Regulation Bill a "significant step forward": SLCC
The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill would deliver “significant progress on the status quo” in its proposed model, though it remains unnecessarily complex, according to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in its stage 1 submissions on the bill.
In its response to the Equalities, Human Rights & Civil Justice Committee’s call for evidence on the Bill, the SLCC reiterates its support for the single independent regulator recommended by the Roberton review, as bringing clarity and regulatory independence and removing potential conflicts of interest, as well as being the “clear direction of travel” in other jurisdictions. It would also tackle the concerns being raised about ministers’ role in regulation. The bill model, while the product of a search for consensus, “retains much of the complexity, cost and potential conflicts of interest the current system” – any any further concessions that would add to complexity, or reduce transparency and accountability, “should be fiercely resisted”.
The SLCC views the different categories of regulator proposed by the bill as in line with principles that regulation should be proportionate and risk based, and as making it easier for new entrants to the regulatory market.
Regarding the ministerial oversight so strongly opposed by the Law Society of Scotland, it believes the roles set out for Scottish ministers and for the Lord President, “both individually and jointly, balance the need for regulatory independence from government with independence from regulated profession” – and mirror those in the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 in relation to approved regulators of legal services.
It particularly welcomes the proposed reforms to the complaints process, making it less prescriptive and more flexible. However the bill “will not achieve the seamless end to end complaints process we have called for and which we believe is in the best interests of consumers and practitioners. Responsibility for dealing with complaints will remain split over multiple bodies so handovers and the existing ‘complaints maze’ highlighted in the Roberton review will remain”.
Also there should be no further delay in allowing alternative business structures, but the bill could be “further streamlined to reduce complexity, cost and confusion”.
Generally, it concludes, “The proposed model brings a greater focus on creating a culture of quality assurance, which should be proactive, focused on continuous improvement and prevention of failures, as well as reactive to those failures which occur (and which may lead to complaints).”
Neil Stevenson, chief executive, commented: “Learning from good practice in other sectors and jurisdictions shows the current system of legal services regulation and complaints can be improved for the benefit of consumers and lawyers alike.
“The SLCC has delivered significant improvements in complaint handling within the confines of the existing legislation. We know we could do so much more to deliver a complaints process that meets the public, the profession and Parliament’s expectations of an efficient and effective system for delivering consumer redress.”
He added: “The bill’s proposals represent a significant step forward. We now want to see them delivered and implemented to realise those benefits for both consumers and lawyers.”