everyone or because parliamentary scrutiny turns around and says why are complaints taking a year and a half and actually it's not our working time it's sitting on waiting on on getting files yeah a quarter is quite a significant number. Although this line of questioning has been on the ASLCC's submission just wanted to give Rosamond and Colin an opportunity to come in on what we've discussed there if you want it. Yes that's all right. I hear what Neil is saying and I can make no apology for solicitors who don't comply with their regulations and duties and at the tribunal level we do have a similar problem most respondents who appear there do engage in the process but sadly there are a number who do not and of course we have to be very careful and balance the interests of justice as to whether we proceed in their absence but as for delay that is something that we are keen not to tolerate. I completely support what Neil is saying. I have powers to be able to ask for information and if it's not forthcoming it's treated as contempt so the final place is the courted session but it's not quite the same arduous journey. I've never had to use that because being able to set rules and standards means you can put in place some form of escalation that enables you to address the issue yourself much quicker but this is slight tangent but bear with me. There is a connection as well with getting information to being able to monitor complaint handling practice. Now it's worth bearing in mind that by the time a complaint reaches the ASLCC or something reaches me it should already have been through a local process and if you're setting complaint handling standards and you're advising and monitoring good practice it's a really fundamental one that you have good record keeping and you have a good complaint file so it shouldn't be as difficult to actually put the information together to respond to the ASLCC so it's a combination of both intervention and support type powers that I think would be of benefit. I'm not picking on you so it's in your response as well you've welcomed the expansion of the consumers panel the expansion and stream it across the whole regulatory system but you have raised some concerns about the resourcing of it I wonder if you can talk a wee bit about the panel and the resourcing and I'll say them again although the question is based on your specific response I'll come to those as well. No so thank you that's very kind and I wasn't feeling picked on I was worried you'd be getting sick of the sound of my voice but perhaps a shorter answer for this one so yes since since 2003 research done by Scottish Government has shown a lack of consumer research on the legal services market in Scotland and that hinders decision making on a number of levels in 2014 our consumer panel introduced but a bit of an add-on and a bit of focus on complaints and we do strongly support the expansion and you know it was something Roberton focused on as well the need for consumer input so services are designed for for citizens and and not entirely from a legal perspective I think the funding issue yes so we are funded by a statutory levy on solicitors so if that panel sits with us and we are funding it it will come from that levy and I suppose it's like to one of my responses in a question earlier where I said it's just good if it's debated whatever the answer it's good if it's debated as part of the decision making because we've had a lot of pushback from the law society in responses to our budgets on on funding of activities they see as not directly related to complaints so we know there's a slight tension for there but consumer research has funded out of their levy but my final point on that is that is is fairly common in other industries so if you look at water electricity and so on there is an element of funding that goes to consumer research recognising the economic benefit of being a provider who has solubility to provide some services just in the interest of time Fulton if panellists have something directly to offer that would be great but I'm just conscious that we're running slightly over yep are you content lovely Fulton are you brilliant could I bring in paul please thank you very much convener and good morning to the panel and it has been interesting I think to hear your perspectives this morning and I suppose as committee we're interested in how the bill might change in terms of as it goes through the process and particularly in terms of amendments that have either been suggested or discussed between those giving evidence and indeed government so I wonder if I could just start and ask about amendments first of all you know the commission has backed the oversight powers in the bill in terms of ministers and we've heard some of that this morning and obviously that's in contrast to the view of the law society factive advocates for example and the government intimated that they may bring amendments to change the nature of that oversight so I wonder if I can just get a sense of why the commission arrives at the view it did and then your view on those amendments to to water down I think it's an expression that's been used or but it's changed the nature of those parts thank you it's quite a complicated issue two sets of oversight powers some that sit exact with the slcc and we've discussed those but yet the oversight powers with ministers so we've not actually formed a strong view because it doesn't have a direct effect on a lot of our duties under the act I suppose we'd note that roberton anticipated this issue and avoided it by the setting up of a full independent body and I suppose where that has potentially left government is you have consumer bodies pushing for additional independent oversight you've the profession resisting and they were looking for a mechanism for that um so we've been following the strength of response to the initial proposed mechanism we've noted the minister's letter and I think when we see what the detail of response looks like we'll discuss that on a policy level again um but we've we've not had a strong view on it because it doesn't directly affect us um and yeah we're waiting to see what the the next set of proposals is okay um thank you given I I also um in your response to question nine or of the the the written evidence in terms of the call for views um there was proposed technical amendments and technical amendments I suppose have come through a lot in terms of how the bill might be tightened uh I wonder if you might be able to provide an update on the discussion you've had with government on those and any progress to date yes so if you needed the detail of that discussion um a lot of work by my colleague vicky criton we'd be happy to update you but I think yes we've commented on various areas where you know it's the change of a word or or just getting the flow of something better and we've had a a very good response to that and then obviously that needs to come back to yourselves but I suppose what we're trying to separate out is something that refines the the wording and the delivery of what's in the bill and what's in the policy note versus I've tried to give examples where very sensible amendments coming in and being added to a system later have had big actually big operational consequences that haven't been anticipated so in a sense we're urging that if this is the bill going through it does come from a sense of compromise between consumer and professional bodies but hold on to that vision rather than let lots of amendments amend it further and I suppose because I think we're we're a long way from this but at the very far end of the spectrum you get to the point where if the changes are so small there's a big cost of delivering that change process and is it actually that real step forward in terms of a more efficient complaints process and a greater element of independent oversight and if that vision is lost you get into that debate about is there nothing here but it justifies the change cost in the process. Okay thank you that's helpful if I might turn to Colin Bell just in terms of the SSTT's view on amendments within the bill. I think you had said there were nine practical and proportionate fixes essentially that could kind of provide a framework for your activities I wonder if you might update on on that and your view. Yes we've had discussions with Scottish Government and the tribunal clerk who's here today Nicola Ross will happily provide you with whatever information you require there. I did bring out one of one or two of the more important ones during my evidence but as Neil says these tend to be rather technical issues which are probably best left to correspondence but very happy to provide whatever information you require. Are you content with that response? I think it is useful to hear the degree to which consensus I think can be achieved or certainly an appetite for consensus but I would be keen that committee might have access to the further detail. You sure you don't want to have a go at explaining some of the I understand it's technical but I suppose the challenge is to make it understandable that is part of our role to be able to understand so I'm going to push you a little bit further on that. How long do you have? You've got about five minutes. Okay well in terms of first of all recruitment and appointment for example we thought that the tribunal should have more input into how the process goes along in terms of recruiting members secondly in terms of the UPC decisions I'll maybe elaborate a little on that and that is again where the tribunal reaches a decision that no professional misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt as Neil mentioned earlier rather than passing the case back to the law society as it is obliged to do in law it seems to us sensible that the tribunal would have the ability to decide the case at that level apply the appropriate unsatisfactory professional conduct sanction and that would be the end of the matter subject to any appeal of course. Retraining was another thing we thought the tribunal should have the right to order a practitioner to conduct some retraining obviously in particular areas publicity that's always a difficult issue for the tribunal as I said earlier all our decisions are publicised but now with people's individual rights we have to balance rights there and we just would like some clarity in law again these are technical provisions entity regulations I think we've discussed and the other ones were really relating to technical areas apart from the last one which was chair and vice chair powers that's an interesting one as chair of the tribunal I have to carry out certain functions which may not be in the legislation whether it may be of advantage to have those powers within the leg the legislation might be something worth considering and well for example when a case comes to the tribunal at the start the very start I have to be careful to sift the case to make sure that even if the case were proved as the facts on the case are that it would constitute a decision which the tribunal could make on professional misconduct so that may involve a judgment decision I think it's possibly correct that there may be an appeal against that decision which there is not at the moment and I think it's only fair to say that other decisions which I may make on a lesser scale would be for example carrying out procedural hearings without the benefit of a full panel of tribunal members again that has implications for cost and people may wish to have that power but at the moment it's vested in the tribunal by virtue of the tribunal rules rather than in legislation and I think that that is an area where improvements could be made to make the system clearer more transparent and to make it absolutely clear as to what roles the chair or vice chair could make on his own or her own without having to convene a full panel that's very helpful Colin and you did it in less than five minutes as well so there you go can well that includes concludes actually the formal business of this morning and I do want to thank the witnesses for your attendance but also for very good evidence and making it sort of easily understandable that certainly helps with our scrutiny we will now move into private to consider the remaining items on our agenda and thanks once again to the panel