Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 17.
“The previous UK Government committed to do so, and the current UK Government should follow through on that.”
“Ivan McKee: On the issue of funding, as I have indicated in answer to previous questions and in my statement, we will continue to engage with local authorities to explore the financial flexibilities that are available to allow them to support homeowners and others appropriately. I have indicated, too, that different local authorities are impacted to a different extent and are handling their circumstances in different ways. It is important to take that into account. We continue to engage with local authorities. I have cited the case of Aberdeen, where we are having detailed discussions about the potential use of the housing infrastructure fund and the fiscal flexibilities around that. I again call on the UK Government to put in place a UK-wide fund to provide support across the UK.”
“Members will recall that I was the first in the chamber to raise the problem with RAAC, some two years ago at First Minister’s question time. Almost every month since that occasion, I have raised the issue. I always ask that the Government recognises its responsibility, to local authorities in particular, to make whole those buildings, such as Blackhall library in my constituency and many schools around the country, so that local authorities are not left scrabbling around for cash. Does the cabinet secretary’s statement suggest that there is no fund coming? If so, what does he have to say to the local authorities that have been looking to his Government for money?”
“In response to Karen Adam’s question, I set out some of the funding that is arriving this year to allow for increased planned care activity, and that will benefit those in Orkney and Shetland as well as those who are domiciled in the Grampian area. I am happy to furnish Mr Cole-Hamilton, Beatrice Wishart and you, Deputy Presiding Officer, given your interest, with that detail.”
“Many people will, understandably, be concerned by the cabinet secretary’s statement and the escalation at NHS Grampian, and none more so than pregnant mothers, people who are undergoing cancer care and surgical patients from Shetland and Orkney, all of whom rely on services at NHS Grampian. Beatrice Wishart asked the cabinet secretary about that earlier this month, but I ask him today to reassure residents of island communities who rely on NHS Grampian that they will enjoy the same access to services and care as mainland patients. Neil Gray: In response to Beatrice Wishart, I recognised that NHS Grampian serves more than just the Grampian geographical area. On the basis of a service level agreement, it serves other communities, including those in Orkney and Shetland.”
“We established the process a number of years ago, with various stages, a number of which we had consulted on to ensure that we were developing a bottom-up approach and that, if we were to propose a national park, it would be in an area where there was strong community support for it. We have been through that process and we have exhausted it. We then followed the statutory process and appointed NatureScot as reporter. On receipt of that report, we concluded that we would not take the process any further. I will not revisit, or commit to revisiting, that decision today.”
“Sarah Boyack was right to remind us that, when done properly, national parks can provide jobs, be a boost to local economies and help with biodiversity in our fight against climate change. It is clear that that has not happened in this case, and we did not win hearts and minds to bring the project to fruition. I want to interrogate an aspect of the statement in which the cabinet secretary said that the Government would welcome future proposals for the national parks. Does that mean that all proactive work by the Scottish Government to identify future national parks will now cease? Mairi Gougeon: I am sorry, but I am not entirely sure where the member is trying to get to with his question on whether the Government is actively looking to continue with the process.”
“We need to show real leadership here so that people get the support that they need now, not in seven years’ time.”
“I have never had a satisfactory answer from NHS Lothian about why shared care has ended. It is not right to blame GPs—they are stretched to breaking point. Let us be clear that it is a political failure. We have talked previously in the chamber about how GPs in primary care have been let down by the Scottish Government, and this situation is no exception. Through its amendment, and by the decisions that it is taking, the Scottish Government is failing to tackle or even acknowledge the serious pressure that our GPs are under. I am disappointed by that, but I am not surprised. I also note that the Government’s amendment sidesteps my party’s call for a “robust protocol” for reinstating shared care arrangements. Again, I am disappointed but not surprised.”
“However, in areas such as NHS Lothian, shared care has now been scrapped, with no clear explanation as to why. Do not get me wrong—those families would not normally have gone private. They could not normally afford to go private, but such was their desperation and anxiety about their children’s prospects that they would scrape together that money, and, by so doing, they were doing everyone a favour. If even a small proportion of the people on the list can get a quicker diagnosis privately, they are freeing up space for anybody else left on that list. It should go without saying, however, that no family should have to shell out thousands of pounds due to a failure in the system. That flies in the face of the fundamental principles on which the NHS was established.”
“That is a staggering number, but it speaks to the revelation that we encountered after the pandemic. That was replicated in countries around the world, which led to a global shortage of ADHD medication due to the huge surge in demand. Health boards had reports of closures of the titration clinics that people needed to get started on treatments in order to begin their care pathways, which created a perfect storm. Desperate for help, many families turned to the private sector. For years, there was at least a safety net there. If someone could scrape together the money for a private diagnosis, their general practitioner could prescribe them medication on the national health service under a system called shared care, whereby they would recognise that private diagnosis.”
“Their exams, their confidence, their future work prospects and their relationships are all affected by a fundamental lack of proper support. The pandemic did not create neurodivergence, but it stripped away the routines and distractions that helped many people to cope, and the scale of unmet need became impossible to ignore. Lockdown forced us to be still, and people who had usually filled their lives with noise and activity suddenly began to understand a great deal more about their make-up. As we emerged from lockdown, referrals for ADHD diagnosis and treatment soared and waiting times exploded. That did not just happen here—it is a phenomenon that we saw the world over. In the year after Covid restrictions were lifted, the number of referrals for ADHD in adults in Greater Glasgow and Clyde rose by more than 1,000 per cent.”
“Parents are worried sick about their children, who are—for want of a diagnosis, whether of autism or ADHD—struggling in class, with their friendship groups and with the isolation that comes with that. In some cases—at least in my constituency—they have been told that they have to wait as long as seven years for diagnostic assessment. Let me put that in real terms. For a 15-year-old who is struggling to concentrate at school while facing life-qualifying exams—perhaps they are not even able to attend school, given the severity of the situation around their neurodivergence—seven years takes them past their 22nd birthday, and that is just to get to the races, before they are even prescribed anything that will control their condition.”
“It gives me great pleasure to propose the motion that is before the Parliament. This is the kind of debate that I got into politics to lead, and I am sure that I am not alone in that. The issue comes straight from each of our constituency casework surgeries. On Mondays and Fridays, when we are not in the chamber, we receive our instructions from the people who sent us here and we pick up themes and narratives around what is going on in the country. Since the pandemic, I have seen a worrying uptick—it is almost an avalanche—of people coming to my surgery looking for my help because they are struggling to obtain neurodivergence diagnostic support. Put simply, they cannot get a diagnosis for things such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism. Families at breaking point come to us all.”
“Christine Grahame: As, I am sure, all members do, I expect that members and the public will treat each other with respect throughout their engagement—casual or formal—in the building. That would include the situation set out in the remarks that the member just made.”
“Christine Grahame suggests that the decision was taken on the basis of the need to balance the legal responsibilities of the Parliament related to the Supreme Court judgment. However, as we heard from Patrick Harvie, the former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption has made it clear that there are no legal responsibilities for the Parliament. He said that judges did not take a side and that the judgment does not provide an obligation to create single-sex spaces—it is a matter of choice for institutions. The EHRC has been challenged on how it will police that. We have heard about the use of birth certificates. I understand that the SPCB does not expect this to be policed, but others may. Can I ask that no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future?”
“Graeme Dey: Alex Cole-Hamilton made a good point at the end—youth work is a very important line of work. I am happy to take that away and consider it. Through prioritisation in encouraging young people into particular workstreams, I think that there is more that we can do. However, I again go back to the point that it is not the Scottish Government that is cutting funding—that is a choice of local government. Violence Against Teachers (Aberdeen) 2.”
“Young people are exponentially more likely to be victims of antisocial behaviour than to be perpetrators of it. Having worked for YouthLink for four years and having been a volunteer youth worker for nearly 20 years, I have seen the transformative effect that detached and sessional youth work can have on young people in our communities. Martin Whitfield is absolutely right that the sector has been decimated by £20 million-worth of cuts by the Government. There is a double-edged sword, too. The reduction in workforce caused by our not training community education workers any more and the decline in volunteering since lockdown have had a massive impact on the sector. What more can the Government do to encourage people into youth work in the first place?”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tess White to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 130. Tess White: I have nothing further to add, other than to thank the minister and others who were involved for their input and engagement on this package of amendments. Amendment 130 agreed to. Amendments 131 to 134 moved—[Tess White]—and agreed to. Section 66—Unregulated providers of legal services: voluntary register, annual contributions and complaints contributions The Deputy Presiding Officer: Does any member object to amendments 14 to 21 being moved en bloc? Maggie Chapman: Yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Chapman, is it simply amendment 14? Maggie Chapman: Yes, amendment 14. Amendment 14 moved—[Siobhian Brown]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“I am grateful to the Law Society and the SLCC for their expertise and insights during this process, which has led to a positive outcome for consumers. I urge colleagues to support these changes. I move amendment 130. Siobhian Brown: I thank Tess White for her engagement and contribution to the bill through amendments 130 to 134 and 142. Those amendments significantly enhance the clarity and structure of the provisions relating to the registration of unregulated legal services providers under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The amendments collectively strengthen and enhance transparency and ensure that the process for registration in the voluntary register for unregulated legal services providers is both accountable and consultative. I ask members to support the amendments in Tess White’s name.”
“Stakeholders such as the Competition and Markets Authority have made similar calls. However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission raised concerns about how the amendments at stage 2 would work in practice. My view remains that it is in the public interest to have a mandatory scheme. Consumers currently have no recourse that would enable them to raise complaints about an unregulated provider. I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government at stage 3 to find a way to strengthen section 65 that satisfies stakeholders. The Law Society states in its stage 3 briefing that my amendments “significantly toughen up the provisions in the Bill” and lay the foundations to begin to address the issues in the unregulated sector. The SLCC states that the amendments take “a proportionate and risk-based approach”.”
“Amendments 130 to 134 and 142, in my name, allow the Scottish Government to lay regulations that would give specific organisations the mechanism to request that an unregulated provider of legal services is formally registered. At stage 2, I lodged amendments from the Law Society that sought to change the voluntary register for unregulated providers of legal services in section 65 to make the register mandatory. The Law Society’s position was that a voluntary register that requires payment of levies and fees and that subjects a service provider to a statutory complaint scheme is “unlikely to attract a meaningful uptake”, and I agree. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s stage 1 report called on the Scottish Government to strengthen the provision and consider “creating a mandatory register”.”
“Section 60—Disclosure of information by practitioners etc to the Commission and relevant professional organisations Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. Amendment 11 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to. Section 61—Power of Commission to request practitioner’s details in connection with complaints Amendments 12 and 13 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. Section 65—Unregulated providers of legal services: voluntary register, annual contributions and complaints contributions The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on a register of unregulated legal services providers. Amendment 130, in the name of Tess White, is grouped with amendments 131 to 134 and 142. 16:30 Tess White: I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on section 65, following stage 2 consideration of the bill.”
“A lot of concessions have been made to the legal profession throughout the bill process. We also have to look after consumer bodies, which is why we will oppose amendment 135. Maggie Chapman will be aware that amendment 14 was raised at stage 2. We have engaged with the SLCC on the approach to the wording in order to find a compromise and progress with a flexible approach that allows the SLCC to investigate a complaint more quickly while retaining the requirement to reject complaints that are without any merit. That is why we lodged amendment 14. Amendment 5 agreed to. Section 57—Commission decision making and delegation Amendment 129 not moved. Section 58—Commission review committee Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.”
“Siobhian Brown: I appreciate that Mr O’Kane’s amendment 135 is a Law Society amendment, but, as we have all known throughout the passage of the bill, there has to be a balance for consumers and the legal profession. My view is that amendment 135 would weaken the SLCC’s authority to set complaints handling standards. Consumer bodies support the strengthening of independent oversight by the SLCC. Paul O’Kane: I recognise what the minister is outlining, but does she recognise the letter that came from the Lord President and his view that his office should be the final port of recourse before a complaint potentially has to go to judicial review? Does she share my concern that judicial review can be costly and slow things up even more? Siobhian Brown: No, we do not share your view and have to agree to disagree.”
“Just because a body of case law is attached to the terms is not reason enough to keep them. The terms will likely have to be changed sometime—surely sooner rather than later is better. The commission has said that the streamlined triage processes that are outlined in the bill would allow complaints that require further investigation to proceed swiftly to resolution or the relevant regulator and those that do not require investigation to be dealt with quickly without delay. The SLCC is the expert in handling complaints, which includes communicating to consumers when a complaint cannot be taken forward. If the commission says that the amendment’s wording is unhelpful, we should perhaps respect its expertise. I would be grateful if the minister could say, in her winding-up speech, why we should not do that in this case.”
“However, I am not convinced by the minister’s argument on amendment 14, which would reinstate the wording “frivolous, vexatious and totally without merit” that we removed at an earlier stage. I understand the intention—at stage 2 we discussed the issue at length in order to ensure that complaints that are clearly intended to waste time can be dealt with swiftly. I agree that that is important. However, the SLCC does not support amendment 14, and it argues that we should grasp the opportunity that the bill provides to remove legalistic, offensive or archaic jargon and replace it with more consumer-friendly language. The terms that are referenced in amendment 14 are not just archaic or inaccessible legal jargon; they have derogatory meanings in ordinary contemporary English, and so they will almost inevitably have a negative impact.”
“I note that, without my proposed mechanism, in particularly egregious examples, the only avenue that would be available to relevant organisations would be to seek judicial review. That would be significantly more costly and more time consuming than any costs or delays that might result from the ability to refer guidance to the Lord President for a final direction. It appears that the minister and I are at odds on that point. However, it seems to me that amendment 11, in my name, would provide a reasonable safeguard. Maggie Chapman: I thank the minister and her officials for our constructive and helpful conversations at various stages of the bill’s progress. We support most of the amendments in group 6.”
“In it, he stated that the senior judiciary’s view was that the bill should be amended so that the Lord President is given a power to approve the SLCC guidance, which sets minimum standards before they are imposed on a regulatory body. The Lord President approves the practice and disciplinary rules of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates. If minimum standards from the SLCC are to be included in rules which the Lord President approves and the Lord President does not agree with these rule changes because the SLCC minimum standards are not workable or appropriate, the senior judiciary thought it would be unlikely that the Lord President would approve those rules.”
“Even if the processes that include consultation with affected stakeholders were observed, wrong or impractical conclusions could be drawn and evidence could simply be ignored. In those instances it would seem fair to give the profession a mechanism to voice its concerns to a third party. My amendment 135 would require that it be put before the Lord President for final consideration, at which point he could uphold the direction, either in part or in full, or vary it. The Lord President has indicated his agreement with that position, in principle, in a letter that he sent to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee ahead of stage 3.”
“Also in this group is my amendment 135, which would permit relevant professional organisations to appeal SLCC directions on minimum standards to the Lord President, for his determination. I whole-heartedly agree with the minister that the SLCC’s ability to direct minimum standards would provide for a strengthening of the consumer voice and, it is to be hoped, would lead to improved practices within the complaints process. I note that members of the profession have widely accepted that view. However, I think it reasonable to consider that, like any person or organisation, the SLCC is not infallible and therefore might issue guidance that did not account for certain circumstances. Such guidance could be impractical or simply wrong.”
“Those amendments would allow lawyers who work for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be exempted from any requirement placed on them to provide information, to prevent interference with their prosecutorial functions and independence. Amendments 22 and 23 would expressly provide the Law Society of Scotland with discretionary powers to disclose information where it was in the public interest to do so. I believe that all my amendments would be extremely important for ensuring the swift resolution and advancement of complaints and also for ensuring that there is strong transparency around their resolution. I believe that they would represent good news for achieving transparency and proactive regulation.”
“However, I ask them not to support amendment 135, in Mr O’Kane’s name. I move amendment 5. The Deputy Presiding Officer: For clarification, I remind members that we are currently dealing with group 6. Paul O’Kane: I thank the minister for her co- operation and, indeed, collaboration on amendments 11, 22, 23 and 90, in my name. Amendments 11 and 90 would provide relevant professional organisations that are considering initiating a complaint against a practitioner or an authorised legal business with the power to give notice to the practitioner, or the practitioner’s firm, or the authorised legal business, requiring production or delivery of the document specified in the notice relating to the complaint.”
“I am grateful to Mr O’Kane for taking on board my concerns and I am content to support amendments 11 and 90. I am also pleased to have been able to work with Mr O’Kane on his amendments 22 and 23, which provide expressly that the Law Society of Scotland, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 52(1) of the 2007 act, and that the SLCC, which has discretionary powers to disclose information when it is in the public interest to do so, is not subject to the restriction in section 41(1) of the 2007 act. I am therefore content to support amendments 22 and 23. I urge members to support amendments 5 to 9, 12 to 16 and 83 to 89, in my name, and amendments 11, 22, 23 and 90, in the name of Paul O’Kane.”
“Moving on to Mr O’Kane’s other amendments in this group, I am pleased to have been able to work with him on his amendments 11 and 90, which provide relevant professional organisations with the power, when they are considering initiating a complaint against a practitioner or an authorised legal business, to give notice to the practitioner— or the practitioner’s firm or the authorised legal business—requiring the production and delivery of the documents that are specified in the notice relating to the complaint. The amendments will allow all lawyers who are working for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be exempt from any requirement that is placed on them to provide information to prevent interference with their prosecution functions and independence.”
“As an iterative process, ultimately, given the role of the Lord President in approving a regulatory scheme—which must contain practice rules about the making and handling of complaints, as well as any revisions to it—the Lord President could withhold consent to any subsequent practice rule changes to reflect those standards if they retained concerns with the proposals. That would require the SLCC either to address any concerns that the Lord President raised or to abandon the proposal. The SLCC considers that adding even more stages to the process would add cost to the system and potential delay in addressing emerging consumer protection issues.”
“It must take into account any representations that have been made and, further to that, publish a document that summarises the consultation that has been undertaken, the responses and any changes that have been made to the guidance as a result. The SLCC must also give its reasons for including the minimum standards. As a statutory consultee, the Lord President will have had an opportunity at that initial stage to express their views on the proposed minimum standards. The intention is that the regulators and the Lord President have an opportunity to raise any concerns or challenge any proposed minimum standards through the initial statutory consultation process.”
“The current procedure in the bill for setting and issuing minimum standards is aimed at providing greater quality assurance and continuous improvements in complaints handling. As currently drafted, the process is open and transparent. Prior to issuing any guidance that sets minimum standards, the SLCC would carry out a consultation to seek the views of those persons— or their representatives—who would be affected. The SLCC must consult the Lord President, the regulators, practitioners and any other appropriate persons on the initial proposals. The SLCC must again consult the regulators and other appropriate persons on any subsequent drafts.”
“The minimum standard setting was introduced in response to calls for more independent regulation of legal services from stakeholders that represent consumer interests. Consumer bodies support the strengthening of the SLCC’s independent oversight of the setting of minimum standards for complaints handling. As members will remember, the committee heard evidence from Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, that this is best practice. Giving the Lord President a direct role in determining whether guidance that sets minimum standards is to be complied with—or not—may be viewed as a step away from the consumer- focused approach. I do not think that allowing a veto on the setting of minimum standards, potentially prior to SLCC consultation, is in the consumer’s interest.”
“Amendment 6 and consequential amendment 8 remove the ability to review the decision to categorise a complaint as a conduct complaint or as a regulatory complaint. We agree with the SLCC’s view that these decisions should not be open to review, particularly given the introduction of hybrid complaints, which means that complaints can now be categorised as both types—conduct and regulatory. Amendments 15 and 16 make small changes to section 66 of the bill, which amends schedule 3 to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The changes mean that the SLCC practice and procedure rules—that relate to the recategorisation of a services complaint—include regulatory complaints. 16:15 I turn now to Mr O’Kane’s amendments. I cannot support amendment 135, as it would weaken the SLCC’s authority to set standards in complaints handling.”
“That is to address and rectify an SLCC concern regarding the omission of handling complaints from the powers in sections 17 and 17A. Amendment 14 amends section 66 of the bill, which in turn amends paragraph 1 of schedule 3 to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which lists what the rules for the practice and procedure of the SLCC must include. The effect of amendment 14 is that the rules must include provision to require complaints that are “frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit to be considered ineligible”, which would mean the SLCC need not take any further action other than to give notice of that fact to the complainer, the practitioner and any other person as required under the rules.”
“Amendment 7 ensures that that decision by the SLCC is reviewable, thereby securing a right of review and enhancing transparency and accountability in the complaints process. Section 61 of the bill inserts new section 17A into the 2007 act, giving the SLCC the power to request practitioners’ details in connection with complaints. Amendments 12 and 13 expand the powers in section 17A to cover the investigation and reporting of handling complaints. The changes also enable the power to be used by the SLCC where it initiates a conduct or regulatory complaint. Amendments 86 and 87 amend section 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007 by adding a reference to new section 2A, following the stage 2 amendments that inserted complaints initiated by the SLCC and handling complaints, to the list of sections mentioned in the Legal Services Act 2007.”
“As a result, amendments 9, 83, 84, 85 and 88 amend paragraph 26 of schedule 3 to the bill to remove the express requirement that notice under sections 3, 8, 16, 17 and 24 of the 2007 act must be given in writing. Amendment 5 repeals section 45 of the 2007 act, which relates to the giving of notices, and amendment 89 is a consequential amendment. New section 20A enables the complainer and the practitioners to whom the complaint relates to apply to the SLCC for a review of its decisions as listed in the provision. An amendment that was passed at stage 2 now allows the SLCC to discontinue the investigation of a complaint if the practitioner accepts a settlement that is proposed by the SLCC but the complainer does not.”
“Amendment 128 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to. Section 54—Commission process relating to complaints The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on “Complaints: process”. Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 to 9, 11 to 16, 135, 22, 23 and 83 to 90. Siobhian Brown: I turn first to the amendments in my name. Section 54(7) of the bill repeals section 12 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which specifies how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission must notify the complainer and practitioner of a decision to uphold or not uphold a services complaint. The SLCC and I agree that that is too restrictive, so the amendments provide for minor and technical changes to add additional flexibility.”
“My amendments would allow regulators to recover reasonable costs and build in flexibility to discontinue or resume collection where it becomes unreasonable or unfeasible to collect the financial penalty. I believe that, by collaborating on these amendments, we have put together a set of provisions that would bring more natural justice to the process for both lawyers and consumers. I move amendment 127. Siobhian Brown: After careful consideration of amendments 127, 128 and 136, in Paul O’Kane’s name, I am content to support them. I ask members to support Mr O’Kane’s amendments in the group. I will not move amendment 91. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Paul O’Kane to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 127. Paul O’Kane: I have nothing further to add, and I press the amendment. Amendment 127 agreed to.”
“Section 45—Financial sanctions The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 5 is on cost recovery. Amendment 127, in the name of Paul O’Kane, is grouped with amendments 128, 136 and 91. Paul O’Kane: Colleagues might have been missing the sound of my voice. I am very grateful to the minister for her indication that she will not move her amendment 91 and is instead minded to support my amendments 127, 128 and 136. My amendments deal with the issue of cost recovery by regulators when collecting a financial penalty that has been imposed on a business. Although the penalty is payable to the Scottish ministers, it is the regulators that collect it, so they will incur costs. It does not seem reasonable or fair for the rest of the legal profession—and, by extension, the consumers who consume legal products—to cover the costs of that process.”
“I ask members to support the amendments in my name. I move amendment 3. The Deputy Presiding Officer: As no other member has asked to speak, is there anything that you wish to add in winding up, minister? Siobhian Brown: No, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 3 agreed to. Section 37—Transitional and saving provision for regulators approved under the 1990 Act Amendment 4 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. Section 39—Requirement for legal businesses to be authorised to provide legal services Amendments 120 and 121 not moved. Section 41—Rules for authorised legal businesses Amendment 122 not moved. Section 42—Authorisation rules Amendment 123 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to. Section 44—Practice rules Amendments 124 and 125 not moved. Amendment 126 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to.”
“Amendment 63 instead provides for a more flexible approach to imposing sanctions, allowing the tribunal, or the court, in the case of an appeal, to impose conditions or restrictions on the authorisation of an authorised legal business to provide legal services. Amendment 101 ensures that there is a right of appeal against decisions to restore a solicitor’s practising certificate, subject to conditions in cases in which the solicitor has complied with requirements relating to the refunding of excessive fees charged to a client. Amendments 108, 109 and 112 move a provision that was inserted into section 16 of the 1980 act at stage 2 to its correct place in section 34 of that act. Amendments 110 and 111 insert titles into sections of the 1980 act. That was noted by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal.”
“Regarding amendment 63, section 47(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended at stage 2, provides that an authorised legal business must not, without written permission from the Law Society of Scotland, employ a solicitor who has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice. The sanction for acting in contravention of that requirement is set out in section 47(4) of the 1980 act. As amended by the bill, the provision sets out that any authorised legal business acting in contravention of the requirement will have its authorisation to provide legal services automatically withdrawn for a period determined by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, or by the court, in the case of appeals against the refusal to be granted permission by the Law Society.”