 The next item of business is a debate in motion 1-248, in the name of Siobhan Brown on regulation of legal services Scotland Bill at stage 1. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Siobhan Brown to speak to and to move the motion up to nine minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the general principles of the regulation of legal services Scotland Bill. I'd like to thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their careful and considered scrutiny of the Bill and for all of those that submitted views and gave evidence at stage 1. I very much welcome that the lead committee's stage 1 report in which the majority agreed with the general principles of the Bill. Presiding Officer, the current legislative framework underpinning the regulation of legal services and complaints handling is complex and it's dated. This Bill presents a modern regulatory framework designed to promote competition and innovation, while at the same time improving the transparency and public accountability of legal regulation and the legal complaints system and placing the public and consumer interests at its heart. It sets out the regulatory objectives which must be complied with, as legal regulators, the exercise of their functions, including consideration of the consumer principles, the better regulation principles, the human rights principles and it is a highly technical Bill which builds on existing legislation from 1980, 1990, 2007 and 2010. The Bill proposes a number of significant and positive changes to the legal services regulatory framework in Scotland and I'd like to take this opportunity to outline the many benefits that the Bill will bring. It will streamline the legal complaint system, which many stakeholders have called for, making the process faster and simpler for the consumers and legal practitioners who find themselves involved in it. This includes introducing a new ability to make complaints against unregulated legal service providers, which increases consumer protection. The new regulatory framework will introduce greater transparency and accountability of our legal service regulators to deliver a framework which maintains public trust and ensures that regulators are operating their regulatory functions independently of any other function. There will be a power for the first time to review a regulator's performance and ensure the compliance with their statutory duties and regulatory objectives. Regulators will require to submit annual reports on their performance as category 1 regulators. Just to be up front for the rest of the afternoon, I declare an interest as a practicing solicitor and I am regulated by the Law Society of Scotland. The Bill is drafted to introduce its new powers for Scottish ministers to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services. Clearly, the minister thought that such powers were needed within section 19. Can she give me an example of any time previously when the Government would have used those powers had they had them? I will come to that further in my speech if I may. Regulators will also be required to create a register of all its members, which is free and accessible to the public, enabling consumers to access useful information about legal service providers. 94% of respondents to our consultation on the Bill agreed that it was important that the regulatory framework enables access to justice, including choice and diversity. The Bill includes proposals to increase access to justice by removing restrictions on third sector organisations from directly employing solicitors to support their clients in court proceedings. Scottish Women's Aid has welcomed the measure, advising that it will assist in securing dedicated and innovative provision of domestic abuse, competent legal services for women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. To the Bill, we are introducing regulation of legal businesses, which will provide greater powers of oversight for regulators and provide additional protections and consistency for consumers. In addition, the Bill will ease ownership requirements for alternative business structures, allowing innovations such as community ownership of legal businesses, which will benefit the legal sector in terms of attracting investment and in succession planning. These measures are intended to support and promote sustainable legal services, which benefit citizens' principles, which 93% are respondents to our consultation supported. It also protects members of the public against wrongful use of the title of lawyer by those who seek to deceive consumers and imply that they are fully regulated with the protection that that affords. The Bill expands the remit of the statutory consumer panel, giving it a role in undertaking research to provide quality evidence-based advice to the sector in order to ensure that decisions are shaped around the needs of the different consumers of legal services. I acknowledge that the Bill has attracted differing views from stakeholders, as did the consultation ahead of the Bill. It was with those differing views that we have had to strike a balance as we aim to modernise the regulatory system. John Swinney I am grateful to the minister for giving way, and I understand the different and competing views that are expressed about the Government's proposals. Can I convey to the minister a word of advice from somebody who has been around this Parliament a long time? Every time there is an attempt to reform regulation of the legal profession, it is vigorously resisted by the legal profession, and the minister should retain her resolve in taking forward the steps that she is taking forward. I thank the member for his intervention. Following the introduction of the Bill and having carefully considered the responses to the committee's calls for views, I acknowledge the concerns that were raised in respect to the role that was placed on the Scottish ministers and have committed to addressing them at stage 2. Those provisions are only one part of the Bill and are based on existing legislation. Nonetheless, I sought to address those concerns, and my officials have been working closely and collaboratively with stakeholders, and in particular the Lord President's Office and the Law Society of Scotland. The Bill itself was linked to the Ester Roberton report, but it appears that the Government has not accepted the recommendations of that report. It does not look as though the bill has united anybody, whether that be the consumers or the legal profession. Can I ask the minister how she feels that the bill can progress to stage 2 when we are not even completed or in a position at stage 1? Yes. As I have said previously, there were polarised views from—this is going back to 2015—and from the consultation that the Scottish Government did do. You will note from the briefings that were all sent to MSPs in the past few days regarding this stage 1, we have got the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Citizen Advice Scotland, Consumer Scotland, CMA and the Law Society of Scotland, and they all welcome stage 1 and urge the Parliament to agree the general principles of the bill. I think that there is a collaborative agreement in aspects of the bill moving forward. Following the introduction of the bill and having carefully considered the responses to the committee's views—apologies, as I have said that paragraph—these provisions are only one part of the bill and are based on existing legislation. Nonetheless, I sought to address those concerns and my officials have been working closely and collaboratively with stakeholders, including the Lord President's Office and the Law Society of Scotland. Presiding Officer, the bill has received much support during stage 1, and I would like to note some of those for the chamber today. Consumer Scotland welcomed that the bill will require legal regulators to exercise their regulatory functions in a manner compatible with consumer principles. I was also pleased to read the Law Society's comments to the Equalities Committee, which stated, and I quote, that the bill contains many important reforms. The committee has also heard broad support for proposals in the bill, which reformed the legal complaint system and rose very agnw from the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, so that the measures in the bill enable and I quote the development of best practice. Presiding Officer, as I said, in developing this bill, the Scottish Government sought to ensure that it strikes the right balance between the various interests of stakeholders. The committee's stage 1 report has recognised that and raised a number of important points, and I have addressed those in my response and will continue to update the committee after further consideration of the recommendations ahead of stage 2. This bill will provide a modern, forward-looking regulatory framework for Scotland with the best-promote competition, innovation and public consumer interest in the inefficient, effective and independent legal sector, what plays in the consumer public interest at heart. Presiding Officer, I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the regulation of legal services. I now call on Karen Adam to speak on behalf of the Equalities Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Before I begin, I thank Cokab Stewart for her time as convener and congratulate her on her new role. I want to thank all those who provided evidence to the committee. We are grateful for all the views that were expressed to us by representatives of consumer groups and the legal sector, including the senior judiciary. I also want to thank the clerks, spice and the wider team, who supported us through a stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and our report. Reform of the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland has long been called for. Although it is not perfect, the bill seeks to introduce a modern set of regulatory objectives and professional principles, incorporating key aspects of the better regulation principles and consumer principles. There was much discussion about the approach that is being taken to build on the existing regulatory framework, rather than introducing an independent regulator, as was proposed in the Roberton report. As we note in our report, there is a sense that the framework proposed does not satisfy consumer groups or the legal profession, but our role is to scrutinise the bill that is before us, so I will cover areas that are included in the bill. Anyone who has been closely following our scrutiny of the bill will be aware that concern has been expressed from the law society, faculty of advocates and from the senior judiciary, that some of the delegated powers proposed in the bill will have a significant detrimental impact on the independence of the judicial system. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee reported that it had found it challenging to meaningfully report on a number of delegated powers in the bill. Its report reflected much of what we heard in evidence. Although the minister indicated that the Scottish Government is engaging with the Lord President and others to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to address the concerns, when it came to considering the general principles, it was unclear how different the bill might look subject to those amendments. On balance, however, and in light of the reassurance offered by the minister, we were content by a majority to agree the general principles. We welcome the Scottish Government's prompt response to our stage 1 report. We note that response contains a summary of its position to the DPLR committee's recommendations. However, should the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill, we are likely to require an extended deadline at stage 2 to be confident that the amendments are sufficient to allay concerns expressed. I am very grateful. I am listening carefully to what has been said. The law society has also said that many of the powers that it had requested from these reforms had actually been left out. Does the committee know why those were left out in the initial drafting of the bill and whether they will be included at stage 2? There is a lot of detail in the bill. It is a very technical detailed bill. The committee did its job by scrutinising what was before us at that time, and it is not for us to say what will be presented at stage 2. Turning to other parts of the bill, there was a view across witnesses that the current complaints system is slow and overly complex. The bill seeks to simplify the complaints process, but the creation of two categories of regulators with different regimes may mean that a lot of complexity will remain. We recognise that it will be for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to establish its own rules as to how complaints are analysed, to determine whether they relate to conduct issues, service issues or both. That highlights the importance of annual reporting to help to understand whether or not the operational mechanisms are robust. The bill proposes renaming the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to the Scottish Legal Services Commission. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns expressed about how that might cause unnecessary confusion and has indicated that it will amend the bill at stage 2 to retain the SLCC's current name. We heard broad support for proposals to update the rules on alternative business structures, designed to increase the number of businesses and other bodies to operate as such, as well as to encourage innovation. There were some queries as to how the 10 per cent figure for ownership threshold was reached and the committee was not quite convinced by the rationale provided by the minister. The Government's indication that it will bring forward amendments to remove the ownership requirement and that it will liaise with the law society to develop a greater risk-based and proportionate system to the fitness test is therefore welcome. We heard conflicting views on the proposal to change the route of appeal in relation to service complaints from the court of session to an internal review committee of the SLCC. The law society and faculty of advocates considered that the right to appeal to court should be automatic, whereas the SLCC supported the introduction of an internal review committee. On balance, we are content that the proposed internal review committee process should provide a more proportionate approach and resolution that will benefit consumers and those who are subject of a complaint. The committee agreed that there is a perception that the term lawyer is interchangeable with the term solicitor. It is important that consumers are absolutely clear about what service they are being offered and by whom. We therefore support the proposal in the bill to regulate the term lawyer. NTT regulation to regulate legal businesses, as well as individual solicitors, received broad support. The committee welcomes the potential benefits that this will bring, both for regulators and consumers, as part of a modern regulatory framework. Concerns were raised by the law society about the special rule exemptions and we welcome the fact that the Government is engaging with the law society to address those concerns. That is a very technical bill with a lot of detail to be considered. We acknowledge that there are parts and sections of the bill that will need to be amended at stage 2. That could have a potential to leave us with a different bill after stage 2 and moving on to stage 3. However, there are many aspects that are welcome and that help us to move towards a more modern and accessible regulatory framework. That is why the majority of the committee agreed... I thank you very much for giving way, but does she recognise the commentary that part of the reason why we ended up where we are at the moment is previous attempts to change things resulting in effect in quite the muddle? Does she share my concern that, in effect, we could end up in the same position at the end of stage 3 as a multitude of amendments are placed? I think that working through the different stages of this bill and the committee taking it as the process goes through, I am quite confident in the committee's ability to work through that. There are many aspects that are welcome and that help us to move towards a more modern and accessible regulatory framework. That is why the majority of the committee agreed to the general principles. Should the Parliament agree to the general principles, we will scrutinise the amendments fully at stage 2 and may, if we consider it necessary, invite additional evidence before formally commencing stage 2 proceedings. My party has long supported changes to the regulation of legal services to improve the system. We believe that improvements are necessary for victims and or new people who can be let down by an often complex, difficult to understand and outdated system. We hope to see simple and effective legislation changes to tidy up the system, smooth and complaints process and modernised elements that need changing. However, unfortunately, the bill before us is not the answer. Before we get into the issues that we have with legislation, let me outline where we can agree. We support many of the changes proposed by the bill. We agree with the new rules to increase transparency. We are behind updating the rules on business structures and we support updating legislation and professional principles. We believe that it is right to create an offence to prevent people calling themselves lawyers to deceive the public. On all those points, we are behind the principle of what the Government is trying to achieve, although we still believe that some of those changes can be improved with reasonable amendments. However, we are disappointed by many of the elements of the bill. It doesn't provide many solutions. It leads to many problems untreated that have already been clearly identified and fails to overhaul the system for the public. The Government seems to have lost its way during the creation of the legislation. It ended up rejecting the central recommendation of the Roberton review at its self-commission. My colleague, Russell Finlay, will go into a bit more detail on his contribution. It left many parts of the legislation to the very last minute. It has provoked a lot of valid criticism from the judiciary and legal experts. The original steady gains for the bill have not been achieved. Firstly, the lack of progress on improvements to the complaints process is a huge missed opportunity. The bill is not ambitious enough at tackling the issues in the complaints process, which we should have been one of the top priorities in the legislation. The bill does not seem to make it much faster. It does not appear to make it much easier for ordinary people. It does not give much extra help or support to victims of crime and people who have been failed by the justice system. On that point, there seems to be concerns across the Parliament, including in the SNP. Michelle Thomson, MSP, recently asked in this chamber if the bill will meet the original objectives of the Roberton review regarding consumer complaints. She also made the point that there is a clear and fundamental conflict of interest in having consumer complaints processed by bodies that exist to protect the interests of the profession. Ministers have not yet done enough to address those concerns. Moving on to other issues that we have with the bill, we share the concerns of the Senators of the College of Justice, Lost Sight of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and International Bar Association about the proposed new powers for Scottish Government ministers. Those powers are ripe for political abuse, and they could be misused by politicians of any party and Government. The prospect of any Government having a lot of power to interfere in the judicial process is troubling, and that looks like a power grab that could have worrying consequences for free and fair justice in Scotland. The bill goes too far and risks the independence of the judiciary, which must be protected. The bill sought to strike a balance between retaining elements of the current system and overhauling it completely. The Government has not yet got that balance right. Instead of real progress, we have a bill that nobody really wants. It has barely been welcomed by anyone. In short, our objective to the bill is that it goes too far on powers for SNP ministers and not far enough on powers for the public. On powers for the SNP Government, it leaves too many grey areas where ministers could choose to intervene and it opens the door for political abuse. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Would the member recognise, and I think that I have written to the committee about this, that I have recognised the ministerial powers and I am engaging to remove them from the bill? I thank the minister for that intervention and I recognise that, but at the moment we have not seen them and we do not know if they are going to do the right thing to get the bill into the place that should be. On powers to victims and the public, my party believes that legislation falls short of what was anticipated regarding the complaints process. It does not achieve the Government's original ambitions and it barely changes the system for the better. It does not deliver faster and easier process for victims and the public. I am actually just coming to a conclusion here, sorry. For those reasons, we cannot get behind this bill at this stage. We hope that it can be improved by amendments at later stages, but the flaws are substantial and the missed opportunities are vast. It will take a lot to improve this bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be opening for Scottish Labour in this debate. I think that we would want to recognise the importance of the bill, the debate and the issues contained therein. I think that we have already, in the contribution so far, started to see the emerging issues that have been debated by the committee, and I think that will be a feature of this bill as it continues its progress. I think that I would want to try and start, if I can, from a position of whether there is some consensus. I do think that there are things within the bill that are to be welcomed and encouraged in terms of the improvement for legal services and the delivery of legal services in Scotland. I think that it is clear from all the evidence that was heard on the bill in committee that many feel that the complaint system, as it currently exists, is in need of reform and is not fit for purpose. There is work certainly to be done in that regard. I think that it is also clear that there is support for reforms around regulating legal businesses and providing more protections to safeguard consumers, indeed the public. To ensure that access to justice is easier for people and is done in the full knowledge that there will be a right of recourse where there are issues indeed. I think that, as we have heard already in the debate, there are clearly areas that need further development. Of course, I think that everyone would want to engage fully in this process to ensure that, at stage 2 and stage 3, we are looking in great detail about where changes can come to the bill to make it better. It is clear to me in saying all of that that there is work to be done at quite a fundamental level in this bill, specifically around the current drafting that grants significant power to ministers that could compromise the independence of the judiciary and the judicial system. I will certainly give way up. I thank him for giving way up. On that point, obviously, I am well aware of the stushi around that, but I am sure that I recall Esther Robertson herself saying that it would be relatively easy for a role to still be maintained for the Lord President and therefore forgoing that. Is that his recollection from all the evidence sessions? In other words, it is not impossible with goodwill on all sides. I think that we heard a variety—we did hear a variety of evidence on either side of that, and I do recognise what the member is saying. However, what was clear to me is the significant concerns that were raised by not just the judiciary but the fax of advocates and the law society and many other of those bodies within the legal profession. I do have a significant concern about the wider piece about the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that that is protected. That is what we heard quite clearly in our consideration of the evidence that was brought forward. It was part of the reason why I advocated that the committee did not take a position on stage 1 of the bill and did not recommend whether to support the bill or not, because I just do not think that we have had enough clarity in terms of what amendments might be brought by the Government in terms of that point. I did ask the Government, because I do not think that it has unheard of to bring amendments forward in draft form so that they can be considered in more detail. I thought that the point that the convener made about the requirement for further scrutiny is going to be important, because if the Government is to bring substantive amendments, it will change the core of the bill in this regard. There is going to have to be a level of scrutiny of those, and people will have to give evidence and their view on either side of that debate. I do think that it would have been helpful had we been able to—the Government has given a commitment in writing to the committee—has made that commitment when the minister came to give evidence. It is clear to me that we could have been further along if we had been able to discuss those amendments in draft form before we got to this stage 1 debate. I will take Liam Kerr. I am very grateful. I am really enjoying listening to the member's contribution and I think that he makes very important points. Did the minister give the committee any indication as to when those draft amendments might be proposed so that we can scrutinise them? I think that Mr Kerr's point is one that I think came up in the committee. I think that timescales were given that it would happen within the course of stage 2. I do not think that we had any further clarity at that point. I was concerned by that. The minister has said clearly that she will bring those amendments and that she is in dialogue with the Lord President on a variety—just in a moment—on the variety of issues, but for me it was just that lack of certainty. I do not doubt the minister's intent, but I would like to see what the detail of those are. I will give way to the minister on that point. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Does the member acknowledge that I have been advised that it would be inappropriate to share the amendments ahead of stage 2, but the member agrees that I have committed at stage 2. I will be sharing the amendments with the committee. I accept the minister in terms of what she is saying about she has made that commitment. I do not think that it is unheard of to have amendments shared ahead of a stage 2 process. Indeed, in consultations in this Parliament on pieces of legislation, there are draft clauses that have been shared ahead of the drafting of a bill. I think that it is possible to do that, and particularly in terms of trying to build the consensus that we would seek to have. I think that the Government has recognised the challenge in trying to bring people together on that, and that the bill has not commanded a huge degree of enthusiasm from all sides. There are significant challenges from the side of those who want to see stronger representation for consumers and those who want to ensure that we protect the profession and the independence of that as well. It remains my view, as it was in committee, that we need to ensure that we try to build as much consensus as we can and that there will have to be opportunities within the stage 2 process. If the bill passes stage 1 this afternoon, which I imagine it will, given the support that the Government has for it, we have to ensure that that process is robust, allows amendments to be brought forward, allows there to be sufficient evidence brought and given to committee on those to ensure that we can try to move forward with the best bill possible. I am very conscious of time, Presiding Officer, and I will have an opportunity to sum up, but I think that I will leave my remarks there. We look forward to the rest of this debate and to ensuring that those points and that assurance by the minister can be given once again in this chamber so that it is on the record. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. I now call on Liam McArthur on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their work. I welcome Karen Adam to her new role and congratulate her predecessor, Cocab Stewart, on her promotion to ministerial office. I think that the report itself is considered. It has not been an easy task, particularly where there are divisions within the committee. As a former member of the Justice Committee, who was on that committee at the time that the Robertan review was published, at that time I met representatives of the legal profession of consumer groups and, indeed, Esther Robertson herself. It comes as no surprise to me that views remain polarised, that any decision, any compromise was likely to prove unpopular on both sides. I would disagree, probably, with Megan Gallagher, that unity has not been achieved, because I think that it has in relation to the unpopularity of the inevitably needlessly and, I think, quite rightly expressed outrage across the board to the ministerial overreach. That issue has come to dominate a lot of consideration of a bill that has many other aspects to it, and I will come back to that issue shortly. It is worth reminding ourselves that reform is indeed long overdue. The current framework for legal services complaints is outdated, confusing and does not meet the needs of either the public or, indeed, the profession itself. For members of the public, the complexity makes it difficult for the public to engage. It creates doubt, suspicion and, as a result, I think that a reluctance often is to submit a complaint. For practitioners, I think that the delays also affect confidence, they can cause frustration. I think that there is even the potential for reputational risk, as well as the impact on other work that they may be undertaking. The case for reform, I think, is compelling, and the bill is therefore desperately needed. I think that it is true to say also that there are many welcome measures in this. Those have been recognised, I think, across the board. A more streamlined, flexible, less legalistic process is undoubtedly in the interests of everybody concerned. The checks and balances to protect consumers and promote transparency, again, are very welcome. More robust requirements around the use of the term lawyer, which, again, I think has probably come as surprise to many, but certainly needs addressed. On those areas, I think that still greater clarity and more detail will be needed, but they are at least in the bill. I think that Liam Kerr was right to point to concerns that have been raised by the law society and others about the absence of certain provisions that were expected to be in this bill. I think that that goes to the nub of the problem we are now seeing, that in its rush to introduce the legislation, I think that the Government have found themselves in a mess of their own making with a bill that really was not ready to be introduced. The burden now has fallen largely on the committee at stage 2, though the risk is there at stage 3, as I think that Michelle Thomson rightly said. It is not impossible to resolve, but it puts a lot of pressure on the committee and subsequently at stage 3. I do not hold the minister responsible for this. Clearly this is a bill that she has inherited, and I think that some of the undertakings that she has made to try and address those concerns are welcome, but that ministerial overreach, the unprecedented powers to regulate legal services, has alarm bells ringing. It is not often, despite what Mr Swinney suggested earlier, that you see the Lord Justice Clarke intervening in a debate to suggest that, in a sense, the rule of law is under attack. John Swinney? I take very seriously the point that Mr MacArthur makes and the comments that the Lord Justice Clarke has put on the record. Indeed, the Lord President has said, no, I am on to say something about this if the Presiding Officer calls me to speak in the debate. There also has to be a responsibility on the leaders of the judiciary and the legal system to accept that if there is public dissatisfaction about the system over which they are presiding, that they have got to themselves act to resolve some of those questions into the bargain. Mr Swinney, for that intervention, and I wouldn't disagree with it at all, I think that Michelle Thompson herself said that there needs to be goodwill on all sides in reaching a compromise, but we are not where we should be at the end of the stage 1 process. I think that that is fairly clear to see. I think that the lack of consultation on that specific proposal is all the more surprising given that this is a process that has been on-going for the best part of a decade. The commitment, as I say, from the Minister to bring forward amendments at stage 2 is very welcome. We haven't yet seen the detail that Paul Cain pointed out. I think that there is precedent here. I will remember the now First Minister undertaking to bring forward to the Justice Committee future amendments in relation to the hate crime bill around intent. It is not wholly unprecedented, but I think that Parliament is now engaged in a high-wire act. As things stand, Scottish Liberal Democrats could not support this bill at stage 3. We would vote against the bill at stage 3, and we will find it difficult to support the bill now. It will, though, as Paul Cain acknowledged, pass this evening. I would certainly commit to work with the Minister and others to ensure that this bill, this much-needed bill, provides the proportionate and effective protections and improvements that support both the public and those in the legal profession. We will now move to the open debate. I advise members that, at this point, there is some time in hand for intervention, should members so wish. On 2 May 1997, the day after my election, as the member of the United Kingdom Parliament for North Tayside, my campaign office took my first call from a constituent who sought an urgent meeting with me as his newly elected member of Parliament. My constituent had been working for some years with my predecessor, the Conservative MP Bill Walker, to resolve difficulties he had experienced with the legal profession. My involvement with that case lasted for more than a decade. During that time, I observed my constituent assiduously and tenaciously pursue his concerns with my active support, but in a way that literally consumed a huge part of my constituent's life. That case, and others like it with which I have dealt, led me to take an active part in the proceedings of the legal profession and legal aid Scotland Bill that passed in this Parliament in December 2006. That 2006 bill was designed to improve the system for regulating the legal profession and making it easier for complaints about poor conduct and service to be effectively handled. We now find ourselves 18 years later having to revisit those issues because significant concerns remain about the conduct of some elements of the legal profession and the lack of confidence that the current arrangements adequately protect the consumer interest. That is not where the historic comparisons end. In the 2006 bill proceedings, it was clear that the legal profession pushed back against some of the reforms, and that is exactly what Parliament faces in the consideration of the bill today. I believe that the Scottish Government is absolutely correct and absolutely justified to confront those issues and to bring forward reforms to the way that the system operates. Many strong words have been used to express opposition to the bill and we have heard some of them today. The most significant of those accusations is that the bill is a threat to the independence of the legal profession. I have no desire to see the independence of the judiciary or the legal profession compromised in any way, and I believe that the minister has given assurances that concerns of that type will be adequately addressed in the further stages of the bill. But concern over that point cannot be used as a reason for refusing to proceed with the reform agenda. I thank you very much for giving way, and I already note in this debate thus far, with the exception of Mr Swinney, that all the air time seems to have been given to complaints of the law society rather than recognising the real voice of the consumers. Would he agree? I couldn't agree more with my colleague Michelle Thomson because it's the voice of the consumer that I'm concerned about in all of this. It was the voice of the consumer that I was concerned about in 2006, when I saw some of the reforms and changes that would strengthen the process in 2006, which, unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. On that occasion, I may be more successful on this occasion to address those issues of the consumer interest that Michelle Thomson correctly puts to me. I will give way to Mr Carter. I thank Mr Swinney for reciprocating the intervention. I think that it's absolutely right that consumer interests need to be taken on board, but is there not a danger in not recognising the concerns of the legal profession that one puts undue weight on one side and actually reaching the compromised position that Michelle Thomson referred to earlier becomes more difficult as a result? In a sense, I'm going to burst into violent agreement with Mr MacArthur. Today it's not particularly new that Mr MacArthur and I agree on many things, but it is a sensitive balance. However, the point that I'm making in my speech, if I can perhaps cut to the chase, is that there are some of us in here who are not going to allow the consumer voice to be emasculated as it has been in the past. We're not going to allow that to happen. I'm not going to raise specific cases of poor conduct. A number have been well rehearsed in the public domain. We all know who they involve, but what is clear is that the current arrangements have not adequately addressed those cases. In their submission to the Scottish Government consultation, the centres of the College of Justice say that presently the legal profession is regulated by the Lord President. He is a regulator who is independent from Government and Parliament and independent from those whom he regulates. I accept that as the case, but what flows from that statement is that the Lord President has to understand and address the fact that a number of us deal with members of the public who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the arrangements over which he presides. The Government has brought forward a bill to address the concerns of the consumers of legal services, our constituents and those that we represent. Those reforms are unpopular with some parts of the legal profession. The Government has indicated that it will bring forward amendments after dialogue with the Lord President. Parliament is yet to see those amendments, although we have seen a letter from the Minister that sets out the territory in which it will be set out. That rather sums up the uncomfortable spot in which Parliament finds itself today. In trying to construct agreement with the Lord President about how to reform the regulation of the legal profession, whilst maintaining its independence, I encourage the Government to hold fast to the necessity of delivering measures that will effectively address genuine and legitimate concerns that previous reforms have failed to do. Many of us will be engaging in this debate to make sure that reforms that do exactly that are delivered. In my old life, members of the public would turn up at the front desk of my newspaper office and ask to speak with a journalist. You never knew what you would get. Sometimes it would be a front-page story. More often than not, it would be a poor soul in need of help. Many had experienced problems at the hands of lawyers, just as John Swinney described. Folders stuffed with carefully indexed documents desperate for help and nowhere left to turn. As a journalist, once you write about one particular subject, it generates much more of the same. I ended up investigating the antics of lawyers across Scotland. Some were utterly incompetent, some were completely criminal. Others managed to be both useless and crooked. To the broken clients, the impact was often life-changing. It usually came at a devastating financial cost. Attempts to negotiate Scotland's Byzantine and bewildering complaints process were daunting. To understand what I mean, this is page 8 of Esther Robertson's Fit for the Future report showing the regulatory system. This is a map of the Tokyo subway stations, which, frankly, is easier to follow. Simple injustices that should have resulted in a quick and easy fix became bogged down in a quagmire of endless process tainted by bad faith. Lawyers who committed fraud were not always treated in the same way as everyday criminals. Instead of putting the dock, they were subject to a glacially slow and painfully weak regulatory action controlled by their lawyer colleagues. Far too often, the crooked and useless got away with devastating people's lives. Put simply, there was no meaningful redress or it was too little, too late. Lawyers were protected by a system that should have protected the public. There is little more corrosive than suffering and injustice. It is even worse when that injustice is caused by the justice system. Victims felt hopeless and I felt helpless on their behalf. I became passionate and puzzled about this regulatory scandal. How could it be allowed to destroy lives and effectively get away with it? And also, why would the vast majority of decent and diligent lawyers tolerate the protection of rotten practitioners? Fundamental to this is the role played by the Law Society of Scotland. Their primary function is to represent the interests of their 13,000 Solicitor Members across Scotland and they are very good at it, but they have another role and that is to regulate the misconduct of their own members. That is a glaring conflict of interest, no matter how it is spun. Is there time? Having gone through all the evidence sessions, I was surprised that nobody in the committee asked the Law Society how much revenue and what that was as a percentage of the overall revenue was embedded in their role as regulators. Does the committee think that that might have been significant? It is an interesting point and one that will not be a member of the committee, I do not have an opportunity to explore, but thank you. The Robertine review, which was commissioned by none other than the Deputy Presiding Officer for the SNP Government, is a matter of fact, but I am here as the Presiding Officer in the chair, and that is my role here today. I do not say that that is any form of criticism or anything of that nature, just a matter of fact that you were the minister at the time responsible for ordering the review. Esther Robertson found the system to be not fit for purpose. She made 40 recommendations, with the main one of those being to create a single regulator for all providers of legal services in Scotland. That should be independent of both government and those that it regulates. That was more than five years ago, but the SNP Government rejected her key recommendation. Somehow, they have managed to make the situation even worse by seeking to exert inappropriate ministerial power over legal regulation. If I have time. The member acknowledged that ministers have had a role in legal regulation in Scotland since 1990. In 2007 and in 2010, Parliament placed further functions on Scottish ministers in respect of legal services regulation. Having said that, I understand the concerns that have been raised, I will be bringing forward amendments, but there have been ministerial powers previously. I appreciate that there have been historic ministerial powers, but what has been proposed goes well beyond that. I look forward to hearing what the suggested amendments will be. Esther Robertson's recent evidence to Parliament was absolutely scathing. She said, and I can quote here directly, that there is no compromise either, you believe in independent regulation as I do or you do not. She went on to say that the SNP's bill makes this process much more complex. How could it get any more complex than this? It seems to have been a massive waste of time, a missed opportunity and, frankly, a disservice to the people of Scotland. I now call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Kezia Clarton. I intend to speak in just one element of the bill, the process of complaints. Probably I am the only member here who has been through the entire process, taking over six years after submitting a complaint about a solicitor some years back. I have a dealings with all the bodies involved, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal. I regard myself as someone who is pretty resilient, yet I found the process to be extraordinarily complex, opaque, time-consuming, traumatic and lacking in justice. It takes no account of the impact on the complainant and is, frankly, biased in favour of the solicitor and the legal profession. At the outset, I asked about the process. Little further detail was given, but it was made clear as part of the response from which I quote, we normally take the solicitor's word at face value. I was told to gather evidence, but no advice was given us what was meant by evidence. I had recruited a KC, now a judge, yet his evidence on my behalf was given scant attention when compared to the solicitor about whom I had complained. The Law Society gave no consideration of the re-traumatisation that I suffered as a result of their process, despite my making them aware. My confidence in the committee to whom case decisions go for final sign-off was fatally compromised when a lay member told me, we don't have time to read all the case work. We simply sign off on what the investigator says. I don't intend to give more detail today, but I thank the minister for meeting me and Ash Reagan when she was previously in post. I will undertake to speak individually with any MSP, member of the Equalities Committee and indeed the minister again. I also extend that invitation to the Lord President. He is merely accountable but not responsible for what goes on under his watch. I feel sure that he would be shocked by the details that I can articulate. I am grateful to Michelle Thomson for giving me an interest in her point about the accountability of the Lord President. I believe that there has to be some degree of accountability here, but I am unclear as to what that accountability mechanism is. I wonder if Michelle Thomson can enlighten me about what that is in the current environment. I must admit that I am not entirely sure. We understand the meaning of the term accountability and how that is differentiated from responsibility, but I would ask the Lord President what active interest he takes in the multitude of situations that we have all had as MSPs and the situation that I am articulating here. It is not really about the process. It is about power and the lack of independence, giving undue power to the legal profession and far too little to our fellow citizens with genuine complaints. Like most people, I am not trained in the process of waiting evidence or being able to assess the bar for beyond reasonable doubt required for the SSDT or on the balance of probabilities for the SLCC. The lawyer about whom I made my complaints held many cards, not least of all because it wasn't the first time he'd been through it. The lawyers who assessed my complaints held all the rest of the cards. I thought a great deal about the original situation. The only way I could have protected myself from the original solicitor would have been to record every meeting, ask for everything in writing and to seek independent verification of any claim that they made or advice that they proffered. The only way I could have protected myself from the complaints process would have been not to bother and go straight to legal action, but I thought that I would do the right thing as somebody who holds her society dear and I thought that the legal profession would do the right thing. It's hardly a wringing endorsement of what I actually experience. That led me to recognise the need for independent regulation. If it's good enough for multiple other professions such as architects, dentists, doctors, teachers, why isn't it good enough for the legal profession? Other countries recognise its benefits. Why not Scotland? Why should our consumers be expected to settle for second best? I believe that the proposed legislation, despite recognising the efforts of the minister, and I know that we've discussed this, is inadequate. I agree with the comments of Professor Stephen Mason who notes, the Government has boxed itself into a corner. It said that we cannot have independent regulation and can no longer sustain self-regulation. We have to fudge something in whatever the mix is and I'm afraid that the fudge will not work. Given that the principles in the bill don't place our citizens at the heart of the complaints process, I urge the minister to be bold, but I should inform the chamber that, on today, for the reasons that I've set out, I shall abstain from the bill. I want to put on record and make a declaration that I am a former member of the Law Society of Scotland and indeed a former member of the Law Society of England and Wales and have worked as a solicitor in both jurisdictions in the past. However, I agree with much that has been said in this chamber and I believe that there is a widespread consensus in society that reform of legal services are required and that many who use legal services or indeed try to get legal help often have concerns about the quality of the service they receive, the transparency of the fearing process and the inability to complain in any meaningful way. Whilst, of course, most people who use legal services will no doubt be very pleased with the service they receive and, on many occasions, will feel that solicitors and, indeed, advocates offer excellent services at very reasonable cost or, indeed, on occasions pro bono, it's when things go wrong that we really have to focus today. Therefore, I have sympathy with some of the general principles of the bill and I do think that it's unfortunate that we still have ministerial powers on the face of the bill as we're having this discussion today, because I think that that has distorted the nature of the debate. In a briefing for MSPs, Citizens Advice Bureau Scotland, who provides advice on legal processes to thousands of people every year, gave detail of their YouGov public opinion poll that they commissioned in late 2022 that found that two thirds of those who responded would prefer an independent regulator to oversee the legal profession, compared with one in eight who support the status quo, and 74 per cent of the respondents to that survey felt that having an independent regulator would increase public confidence. As I say, I think that there's widespread support for some of the general principles in this bill and I hope that once the amendments come forward we're perhaps able to really focus on some of those challenges. Because, as outlined in the committee report, there are some very strongly held views in relation to whether the decision to adopt the principle recommendations of the review for independent regulation was the correct one, and as I say, I would have hoped that that would have been the focus today. I think that it's also significant that the committee report noted the broad and significant opposition to the initial proposals to give powers to Scottish ministers in certain parts of the bill. I believe that the bill is potentially a great opportunity to strengthen consumer rights, but, as it stands, I don't believe that that can be the focus, unfortunately. The current complaints process clearly needs urgent and drastic reform, and I believe that the provisions of the bill simply do not go far enough. Scottish Labour shares the concerns being expressed by the Law Society of Scotland and others about the new powers that can be taken in the bill to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services. We agree with Esther Robertson, who led the independent review into the reform of regulation of legal services in Scotland, that Government involvement is not in the interests of the Government itself, the legal profession or, most important, the public. We believe that the independence of the legal profession from the state lies at the heart of the rule of law and, indeed, in public trust. I was very interested that the minister is bringing forward amendments. I am not a member of the committee that scrutinised the bill, and therefore I am not clear how substantive those amendments will be. The sections, which seem to present a great deal of concern, sections 19, 20, schedule 2, section 41 and section 49, give extensive powers to ministers. In summing up, I hope that the Scottish Government is able to give a clearer position as to whether it would be proceeding with those powers when we get to the next stages of the bill. Reform in this area is overdue, as others have said. Proposals to change the current regulation of legal services began nearly a decade ago when the Law Society of Scotland's case for change paper was submitted in 2015. What followed was an independent review of the regulation of legal services in Scotland, which gave 40 recommendations that sought to modernise the current regulatory framework to ensure a proportionate approach to supporting growth and competitive provision in the legal services sector, all while placing consumer interests at its heart. Following that, a public consultation in the recommendations was launched, and I want to thank all those who engaged and responded to that public consultation. Those were invaluable contributions in shaping the early stages of the bill, which will seek to implement a number of the recommendations from the independent reviewer. As a member of the committee, I also want to thank all stakeholders who have given evidence to the committee at stage 1. Consumer Scotland, in particular, was right to point out that those in need of legal services often use them while dealing with challenging and potentially traumatic experiences, and we have heard a wee bit of that in the chamber today. That can understandably cause stress and confusion for those engaging with the system. The stress and confusion can be compounded by the difficulty in understanding legal terms, jargon and laws, which can be extremely daunting for anyone out with the sector. Never mind those who have experienced some grim personal circumstances. Consumer Scotland also noted that 48 per cent of adults in Scotland have experienced events in the past two years that indicated that they may have need for legal support. That statistic alone underlines the necessity for a modernised and accessible regulatory framework regarding legal services in Scotland. A law, of course, will be further discussions to come. Citizens of the Vice Scotland articulated well the current problems when they acknowledged that the current system is too rigid and unsuitable for supporting and engendering a thriving and dynamic legal services landscape, as well as being too complex and difficult often for the public to understand. I must also note that stakeholders such as the centres of the College of Justice, faculties of advocates, Law Society and Law Society of Scotland gave evidence to the committee suggesting that the current model of regulation was already effective and independent. During our committee sessions, we stressed the importance of resolving any concerns as efficiently as possible, as any delays could risk undermining the independence and efficacy of Scotland's legal system. On that, I welcomed the assurances from the Scottish Government that, although perhaps a bit unorthodox, it will introduce amendments at stage 2, which will ensure that those issues can be addressed and that those reforms will not be delayed. I am signalling also that, due to the large body of evidence that we have heard and the assurances and commitment from the Scottish Government to fairly address any concerns, as well as the undeniable need for reform, I believe that the broad provisions of the bill have strong benefits that we in the committee have scrutinised. The majority of the committee voted to give support for those general principles in respect of the improvements that would be made to legal regulation in Scotland, but, of course, as we have heard today, that was not without some great difficulty. Some of those areas were the polarization of views on the independent regulator with some strong views from those against it. The concerns, as has already been talked about, are about initial proposals on the ministerial powers and the fact that the minister has committed to coming forward or coming back at stage 2 with amendments, which is not a usual approach, and we did take that into account in our committee report. And the fear that the bill perhaps tries to strike a balance that, in the end, pleases know when this was a common theme in our committee evidence sessions. Perhaps even the contributions of colleagues across the chamber today demonstrate that, with some contributors, I think, Annie Wells, saying that the proposals went too far and others, Katie Clark, saying that they did not go far enough, I think that that would give a wee indication to members who were perhaps not on the committee of what we were faced with on a fairly regular basis on committee sessions with, really, the proposals in the bill not pleasing anybody. The member is about to conclude, hopefully, thank you. Okay, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I would urge the chamber to vote for the general principles of the bill. There's much work to be done at stage 2 to get it into a place that we wanted to be. I know that the ministers committed to that, and I hope that we can pass this today and allow us to move forward. Thank you. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Stuart McMillan, Ms Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This bill has been a long time coming. For over a decade, consumer groups and members of the legal profession have, in various forms, called for reviews, updates or changes to the regulation of legal services, the associated complaint systems and the mechanisms for ensuring consumers, our citizens get the kinds of services and support they need. I am pleased to be able to support the principles of this bill today. That's not to say I'm content with everything as it stands, far from it, but this bill matters for our citizens today. I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those who contributed to the committee's work over the last six months on this important legislation. The detailed evidence that we received and the caring commitment witnesses have shown to what are some pretty technical aspects are very much appreciated. I am grateful too to Esther Robertson for laying the groundwork for this bill and, of course, to my committee colleagues and our clerks and spice team for guiding us through stage 1. Because there are things in this bill that are very much needed to make things better and fairer for the citizens that we represent. Indeed, Consumer Scotland told us that reform of the current system is necessary and long overdue. When people engage with the legal services, as Fulton McGregor outlined, they are often going through stressful or difficult situations. They might be vulnerable, experiencing personal tragedy or trauma or have specific issues relating to illness or disability that require care and compassion. Having to deal with technical, legal language and formal structures can exacerbate the stresses and anxieties they have. It is only right then that these citizens have confidence in the legal system they need at times of stress and difficulty. There clearly needs to be strong checks and balances in place and the system must be transparent, accountable, easy to understand and subject to appropriate oversight. I look forward to discussions during forthcoming stages to ensure that this legislation gets all of this right. I warmly welcome specifically the proposal that regulatory bodies must take into account consumer principles. We know that principles linked to public interest, access to justice, quality and innovation are understood and widely accepted. The need for effective communication across the system is also clear, but the explicit inclusion of the principles of access, choice, equality, safety, representation, fairness, information and redress will deliver tangible benefits and tangible improvements in consumer outcomes. We must ensure that there is appropriate monitoring and evaluation to provide evidence of those improvements. I welcome the widening of the consumer panels' remit. We all share the responsibility for ensuring that the panel has the resources that it needs to do its job well. Providing clarity for consumers on what they will get when engaging a lawyer is also very welcome. Others have already highlighted the complexity of the current complaints system, and I do not have time to go into all of that just now, but we must work on further simplification in the coming stages. Finally, much has been discussed this afternoon and elsewhere about the role for ministerial powers and the concerns around genuine independence of the judiciary. I look forward to working with colleagues in subsequent stages on the amendments that the minister has promised, and I remain keen to ensure that we achieve effective and appropriate oversight of the overseer, as committee colleagues will know. I am heartened by Marcia Scott's recognition that this bill is, and I quote, an opportunity to pivot the system away from the imbalances of power and privilege that are inimicable to human rights for women and children. There is much for us to do at stage 2, including addressing some of the things that are not currently included in the bill. I look forward to working with our new committee convener and others on this important work over the coming months. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. I am speaking today not as the chair of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, but certainly as a backbench MSP. I am delighted to be speaking in the debate, and I want to thank colleagues from the Coalition for Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their helpful report. The Scottish Women's Aid briefing that we all received I thought was tremendously helpful in this particular regard. I want to read out two of the bill at points that they highlighted. The first one is that the current process that fails to recognise the barriers that vulnerable people face when engaging the systems where there is a power imbalance. That is very specifically in relation to women experiencing domestic abuse who are reluctant to complain in the first instance. The second point is that the professional body's role in complaining handling carried out in tandem with the role of representative bodies for the respective professions has not instilled confidence in consumers around the independence of the process. Those two particular points, particularly that the second one, are part of the backdrop to my considerations on this bill. That is with regard to the situation with McClure's solicitors and their collapse in 2021. As the chamber will know, I have highlighted that in the chamber before. As I have known members' debate on this issue next Tuesday, I will be focused on my comments today because I will say more than Tuesday. Ultimately, I have never had a single issue that has taken up so much of my time and the time of my staff. Over 300 constituents have been in contact with many others from across Scotland and also in England. They have been in touch with my office. My staff have obviously referred them to contact their own MSP or MP. The two public meetings that are hosted have had over 260 people in attendance. I want to put in record my thanks to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the SLCC, for supporting both of those events and for having the direct engagements with my constituents. Under the current legal framework that we have, what the SLCC can do is limited. That was clear by some of the answers that Neil Stevenson, the chief executive officer of the SLCC, had to provide. However, the current bill that we are discussing is an opportunity to improve that process. Currently, the SLCC can only be responsive and not proactive. It is also limited in taking on group issues. I appreciate that. It would always be curiously complicated if every case is different. However, there will undoubtedly be some common issues that, if taken as a group complaint, they could deal with more complaints in a shorter time frame. The comments on the SLCC briefing highlighted why the bill is needed and why it is hugely important. They say that the proposals in the bill to reform the complaint system seek to reduce complexity and prescription and to increase flexibility. That will help to drive efficiency and proportionality as far as possible in the current model. They also say later in their briefing that we believe that the bill will create a complaint system closer to the public, the profession and the parlance expectations of an appropriate system for delivering consumer redress and administrative justice. I welcome those comments. I hope that they are considered by colleagues from across the chamber today. However, if someone needs to put a complaint to the SLCC, that indicates to me that there may have been a problem with the legal process beforehand. It is something that Mr Swinney touched upon earlier and also Michelle Thompson. It is right to consider the overarching question of legal regulation in the whole system. I know from my constituents that there is a great deal of frustration and anger with the Law Society of Scotland because of the events that have articulated earlier. The question of industry regulation certainly has not convinced many people irrespective of what happens in this bill, and I know that there will be considerable interest and proposed changes in amendments to the bill at a certain stage. However, I welcome the comments from the Law Society of Scotland when they described the bill as an important opportunity to introduce major and long overdue regulatory changes in the public interest for the benefit of consumers and those working within the sector. The minister is aware that I have called for an inquiry into the events that happened at McLeod solicitors. I do not believe that an inquiry now would be of any assistance at all, but, in fact, it would only delay and hinder people getting the legal paperwork amended. With the two public meetings that I have hosted and the discussions that I have had with constituents and lawyers, there is a unanimous view of my position. The reason why a future inquiry will be important is clear. Whatever legislation we hopefully passed during this bill's process, I am under absolutely no illusion that an independent inquiry will no doubt make suggestions for further regulatory changes. I hope that we can all agree across the chamber that we want the legal profession and the complaints process to be at the highest quality and that consumer protection is at its heart. The bill in front of us makes progress in that journey, but I am under no illusion that it will not be the end of the journey. However, I will be supporting the bill at stage 1, and I certainly look forward to making it through the partnership process. Several decades ago, I was a member of the Lost Society of Scotland. In fact, my late father was a fiscal to a disciplinary tribunal for many years. It is interesting to hear the different comments already in the chamber. I also want to thank all the different organisations that have given submissions over the last number of days. I want to focus my brief remarks as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I am grateful for the evidence that the minister gave to us, along with others who gave written and oral evidence. I think that there is no doubt that we all agree that there needs to be change within what is happening at the moment. It is not quite sure whether the change that we are making is actually going to make things any better. One of the criticisms—this is not to the minister because it was before she was in position—was that, perhaps, there was a lack of consultation with some of the key stakeholders before the bill was fully published and brought before Parliament. Certainly, the evidence that we took as a committee was that perhaps some of the pitfalls that we are facing now could have been avoided if the Government had engaged more constructively with the Lost Society, with the Faculty of Advocates and with the judiciary. However, we have ended up in an interesting place that we now have senior judges, we have advocates, we have lawyers and we actually have consumer groups, all of them critical of this bill. It is interesting that Esther Robinson, in her evidence to the Delegated Powers Committee, felt very let down that the Government had not listened to what her work had been done. And she felt at warge a missed opportunity. In regard to the more controversial areas, the minister will be aware that many of those are within the Delegated Powers that will obviously come after if this bill is passed. I am grateful that the minister wrote on three occasions to the lead committee at least to acknowledge that there were problems and that she and the Government were going to address them. However, we still have not seen what those amendments will be and we do not know the detail of how they will work. I am interested in her comment that the lead committee may take evidence on some of the amendments before we decide to vote on them. My concern is that the Delegated Powers Committee will not have the opportunity to take evidence on the amendments that the minister is running forward. Perhaps she could give some thought to, along with those who are above my pay grade, or whether the Delegated Powers Committee should have an opportunity to take evidence on the amendments once they have been laid so that some of the concerns that the whole committee held could be addressed before the lead committee get goals to vote on them. It is important that I hear what Mr Swinney and others have said in regard to the judiciary, but it is important that the Lord President and the whole judiciary are independent. We have to work together. I absolutely accept what Mr Swinney has said and others have said, but it is important that whatever we do here today is that we do not—we future prove it—not for this Government, but for future Governments, that no Government can overreach into the judiciary. I am grateful to Mr Balfour for giving way. I very much associate myself with how Mr Balfour is putting forward this particular point. We must maintain the independence of the legal profession, but there must also be a strengthening of the consumer interest. That is the objective that Mr Balfour and I are perhaps sharing in this point in the debate. Absolutely. I think that we, for once, do agree, Mr Swinney, on this. My slight concern is that we are not doing either. We may be reaching and taking power away from the judiciary, and at the same time not strengthening the consumer rights behind that. That is why we need to see what amendments come forward from the Government at stage 2. That is why I do think that, and I appreciate that it does not happen often that the delegated powers should take further evidence once the amendments are laid. I would have preferred the bill for the Government to have stopped, to go away and brought forward a bill that would have far more support not only in this chamber but from the people outside. That is not the case. If it is passed today, I do hope that scrutiny by both the lead committee and by other committees will continue so that we can get this right for every consumer in Scotland. Thank you, Mr Balfour. Before we move to closing speeches, I would advise members that we have in fact used up all the time in hand. Therefore, I would ask those closing to please keep to their agreed allocated speaking time, and any intervention should therefore be absorbed. With that, I call Paul O'Keein for up to five minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do think that this afternoon has been a constructive debate on the interaction with members and on interventions. I think that that has been helpful. I want to reflect in concluding on three points, which are why we are where we are, how we got here and where we are going to go next. I think that we have heard quite eloquently from a number of members today about the importance of access to justice, access to a complaint system that works and access to a robust system when someone has been wronged, essentially, at the hands of a solicitor or a lawyer. I think that we have heard very eloquently from John Swinney and from Stuart McMillan on what is going on with McLeures, which I think is known to many of us. To many others, Russell Finlay included about the challenges that people face when they are in this situation, where it has taken a huge impact on their life, that they have been given bad advice, that they have been given wrong advice, and that they feel that they have no recourse within the process. The process is too slow or does not act to hear all of what they have to say and what they have to feel. Indeed, I thought that Michelle Thompson's explanation of some of that and her own experience was helpful. Actually, in committee, I was keen that the contribution that Michelle Thompson had made in parliamentary questions was recorded within the report, because I think that it is important that we capture that as well. I think that many members reflected on how we have ended up here with this current bill. I thought that Liam McArthur's outlining of the minister has inherited this bill in many ways, and that it has come out of a degree of different processes of trying to consult upon the principle of reform that has never really managed to get to the point where there has been a wider consensus. Indeed, I think that many of those concerns were raised around how do we ensure that we balance the need for an independent judiciary with the need to have better reform of the legal services sector. I thought that Katie Clark's contribution laid out some of the thinking, certainly on this side of the chamber, in terms of how we might be able to look at the bill that we have before us, acknowledge that, as I say, how we got here, but also find a way through in amending the bill to try and make it better. Again, across the chamber, we heard a number of views about what I certainly agree with John Swinney. I am grateful to Mr Cain for giving way, Presiding Officer. I welcome very much the comment that Mr Cain has made about notwithstanding how people vote at 5 o'clock, but that there is a willingness to engage. The debate this afternoon, as he has acknowledged, has helpfully aired where I think members of Parliament wish to get to. Nobody wants to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the legal system, but we need to strengthen the position of the consumer interest. I look forward to engaging with Mr Cain on that point. Mr Swinney has very helpfully given that we do not have much time in hand that has moved me, I think, to my final point, which is where do we go next and how do we create that consensus that I think we all want to see. For me and for this side of the chamber, it is about those amendments in terms of the ministerial powers, ensuring that we see detail of those amendments, ensuring that we have time as a committee to scrutinise those, ensuring that we as a chamber can scrutinise those. I think that it is also about looking at all of the other aspects that have been raised in this debate, where there might be further amendment to support the many good contributions from organisations such as Citizens Advice, like Women's Aid, those who have a view in that space and also, of course, the Law Society has other amendments that they would wish to see as well. So, while today we will abstain on the general principles of the bill, it is with that view to trying to make the bill better at stage 2, so that it is in a position by stage 3 where we can all support it. I think that I would be really keen to hear an undertaking from the Government in that regard when it comes to its summation. Every party in this chamber believes that we need to reform our legal services. Access to those services must be simplified, but for this bill to be good law, we need to ensure that all stakeholders are on board with the proposed changes. Rape crisis Scotland has condemned the current legal complaints system, as has Members in the chamber today. Just to provide reassurance, there are no disagreements on that position. As a serving member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I feel like we have been through the mill with this bill. During the scrutiny process, we had an unprecedented intervention from two of the most senior legal figures in Scotland. Then there was the backlash from those in the legal profession who are still concerned about the Scottish Government's handling of the bill, especially in relation to the additional powers that could, as the bill stands today, be given to Scottish Government ministers that could threaten the independence of our legal sector. John Swinney I am grateful to Megan Gallaf for a good way. I want to take her back in her speech to a comment that she made a little while ago, which was that we need to get to a position where everybody agrees on this. I wonder if she would accept—in a sense of hypothetical question—that sometimes it is difficult to get all stakeholders to agree on something. Does she see that as a necessity that everybody has got to agree about everything, or do we need to apply some of the judgments that Mr Finlay, for example, or Mr Balfour have put on the record today about the importance of ensuring that we address the consumer interests while taking account of legitimate issues that are at stake but that we might not get universal agreement? Megan Gallaf The bill had so much potential to bring everybody together, but what we heard and certainly what I heard from the evidence sessions is that it has not brought everybody together. Everyone seems to have something wrong with the bill, and that is why I have made the points that I have made today, because this was an opportunity, and in my view, unfortunately, it is a huge missed opportunity for this Scottish Government. If I could make some more progress because I know time is tight, the bill in its current draft repeatedly seeks to draw the Lord President into the administrative collaboration with Scottish members. The fact that it was drafted in the bill to begin with shows that somewhere someone misunderstands the concept of the separation of powers and the respective roles and spheres of the executive and the judiciary. We heard from Esther Robertson, who founded the review on this. The bill was structured only to be told that her central recommendations of the introduction of a single regulator had not been included in the bill. The questions that I still have are what was the point of the review and what was all of that hard work for, because Esther Robertson was essential into the reform of legal services in Scotland. The committee was informed that the Scottish Government would bring amendments in at stage 2, but the committee has not seen those amendments and we do not yet have an exact timescale. As far as I am aware, unless the minister can update us today, the Lord President has not seen those amendments in full either. We are in the dark here in terms of what the bill will look like moving forward and we will not know more until we hit stage 2. It has been said many times today that the minister has inherited the bill, but this bill has not united consumers or the legal profession. It has managed to disappoint both sides. That was raised by Jeremy Balfour during his contribution. I do not buy the argument, minister, that it would be inappropriate for amendments to be shared. I think that exceptions could be made and it could have provided that reassurance to those who are scrutinising the bill and those who the bill will directly impact. I think that it is fair to say that this bill has created a division instead of trying to bring all stakeholders together to create good, solid legislation. The minister in her opening speech outlined that she moves that this Parliament accepts the principles of the bill at stage 1, but the question that I have for the minister is this. How can she ask the Parliament to support a bill when we do not know how far the bill is going to be amended and whether the amendments will address all of the issues raised by the stakeholders during our evidence sessions? I raised this time and time again during the committee sessions. I asked questions about having to re-scrutinise this bill, about going over previous homework, because the Government has not managed to get its act together when bringing the bill forward at stage 1. If I can take this opportunity to congratulate Karen Adam again on her appointment as convener, I must say that I am listening to those that we are having to revisit some of those scrutiny evidence sessions again, because, as Jeremy Balford pointed out, the Delegated Powers Committee does not look as though it will be afforded the same opportunities that we will be within the Equalities Committee, and I do not think that that makes for good overall scrutiny. I am not prepared to vote for a bill that stands as open to political abuse. Ms Gallacher must begin to conclude. Presiding Officer, there is a lot that I would like to say, but time is moving on. The complaint system, if I may finish on that point, is costly and complex. It is outdated and needs to be simplified. However, it does not mean that we need to vote for a bill on a whim on the hope that the Scottish Government gets its act together and gets it right at stage 2, because that will not help consumers who need a simplified process and a protection when making a complaint, and it will not bring the legal sector on board to make sure that this legislation works and works well. I call on the minister to wind up up to seven minutes, please. I would like to draw this debate to a close by thanking all the members for their views today. Of course, I will consider carefully everything that has been said today in this debate. I would also like to thank the committee, who have considered the bill, and all those who provided and gave evidence at stage 1 for their careful consideration and views. It is fair to say today that there has been a wide-ranging debate, and the different views and opinions among members have been very well expressed. Esther Robertson said in her report that professional bodies providing both regulatory and representative functions can lead to the perception that the two roles are in conflict. It is this perception that risks compromising public trust. Legal regulators view that there is no genuinely true conflict of interest nor any risk to the perception of one once they properly understand the regulatory process. However, perception has a powerful influence over opinion, and the approach outlined in this bill will do much to deliver the priorities of maintaining the independence of the legal profession and strengthening the regulatory duty to work in the public interest. I want to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance between the various interests. It is to everyone's benefit if greater trust can be developed in the integrity of regulatory framework for those providing legal services. This bill seeks to address concerns from consumer groups that legal regulation does not offer sufficient accountability in protecting the public and consumer interests by improving the transparency and accountability of legal service regulations in Scotland. If I may, Presiding Officer, I have a few things to go through, just on reflections of today's debate so far. I know that a few members have commented on and to reflect on how we have got here today, and I know that many members—there is a history here of nearly 10 years and many of the members were not here for the whole entirety of that time and are quite new to the Parliament, so I think that it is important just to give a bit of context and history to where we currently are. Back in 2015, there were calls for reform from stakeholders, and indeed the Law Society of Scotland set out reform proposals, as did the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The Scottish Government then established an independent review to develop views on potential reforms by the independent panel by Esther Robertson. The Fit for Future report of the independent review for legal services regulation in Scotland was published in October 2018, and the Robertson report made 40 recommendations with a primary recommendation that there should be an independent single regulator for all providers of the legal services in Scotland. In 2019, the Scottish Government response to the report that was published in June and the analysis of the Robertson report established that, while there were many recommendations that were widely supported, the primary recommendation of an independent regulator had very polarized views from the legal and the consumer landscape. As a result, the Scottish Government made a commitment to issue a public consultation based on the recommendations made by the Robertson report with the intention of seeking to build consensus on the way forward for this much-needed reform. At the time, the Scottish Government worked collaboratively with stakeholders from the legal and consumer perspective to design the consultation. In seeking to build agreement around the proposals for reform, the consultation contained two alternative viable models of regulation in addition to the Robertson report primary recommendation. The analysis of the consultation showed that views were evenly split between the support and opposition of the independent regulator, however many of the areas there was broad agreement. The analysis highlighted that all respondents, regardless of affiliation, shared a common aspiration that the need for any future model to be transparent, open to public scrutiny and efficient to ensure that justice remains accessible to all. This bill will allow a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of the stakeholders and the much-needed reform. I appreciate Jeremy Balfour's comments about the engagement prior to the bill being published. I just want to assure the member that I am very keen to engage moving forward with all members and stakeholders. I do take up the comment and am happy to look into the possibility of the DPLR committee being involved in an evidence session when the stage 2 amendments come forward. Regarding the complexity of the Scottish legal complaints system, it is important that we highlight what the Scottish legal complaints commission has said in the briefing that they sent to all members. This bill is very welcome and a significant step forward in a number of areas. Now we want to see it delivered and implemented to realise those benefits for the consumers and for lawyers alike. If I could go to Kate Clark's comments regarding the sections just for the ministerial powers being removed, it was section 5, 8, 20, 29, 41, 35 and 49 and just in relation to section 19 and 20. In recognition of the comments from the senior judiciary, we do intend to lodge amendments which will transfer the powers in section 19 and 20 to the Lord President and continue to explore with the office of the Lord President what further adjustments will be made. Stuart McMillan, just in relation to the McClure solicitors, which I know is a topic that he's done a lot of work on, I'm aware of the issues of a number of families that are facing as a result of the McClure limiter going into administration. While I cannot comment on individual cases, the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to strengthen the legislation in respect of legal regulation, which will help to mitigate such situations in the future. If a client is dissatisfied with the service or conduct of a Scottish solicitor, they have the right to complain through the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. If I may, I encourage us to come back to a few points that you raised during the debate, just regarding the Law Society saying that it would disappoint, I think it was intervention to Karen Adams, regarding some of the powers that they thought had been left out of the bill. I can confirm that we will be introducing amendments at stage 2, which will make many of the changes that Law Society has been seeking, especially in the conduct complaint process, and we're working very closely with the Law Society on that, and also just examples that you asked about how sections 19 and 20 had been used previously. The current lack of transparency in relation to legal services regulation does make it difficult to predict at when the power may have been used previously, but it may be helpful to reflect on Tracy Riley at Consumer Scotland's comments to the committee, highlighting that if the powers were removed entirely, then primary legislation would be the only recourse if the system was not delivering the regulatory objectives. As for my part, I will continue to engage with stakeholders and members to address any concerns that are raised with me as we go through the parliamentary process. I am committed to working constructively with the committee and members ahead of stage 2, and my door is always open to anyone who would like to discuss the bill. I know that some of the provisions in this bill have led to differing views, including within the committee, and it is his balance that the Parliament needs to consider if we are to deliver the significant improvements to the regulation of legal services that are really needed. I believe that if we all work constructively across the chamber, we will end up with a bill that is appropriate, proportionate and effective at the end of the process. Therefore, I urge Parliament to agree the principles of the bill. Thank you for signing up for us.