Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting of 2023 in session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning. Our first agenda item is the consideration of a type 1 consent notification for the civil jurisdiction and judgments saving provisions Regulations 2023. This is a proposed UK statutory instrument where the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government's consent to legislate in an area of devolved competence. On 9 November 2023, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety notified the committee of the UKSI. The committee's role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government's proposal to consent to the UK Government in the manner they have indicated to the Scottish Government. I therefore welcome to the meeting Siobhan Brown, Minister for Victims, Community Safety and her supporting officials, Simon Stockwell, Head of Family Law Policy, Scottish Government Justice Directorate and Stephanie Smith, Senior Policy Advisor, Courts and Tribunals, and the Scottish Government's Justice Directorate. Good morning and welcome to you all, and thank you for joining us. I refer members to papers one and invite the minister to make a brief opening statement. Good morning and thank you convener. As you know, the Scottish Government opposed both Brexit and the Retained EU law act. However, we recognise that we need to take technical action to ensure that things are able to work as smoothly as possible, in some cases that involves working with our colleagues at Westminster. The purpose of this statutory instrument at Westminster is to continue the savings made at EU exit to ensure that the 2007 Lugano convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters can continue to apply into certain legacy cases. The 2007 Lugano convention contains rules governing jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters when a case has connections to more than one country, as well as rules providing for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in such matters. The convention is a treaty amongst EU member states, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, and was entered into by the EU on behalf of member states while the UK was itself a member state. At EU exit, the convention was revoked for the UK because the UK's membership was dependent on its status as a member state and because its operation relied on reciprocal application, which would no longer occur. However, the convention was saved for transitional cases, i.e. to save the jurisdiction rules for cases commenced before the end of the transition period and to save the recognition and enforcement rules for judgments issued in cases commenced before then. The savings provision relied in part on section 4 of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. The Withdrawal Act and section 2 of the REUL Act will repeal section 4 of the Withdrawal Act at the end of the year, and this repeal creates a risk that the savings put in place will fall away. So the proposed SI will use transitional powers under the REUL Act in order to continue the savings provision. Since the original savings for transitional cases extended UK-wide, the UK Government proposed to extend this SI UK-wide. As I said, Scottish ministers remain opposed to Brexit, however, in terms of minimising the damage that EU exit will bring, this technical SI is necessary to ensure continuity to respect of relevant judgments and issued before the end of the transition period. It will also save the recognition and enforcement rules for judgments issued in cases commenced before the end of the transition period. The relatively small number of REUL Act statutory instruments proposed notified to committees seven so far including this SI reflects that the Government will never consent to proposals that threaten the vital safeguards and high standard Scotland benefited from being part of the European Union. The programme for government commits the Government to maintaining alignment where possible and meaningful with EU law and this SI has devolved implications. The committee is asked to agree to the UK-wide SI being made and, convener, I invite the committee to agree that the Scottish ministers should consent to this SI being made. Thank you, convener. Thank you minister. Do members have any questions? Maggie Chapman. Thanks very much and good morning minister. Thank you for being here this morning. Just a quick question around issues that could have arisen after the transition period. Given the commitment to alignment that the Scottish Government has made, what are the measures in place that we can take independently of the UK legislature on these cost savings beyond transition or is that it? I suppose essentially what I'm asking is there a way that we can continue to be aligned with the likes of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland beyond the cut-off period. My understanding is that there will be diminishing time and I know there's a very limited number at the moment going through but I might bring in Simon on that question. Thank you minister. I think it might be difficult for Scotland itself to align because a lot of this depends on international arrangements which is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The UK Government is planning to sign and ratify a convention, the Hague 19 Convention, which is about the mutual recognition of civil and commercial judgments and the United Kingdom has just confirmed that it intends to do that and Scotland will form part of that. So there will be some moves to try and ensure that we continue to have some recognition with other jurisdictions but it's hard for Scotland to do it alone given, as I say, treating negotiations are reserved matter for the UK. Okay, thank you. Are you content? Thank you. I now move on to the substantive question for this item. Is the committee content for the provision set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument? We are all agreed. Thank you. We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect. That concludes the consideration of the UK statutory instrument and I thank the minister and her officials for your attendance. We will now suspend very briefly to allow for a changeover of supporting officials for our next agenda item. Thank you. We'll now move into our second agenda item, which is our final evidence session on the regulation of legal services Scotland Bill. I once again welcome to the meeting Siobhan Brown, the minister for victims, community safety and supporting officials for this item. I also welcome Jamie Wellum, the legal services regulation reform manager Scottish Government justice directorate and Liana McClarty, solicitor from the Scottish Government's legal directorate. Thank you for joining us this morning and I refer members to papers 2 and 3. I invite her to make a brief opening statement. Thank you, convener, and good morning, convener and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the regulation of legal services Scotland Bill. The Bill presents a modern regulatory framework designed to promote competition and innovation while improving the transparency and the accountability of legal regulation and the legal complaint system in Scotland, placing the public and consumer interest at its heart. The Bill is intended to bring benefits to both the legal sector and consumers of legal services. It makes a number of significant changes, including introducing a new regulatory framework, streamlining the legal complaint system, introducing entity regulation and the legal protection of the title lawyer. The Bill removes restrictions on third sector organisations directly employing solicitors benefiting vulnerable citizens and easing ownership requirements for alternative business structures benefiting the legal sector. There is a great deal of support for the general principles of the improvements that the Bill will make to legal regulations. As I said in my letter last week to the committee, which outlined the amendments that we intend to bring forward, throughout the development of the Bill, the Scottish Government has been committed to working collaboratively with all interested parties, including the legal sector and those representing the consumer interest. We will continue to do so during the Bill's passage through Parliament. We know that the parties often have differing views on regulation of legal services, and this is why we want to ensure that it strikes the right balance between the various interests. Following introduction of the Bill and having carefully considered the responses to the committee's call on views that was published on 24 August, we acknowledge that the concerns raised in respect of the role placed on Scottish ministers within the Bill. Whilst these relevant provisions are only part of the Bill, we wanted to address those concerns, and so publicly stated, we would bring forward amendments at stage 2 and would work with stakeholders, including the senior judiciary. As members will be aware, having taken evidence from stakeholders, the current legislative framework underpinning the regulation of legal services and the complaints handling process in Scotland is complex and it's dated. Not unexpectedly, this is a highly technical and complex Bill, amending previous legislation from 1980, 2007 and 2010, and it builds on some of those existing legislative provisions, which is why it is vitally important that any amendments are carefully considered and discussed with all the stakeholders. My officials have been working closely and collaboratively with stakeholders, particularly the Lord President's office and the Law Society of Scotland. As I said in my letter, we've already come to a firm position on several areas of the Bill to amend and close to agreement on other areas, and we will be updating the committee on those in the new year on the areas that are being addressed. I appreciate that the committee has requested sight of those amendments, however, whilst we are in a position on most of the amendments, or as I said, into close agreement, the actual amendments would not be written until closer to the stage 2 and again will be developed alongside discussion with the Lord President's office and stakeholders. Conrina, I also recognise the importance of stage 1 parliamentary process in drawing out stakeholder views, as well as that of the committee, and those views will also inform final positioning and amendments. Conrina, let me conclude by saying that, whilst I intend to bring forward amendments to address the specific concerns raised, I would like to highlight that, in my view, these will not detract away from the general principles of the Bill. Roddy Dunlop Casey said to the committee on the 21st of November, the Bill seems to strike the right balance between ensuring and improving the proper regulation of the legal profession on one hand and maintaining the profession's independence on the other. Many of the provisions in the Bill have been welcomed and are designed to benefit both legal professions and consumers of legal services, and that is what I'd hope we would all want to see. Thank you, convener. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you very much, and we will just go on to questions. I'll just kick us off. You will have seen the evidence that we have taken from a wide range of stakeholders, including the senators that were here last week. I would like a response from you, minister, from the issues that were raised by witnesses regarding the powers that the Bill gives the Scottish ministers, and that may threaten the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. For instance, I'm sure you will have seen that Lady Dorian was extensively quoted as saying that she felt that the provisions were constitutionally inept. So I just wondered what your response to that was. Yes, thank you, convener. The judiciary is raising important constitutional principles about the separation of powers between the executive, the legislator and the judiciary. Of course, we recognise the absolute necessity of that principle. It is important to be clear of what the Bill actually 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 my intentions clear and how I will amend the Bill to address these issues. The Bill builds on 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 provisions adopt existing checks and balances requiring the Lord President's consent and parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the delegated powers to ensure 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, this Parliament placed further functions on Scottish ministers in respect of the legal services regulation. In saying that, we understand the concerns which have been raised and that is why I've committed to bringing forward amendments at stage 2 as we want to ensure the Bill strikes right balance between the various stakeholders. I understand what you're saying about the removal of the role of the Scottish ministers, which you said that you would do. We've heard evidence on that position of England and Scotland with their distinct differences. As I understand, the legal services board in England is accountable to the Lord Chancellor to the UK, Government Secretary of State of Justice. That is a political role as well. Can you confirm that that won't be replicated in Scotland? The legal services board is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor who is a UK minister who has a number of statutory roles in relation to a body and regulation of legal services. Our Bill contains some of the provisions which introduce a role for Scottish ministers in reviewing and protecting the regulation of legal services, but as the committee is aware, we will be introducing amendments which will transfer those functions to the Lord President, removing the responsibility from Scottish ministers. So, while some reassurance was taken by your intention regarding the amendments to remove that role, there were concerns that were raised that it wasn't going to be as easy as that, that the removal of that bit of it would affect quite extensively the other parts of the Bill. Can you provide the committee with any reassurance around that? Yes, absolutely. My officials have been having ongoing discussions with the Lord President's office and any amendments that come in will have an ongoing effect on other parts of the Bill. That's why we have to engage on all aspects of it moving forward with the amendment. It's not a straight cut, it's just removing one and giving it to the Lord President. We have to consider the whole Bill while we're doing these amendments. Thank you, minister. You referred to yourself that you wrote a letter to me with the aim of finalising the amendments early next year, so I just need a little bit more detail there and a bit more reassurance, because obviously we're in December now and that's not that far away. The task you have ahead of you and your officials is obviously extensive, so does the Government have a more specific deadline? At the moment, we officials are working with all stakeholders and the Law Society of Scotland and the Lord President's office and engagement is continuing. We are hopeful that it will be the beginning of the new year, that we have agreement on most of the amendments and what I'm willing to do is keep the committee updated on all progress regarding that. Thank you, that's very helpful. Was there anybody, colleagues that wanted to come in? I'd like to pass on to Paul, please. Thank you very much, convener. I'm just trying to understand why we're in this position, where we're having to amend at stage 2. This committee doesn't have detail of that, nor does the Lord President or the Senators of the College of Justice. The minister would accept that it is highly unusual for the most senior judges in the country to come to the committee of the Scottish Parliament and give evidence. Can she just outline for me very clearly what consultation took place with the Lord President and what information he was given about the nature of these amendments? Sure. First of all, I think when the bill was introduced back in April and then obviously we had the course of views in August, I was very conscious of the bill. It was all about the Scottish ministers having a power grab as such and that's why I wanted to track away the Scottish ministers' powers and this is why the officials have been looking at bringing in amendments so it wouldn't focus so much on that and it would focus on parts of the bill that there was agreement on generally through stakeholders and the legal profession. Just going back to the Scottish Government response to the consultation analysis published in December last year, we did set out to provide for the process for intervention by Scottish ministers in the light of the concerns being raised on how and whether regulators are delivering the regulatory objectives and the operation of regulation in relation to the public interest. At the time when that consultation came out last year, the legal stakeholders were very positive because I think the focus was about the independent regulator being bought forward and it wasn't so at that stage when we bought that forward there wasn't any resistance to the Scottish ministers' role in that that only came after the bill was laid prior to April and with the introduction of that. If I could just go on and just explain a little bit about the amendments because of the complexity of the amendments and having to engage with all the stakeholders, we need to get agreement with the Lord President and the Law Society and all our stakeholders and we would not be in a position once we have agreement we would not be in a position to actually get the lawyers to draft the actual amendments to stage two so that's the ongoing work that's happening with officials at the moment with stakeholders and with the Lord President's office. Sorry, I am confused just in terms of the evidence that we heard last week. Lady Dorian when asked directly about what engagement had been had over these amendments said that high level suggestions have been made to us and she spoke about being presented with a paper that the senators felt they couldn't respond to because it was lacking in detail. She said there was another paper with more detail but it was very high level. They have not looked to detail proposals for amendment and have said that in so far as they were able to do so they have responded as helpfully as they could but she crucially says that the devil's in the detail and you can't comment on what you don't have in terms of the detail so again I would just I'm trying to understand why we are in this position. I'm happy to address I might get my officials who have been liaising with the Lord President's office but I agree the devil is in the detail but the discussions with the Lord President's office and other stakeholders are in agreement what the detail will be as when we go forward to the stage two amendments but I don't know if Leanna or Jamie would want to come in there with the engagement with the Lord President's office. Thank you. As we said we have shared two papers with the Lord President's office and since that the last session we have shared a third paper in response to the request for some work examples in terms of how the amendments would operate in practice. We have asked for the amendments to be able to comment on those but it's a bit of a chicken in the egg in that we have to agree the position before we can then draft amendments and seek that agreement. So it's an iterative process and progress is being made and as minister said we are close to our agreed position and we are having constructive engagement. I appreciate the degree to which we want to try and find consensus and the Lord President is keen to and other stakeholders to have a contribution to his amendment. Will the minister accept that it is for this committee to make a judgment on those amendments and that any changed nature of the bill will have to once again be scrutinised and that that is a real challenge in terms of timescales for this committee to carry its democratic function? Yes, I do recognise that and that's why I'll be very eager and keen to share as my letter said from last week where we are which each of the sections that are going to be amended as we have progress and agreement with our stakeholders and the Lord President. I'm happy to keep the committee updated on all progress on that so you can make a view on it for your stage one. On the back of the discussions that we're having so far I'm struggling to understand that seems to be like a chicken and egg situation because we've got the situation where we're looking at amendments that are going to substantially change. We've had to take evidence on a bill that will substantially change so I do need to ask the question minister why do you think it was appropriate for ministers to be directly appointed as a legal regulator and why hasn't more engagement regarding the amendments taken place because as Paula Kane rightly said, the devil's in the detail but we as the committee do not know that detail. It looks as though senior professionals in the legal field do not know that detail. If you had concerns back in August in terms when the call for views came in you were getting evidence. Why didn't that engagement start then? I just feel as though that we're clamouring around just now trying to look for a way to scrutinise this legislation when we come back at the turn of the year we're going to have to re-look at that all over again. So I think engagement when we did make the decision back in August the officials did start to engage with stakeholders in the Lord President's office about what the sections that were highlighted on where we can make amendments and come to an agreement with it. I appreciate what Ms Gallagher is saying there but I felt at the time that when it was introduced there was such opposition to ministers powers in the bill and even Esther Robertson in the DPLR committee evidence she didn't believe that ministers should have a role that I didn't want it detracting away from the general principles of the bill which in a way it has done. So the general framework and renewing the Scottish legal complaint system and make it easier for consumers that's all good parts of the bill that we can move forward and focus on but I was just trying to take away the Scottish ministerial and as I've said what we will do is we will keep the committee updated on all progress in relation to that as soon as we can. I think we will move on just now to Cardinal Adam please. Thank you convener and good morning minister and officials. I would like to ask you if you think there are any risks in giving the Lord President additional powers in the amendments? For example the proposal to amend section 29 would give the Lord President the sole right to consider any application by bodies wishing to enter the legal services sector as a new regulator. Do you think that there's a risk that the Lord President might be either too conservative or too slow in deciding which bodies could become new regulators? So yes I saw the evidence from Bill Alexander saying that it was challenging and sometimes traumatic for the commercial attorneys to become a regulator at that time and I think from 1980 they're the only people that have become a regulator and then I did see that Lady Dorian did say it should be challenging going through the process so I think we do strike a balance there between people going forward to be regulated so yes I do believe that it does strike a balance. Thank you and if I may come back in convener do you think that the proposed transfer of these certain functions to the Lord President alter the general principles of the bill? I do not believe they do I think as a committee has heard in the evidence session last week the Lord President already has significant oversight role into legal services regulation so this is not the same as directly regulating the provision of legal services. The Lord President's not involved into the day-to-day regulation of legal services but he does have oversight of the aspects of the SLCC but does not consider determining complaint so I do not believe in the view of the bill. The judiciary have raised concerns that transfer and functions to the Lord President risks politicising his role and others have said that transfer and functions mean consumer groups might not have enough say can I ask what your position is on that? Yes thank you to Miss Adams for the question in transferring the functions to the Lord President we will be expanding the current oversight role in legal services regulation this does not create a new function for the Lord President but expands a role which already exists and operates without concerns of politicisation whilst the senators indicated to the committee that they cannot agree to any transfer before seeing the detail it may be helpful to remind the committee of their response which showed that the principle of transferring the review powers to the Lord President was acceptable and indeed should be done in respect to the consumer voice the bill expands the remit of the consumer panel giving a role it a role to undertake research to provide quality evidence-based advice in the sector in order to ensure decisions are shaped around 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're reflecting on the comments of stakeholders representing the consumer interest in terms of how the bill might be strengthened in that regard that's very helpful thank you minister content okay megan please again convener minister we heard from esther roberton last week um in relation to the report that was commissioned um so i'm a little bit confused why why did the government reject esther roberton roberton report um that recommended a single legal regulator in scotland despite your own government commissioning the very same report yes thank you i think as the committee's already heard there was vastly different differing views for esther robertons primary recommendation and this was backed up by a consultation which showed that views were evenly split between support and opposition to the primary recommendation however there are many areas where there is broad agreement between the stakeholders the bill takes a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of the stakeholders and the bill requires that all legal service regulators exercise regulatory functions independently of other functions or activities and introduces greater transparency and accountability of the legal services regulation but in a whole it was just due to both sides being the legal profession and the consumers having very polarized views on the independent regulator that the decision was made not to go down that track okay thank you um but that doesn't really equate to the evidence that we've heard in the committee session so far so i'm i'm just wondering minister do you think it's fair to say that as the legislation as it stands because we've not seen the amendments thus far that you have managed to to upset all sides of the debate surrounding the legal regulation in scotland so i don't think it's it's trying to find the the compromise in the middle i don't think it's like trying to upset both sides um i think you know the scotish government has carefully considered the roberton report following its publication had extensive discussion with stakeholders um while it's clear as i said the recommendations that was were supported there were very polarized views from the legal sector as well so i think with with the bill we have heard from stakeholders that there's a lot of support for the bill for example dr marsha scott from scotish women aid she said i welcome many aspects of the bill um and the removal of practicing restrictions on charities directly employing a solicitor are very welcome and that will be transformational for charities to be able to support um vulnerable people so there's a lot of positive things in the bill as well so it's not i wouldn't say i'm not making both sides happy i think the key phrase there was many aspects um and then finally if i can convener um in relation to the the roberton report that sets out the extremely complex landscape of scotland's legal services regulation that can be often difficult for the public to to understand so i'm just wondering as the bill stands you know why why is this legislation made it even more complicated for members in the public to understand so i think that the basically the one of the main things with the complaints is to make it to simplify the process for the general public and the s the slcc will remain the single gateway for all legal complaints against legal practitioners with a limited number of exceptions for example where a complaint is identified as a regulator the consultation that we did that most respondents 87 percent agreed that the single gateway for all legal complaints should be retained and it was argued that a single gateway for all legal complaints is efficient to bring clarity and transparency to the process for both the profession and the consumers making it simpler for the consumers to access legal advice thank you convener okay thank you thank you megan i'd like to now move to my colleague filton please hey thank you convener and a good morning to the minister and the panel i've got a few questions minister i think you're probably acknowledged from having watched the evidence that i think it's fair to say that no stakeholder that we've heard from supports the full package of reforms within this bill although many have said you know i had to go back through some of the evidence myself but because i think i think you've made the point that perhaps some aspects of the bill can be lost and many stakeholders have told us that they support certain aspects of the bill that's perhaps relevant to them well how much of an issue do you think in your role this is that there's not outright full support from the groups that we've heard from where are you on that i think where we go back to back to 2015 where the law society did approach the Scottish government for the need of reform and that's when i know historically the ester at roberton report um asked to do an inquiry into it to produce the report and i think after the report was published we just we then saw the polarized views from the legal sector and the commercial sector so i i do not believe that there's there would be any way that this bill can move forward getting both sides on board 100 because there's always going to be a conflict between the legal sector and consumer and it's trying to find that fine balance between the two that we can bring good legislation in to improve things for the legal sector and for consumers do you run the risk though by by trying to strike that balance which i hear that is what you're trying to do i think i is but the government tried to do that that we end up with a bill that nobody's very happy with i think we have to strike the balance i think if we end up with no bill then we'll have no improvement to legal reform which is required and needed for the legal sector and the consumer so i think the the the positive aspects of the bill will still bring for progress to reform of the legal sector even though there might be some opposed views going along the way. On the issue of consumers i'd like to hear from you where you think there might be more benefits and i want to ask a bit specific example that other MSPs in the office will likely be aware from from the constituency work but also an event that was held by my colleague Bob Doris last week relating to McLeur solicitors when they went first in 2021. I hadn't thought about it previously before the event that Bob held last week and as i say i have a couple of queries from constituents myself is do you think that there's anything in this bill that would help or perhaps would have helped in that particular situation and others like it? Yes and i do i think i think the McLeur situation shows the necessity for justice reform in addressing that situations like the McLeur situation doesn't happen again i'm aware of all the number of families that are facing a result of McLeur's going into administration i know as MSPs we've all been contacted by constituentures i can't comment on individual cases but the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to help mitigate against such a situation such cases show that the need for legal regulation that centres of the public interest and protection of the consumer and this bill is currently going through parliament will introduce the authorisation of legal businesses and this will bring benefits such as consistency in how legal firms are regulated with all entities having to meet the same high standards and a greater collation of data which would enable the regulator and the legal profession to identify and address deficiencies early and take the necessary preventative action and if i may convener i know this is not the same bill but with my trust and succession bill which is currently going through as well we've just had stage 2 i heard of the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees may have had in administering trusts when a trustee appointment in their professional capacity is no longer a member of the profession and that's why i lodged amendments at the stage 2 of the trust and succession Scotland bill to ensure that this wouldn't happen moving forward so with the bills that are going through with justice reform we can address situations like McLeur's that can prevent that happening in the future okay thanks for that minister and could ask as well if you're able to respond to arguments that we heard from the law society as well as others that the case has not been made for splitting regulators in category 1 in category 2 and put your subject to different requirements yes sorry is that okay to just move on that's fine thanks so the law society has 12 000 members and one third of those work in house and the other two thirds predominantly serve the public and handle client money on the other hand there are 450 advocates in scotland and advocates members of an independent referral bar that means as a general rule the advocates do not provide their services directly to the public but are available to be instructed by solicitors and other designated professionals and bodies and similarly there are 10 practicing members of the association of construction attorneys and construction attorneys operates in a specialist area of law it was viewed proportionate response to put greater regulatory requirements on the body which with substantially more members being 12 000 as opposed to the construction attorneys who have all have 10 and i think in the evidence session with yourselves they did say they would have struggled to be a regular category 1 the attorneys so the bill significantly increases the transparency of all three branches of the legal profession and future proofs the framework to provide a risk-based and proportionate approach to any new entrant into the scotish legal sector thanks one final question okay okay thanks convener very very generous we heard that there was some argument that the system of regulation and complaints handling that's proposed in the bill is too complex what would you say to that minister do you believe it's too complex or you've got another view yes so no i do not believe it's too complex i believe that we are improving the system regulatory complaints already exist in respect of licensed legal services providers and the bill will extend this type of complaint to authorised legal businesses in respect of the introduction of entity regulation i do not believe it's making it more complex i believe it's simplifying the the system for consumers to access legal advice okay thanks thank you minister i'd like to move on to annie please thank you convener and good morning minister and officials i'd like to just ask you to explain why the scotish government considers it necessary for susters and other regulated professionals to have at least a 10 stake in alternative business structures can i thank miss wills for her answer so uh sorry question certain stakeholders such as a cma support a removal of a minimum ownership requirement entirely while there were other stakeholders including some legal firms um which favoured retaining the current 51 percent ownership by regulated professionals so there was a divergence of views in the response to the scotish government consultation and just over half which was 52 percent agreed at that 51 percent majority state rule for licensed legal services should be removed compared to 48 percent that disagreed so some stakeholders have actually changed their shifted their view on this slightly since the scotish government consultation but the approach we are we are seeking in the bill we think it takes strikes a balance between the two views um so how did you come up with the 10 percent how is that okay i might bring in my officials you've got the history there of course certainly it was considered that a 10 percent would retain a minimum requirement of the regulated profession to to have a stake in that business and it aligns with what the minister has set out in terms of striking the right balance there so 10 percent was felt an appropriate minimum percentage if you if you required to retain a regulated investment thank you thanks for that and i would just give one more question if you don't mind convener um in respond to the views that there could be unintended consequences by regulating the title lawyer offered various different views on this i would like to hear your views minister please sure thank you i think um so the public polling by the government and the law society has shown support for the title lawyer being given under the same protection as solicitor and this was considered important to protect the consumer who may not understand the distinction between the two when seeking legal services from a regulated professional i know that the committee also heard and do so evidence of solicitors solicitors being struck off and subsequently providing unregulated legal services to the public using the title of lawyer so we view that there is public protection concern in such cases to protect the name lawyer thank you thank you thank you thank you thanks any um Maggie please thanks very much convener and thanks for your your comments so far minister i've got a couple of questions on the slcc the new the new body that the bill proposes to establish and something around the the processes involved firstly the slcc considers that the responsibility for dealing with complaints remains split between bodies and that professional bodies may have a conflict of interest that that's what the bill outlines how do you respond to that challenge around that split and the conflict of interest point yes so i i might bring in if i can jamie just to answer this question of course the the bill will require regulators to carry out their functions in terms of regulation separately from any other other function such as handling of complaints in response to the consultation exercise around about two thirds of respondents supported the the the existing bodies such as a law society in the faculty having a continued role in handling of complaints about conduct and it was viewed that that would be important in terms of quality insurance and continuous improvements and that feeds back into a better practice if the body's involved in setting the rules or are also the ones to have a role in handling those complaints okay i i suppose there's just something around the the complexity that that split maybe retains and one of the one of the challenges as as Fulton and others have already alluded to but i'll i'll come back to that in a moment there's something also around the slcc's assertion that it requires additional powers additional powers both around ensuring its information in a timely way and also around things like setting minimum standards but they've they've been uh questions around whether there are sufficient checks and balances to to ensure that the slcc don't abuse those additional powers can you comment around you know what do you do you think there are sufficient checks and balances or is there something else we should be looking at i do i do know that the uh the i recognise a significant problem for the slcc um regarding i think it's over 300 solicitors a year um do not reply to the do not respond to the request for files as such and we are working with them at the moment and looking at and amendments and how we can strengthen the bill moving forward so they get the information that they need i don't know if the end you want to come in in terms of the overall checks and balances for the commission so the commission is accountable to parliament in terms of its budget and its annual report and in terms of its ability to make or change its rules it has to consult with a number of bodies including the law president and the regulators and and other bodies when it's when it's making its rules the law president also has oversight of the commission board members in the respect that the law president can remove the chair of the board if it was felt that that person was unfit to incurring at their duties and his approval is sought where the chair seeks to remove any other member of the board so this is our overall that's the overall accountability of the commission um in terms of the provisions in the bill to introduce minimum standards um excuse me where were those minimum standards relate to the regulators the bill tries to introduce a lot of opportunities for the regulators to be involved in the development of those minimum standards if once those have been developed there are there's still a dispute with the regulator the bill introduces provisions for that to go to arbitration between the regulation the commission if there really is a dispute as to the minimum standard that's being set if that if it doesn't go to arbitration because that's optional um the ultimately the court can look at the the question of the minimum standards and whether um and how to resolve that dispute so whilst the bill does strengthen the ability for the commission to introduce standards rather than just recommendations as it is now there is a kind of quite firm level of accountability in that um to make sure that it can be examined and that there's a role for the regulator in developing those standards okay so i suppose that the question is if i mean that the the mechanisms of the all the checks and balances that you are learning and i understand what they are they they are retrospective in many ways and i suppose if is there is certainty or enough certainty that actually that the processes before we get to a point where those need to be invoked um is is there certainty around that the powers that the new commission would have there that they wouldn't not not abuse those powers but but act in a way that wasn't uh congruent with the principles of of the bill and the powers they've been given i mean certainly the efforts so the intention the efforts in drafting has been to make sure that it's as collaborative a process as possible and that that collaboration you know the hope would be that that any concerns that were being raised about proposed minimum standards would be raised and that the and taken account of and that there are measures um if if they weren't but of course would consider any recommendations for strengthening that if it's felt like they're not strong enough okay thanks leanna um i've got another question but it's on a different issue yeah i i just indicated to maggie that i wanted to come in on the complaints issue um as well just to get a bit more information about that um i mean we heard evidence uh sort of like uh from the sl i can remember never remember initials and i don't think that they're a good thing the very exclusive initials um but the sl cc um regarding sort of like their powers that they have um and on the one hand they welcome the changes but they also argued for more powers actually so i just wondered um what consideration was given to maybe giving the sl cc more powers as a um i am hope uh open to any considerations the committee would like to suggest moving forward at stage one but i think at the moment we are striking a balance with the powers that the slc do have i don't know it was um particularly regarding it was a session that we had um that they were saying about getting information for instance that depending on the complexity of the complaint sometimes they could ask for uh information that could come back in seven days sometimes it would be 21 sometimes 28 so it was to make that better for the consumer i suppose for the complainant and i think one of the things we are working with them at the moment because i think it was over a quarter of solicitors do not respond when they're requested for their files for information from the slcc so we are working with them at the moment to see how we can strengthen the bill to ensure they get the information that that they need okay leanna did you want to come in um just just to expand on what the minister's saying um i mean in in that respect i i don't think it's necessarily seeking more powers as just um a better way they already have the power to require solicitors and other practitioners to provide information but the problem is the minister said is that that's not always done and that the only recourse that the commission has is to go to court to seek um to seek the information that they have a a right to obtain as part of processing a complaint so we are working um with the commission as neil said i think at committee to um to make it easier for them and to avoid having to go through the court process to try and obtain the information that they have a right to get okay thank you um on this issue megan did you want to come in nope that's fine oh it was too much on it there um thank you for that thank you can i bring maggie back in please super thanks um i suppose just another quick follow-up actually on on some of the complexity issues around around the commission um we know that the the questions they they have been questions around from very different stakeholders very different interests around the complexity that the consumers face and you've minister you've talked quite a lot about balance and trying to balance competing views i'm just wondering whether there's the whether whether you think we've got that balance right around the different processes and procedures that the faculty have to go through that the law society would have to go through that consumers have to go through you know having to potentially jump through different hoops or go to different different bodies um to pursue complaints and just just how you came or you know how how the how it came to the decision that that we find in the bill sure yes yeah i do i think the the main aspect of one of the bills is to simplify the process for the consumers and i will go to lianna or j jay need to come in on the history with the um deeper understanding of the bill before i talk it over to jay me for that one of course um yes i as we set out um the consultation analysis showed that it was important for the professional bodies to continue to have a role in conduct complaints but the bill does seek to simplify the current process to make it more streamlined and proportionate in terms of the the the statutory processes that the slcc have to go through the minute to examine a complaint from a consumer so that there is a swifter consideration of their complaint which benefits the consumer and also a legal professional who has a complaint about them being raised um the bill also allows for the law society and the faculty to bypass the single gateway where that's appropriate so that currently they have to raise a complaint to the slcc if it's an issue that they have identified um the bill will will remove that step so that there's not that ping pong between the those bodies so that it will go straight to the law society investigate and and they can move more more swiftly in terms of investigating that that complaint the bill does seek to make the process for consumers easier to access and also widens up consumer protection in terms of the unregulated complaints as well so that there's greater protection to consumers thanks jay me that's helpful and i mean we heard that we heard from the consumer panel of the slcc that they've broadly welcomed the simplification processes and proposals in the bill that's that's all my questions on this but i do have one final sort of general question okay post that i'm going to bring in megan just now and then bring you back in thanks thank you and it is on um what maggie tatman's been raising about striking the right balance between the consumer and the legal profession we've heard a lot of striking the right balance this morning um but no real explanation as to how that's measured and i think that's something that perhaps the minister needs to to explain to to committee but also to the public but i'm wondering and it does go back to to my question of understanding if the minister can summarise the reforms that this bill brings that's easy for the public to understand because i'm not sure what the discussions that we've had this morning that were in that spaceship sure i just i think it might be easy just to point the committee to the evidence that's been heard across the board welcoming changes to the my bill to make the complaint system easier we had the slcc's chief executive neil stevensson said the bill takes tremendous steps towards to reduce the complexity and give the commission extra discretion to deal with particular situations which should benefit consumers and practitioners and we had rosemary agnu of the spso said the bill approaches a quality assurance and continuous improvement is not just that best practice but enables a development of that best practice and rachel woods of the law society welcome the changes that the bill brings in with regard to making the system faster and more streamlined and less complex um for the consumer and she also welcomed the ability for the law society raise and begin investigating a complaint directly with the introduction of the hybrid complaints which will speed things up and make it look less expensive for the consumer as well but going back to striking the right balance how was that measured of course certainly i was the bill has been framed in response to the consultation analysis in terms of views of stakeholders and it was felt important that the professional bodies have that role in investigating complaints because as they set the rules for how their members that complaints can feed back into that the bill seeks to provide for a greater focus on quality improvement and continuous improvement and increases the the the the ability for the commission to to set standards based on trends and complaints and best practice the bill also expands the remit of the consumer panel so that it can make recommendations not just about the complaints process as it just now but about the whole framework of legal regulation and it makes the consumer panel a statutory consultee at various stages in the bill as well in terms of the setting of rules so the bill does very much seek to insert the consumer voice into the the the the the the framework thank you computer thank you thank you please thank you and my my last question um we we've heard we've heard from different witnesses over the course of our evidence gathering that there's some some reforms in the bill are long long long overdue and and we often we often focus on on the areas of disagreement as we have done in the last couple of weeks but but just just a question i suppose because of because of the areas of high or very very clear and and quite um sort of high profile disagreement should i say minister could you say what what are your what's your assessment about the possibility that actually we don't get to the point where we can agree the the principles of this bill and who wins and who loses out of that given that some people have been waiting for 16 17 years for some of these reforms yes i think miss miss chairman for the for the question the committee has heard about the differing views as to who should be responsible pardon me for a regulation however there is broad support from statewide um stakeholders for the wide content of the bill the introduction of entity regulation reform of the complex complaint system the reduction in restrictions in respective alternative business structure and the ability for bodies such as Scottish women women's aid to directly employ legal professions to support their clients in court these are all really significant improvements on the status quo and if the bill was not supported i'm afraid i don't think there would be any winners there the question is not necessarily about an alternative bill as such but they'll but as a committee is aware there's no approach which is completely is going to completely satisfy all the groups here so i think the bill will provide a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities for all the stakeholders moving forward thanks thanks for that and you said early obviously that you know be at stage two where you'd present amendments to deal with some of those key issues of disagreement and it would be unprecedented i think to to have those amendments any in the earlier than that if they weren't part of the initial drafting and i suppose these there's just a general question which is maybe a little bit cheeky and unfair but um i if you had if you had known um then what you know now and you were designing this bill from scratch would you have done things a little bit differently well this bill has a huge long history before i came in in in april so i and i think um there's been a lot of work from officials ongoing throughout the many years of this bill so i think it has evolved and i think we just have to continue to listen we know it's polarized in some areas and that's why i'm very keen to listen to usable stakeholders my official i will work collaboratively with all the stakeholders and the legal profession and i know it's not ideal not having the devil in the detail of the amendments going into stage two but as you said it is unprecedented because they won't be drafted by the lawyers until all agreement is made with the legal professional law president's office and the stakeholders and i'm very keen to share all the information as we progress and we get agreement with the committee as soon as we're able to do so okay thank you thank you minister for answering that rather cheeky question there as well because i think we're all well aware that the the initial stages of this bill was not on your watch as it were so um thank you for taking the question regardless um i mean i think we all understand that reform is difficult for any organisation and as i was sitting here i was thinking imagine if there was a bill came forward to reform the scotish parliament only after a couple of decades in history and the upro that that would probably cause amongst members let alone anyone else um so i think i understand that change is difficult reform is difficult especially when we're applying it to a you know a highly highly regarded uh legal profession that is there for hundreds and hundreds of years so we do understand and i am grateful for the fact that the minister is taking the time today um and written to us and i will take her up on her offer to communicate with us fully because we wish to make sure that we do our job correctly in making sure that the reforms going forward are robust and proportionate in the light of that i will also take you up on your offer in your opening remarks where you referred to your letter to me and there were sections in that annex which you said that you were able to go through and offer a little bit more information around which would be helpful for our scrutiny minister could you uh do that please yes thank you convener um so the sections which have been highlighted um with ministerial powers of first one is section five which allows the regulatory objectives and professional principles to be amended to update to reflect the regulatory best practice it was included to the bill in response to calls from stakeholders for a permissive and enabling framework of primary legislation that would be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the legal services market by allowing future amendments through secondary legislation the Scottish government will however accept the recommendation from the delegated powers and law reform committee that the bill that the bill be amended to remove section five and will bring forward an amendment to that effect in stage two the next section is section eight and the creation of a category system for regulators create an inherent requirement for flexibility to respond to any changes or propose changes to how a regulator operates or in its membership number or it's intended to future proof the regulatory framework the Scottish government does acknowledge that the dplr committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove section eight from the bill sections eight five bc and d are necessary to ensure that the bill accurately reflects any changes to the regulatory framework in respect of a new accredited regulators receiving approval any regulators ceasing to operate or a change in a regulator's name as recently evidence in the association of construction attorneys names change we will sorry interrupt you there i've actually that is sort of referring to the documentation that we have in front of us so just in the interest of time that letter has been published that is available to the public so it was just to give you the opportunity if there was anything further i could go into all the different sections in further detail but it is outlined in the letter to the committee okay that's fine i'm content with that i just wondered with regards to this section here as well that i believe that our deadline that we have for stage one consideration is the 23 of febury so i think the committee would be interested to know where do you think you will be uh regarding the amendments by the 23 of febury we're hoping to have the amendments agreed by the new year and that's for what i will share that with the committee we hope okay for agreement within the new year brilliant just checking just pushing that as far as i can to get that commitment and just finally just a yes or no answer would be absolutely fine um and it was to build on Maggie's point of absolute clarity about getting sight of amendments ahead of stage two that that actually is not uh that just doesn't happen that that is not possible it would be something pretty no because uh my understanding is lawyers will draft it at stage two but we will have agreement to the way forward through the different sections with stakeholders and the law president's office that will be able to provide detail to the committee about probably not the um the exact wording but where there's a great principles for the amendments well we'd be very grateful for an indication of the intent yes which i believe that you know we're entitled to have that um but that's great thank you very much minister that brings us to the end of our business uh this morning and i thank yourself and your officials for attending this morning um we will now move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda thank you