³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The bill has a huge, long history that dates back to before I came into my post in April. There has been a lot of work by officials throughout the many years of the bill’s development, and the work is on-going. It has evolved, and we have to continue to listen. We know that opinions are polarised in some areas, which is why I am keen to listen to all stakeholders’ views. My officials and I will work collaboratively with all the stakeholders and the legal profession.

I know that the devil is in the detail and that it is not ideal for the committee not to have the detail of the amendments that we will lodge at stage 2. As Maggie Chapman said, however, the situation is unprecedented in that they will not be drafted by the lawyers until agreement is made with the legal profession, the Lord President’s office and the stakeholders. I am keen to share all the information with the committee as we progress, and to get agreement as soon as we are able to do so.

The committee has heard about the differing views on who should be responsible for regulation. However, there is broad support from stakeholders for the wide content of the bill. The introduction of entity regulation reform of the complex complaints system, the reduction in restrictions in respect of alternative business structures and the ability for bodies such as Scottish Women’s Aid to directly employ legal professionals to support their clients in court all represent significant improvements to the status quo.

I am afraid that I do not think that there would be any winners if the bill was not supported. The question is not necessarily about an alternative bill as such. As the committee is aware, no approach would completely satisfy all the groups. The bill provides a proportionate approach that seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities for all the stakeholders.

We hope to have the amendments agreed by the new year. I will share the information with the committee, but we hope for agreement in the new year.

I thank Miss Wells for her answer—sorry, her question.

Certain stakeholders, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, support the removal of a minimum ownership requirement entirely, while other stakeholders, including some legal firms, favour retaining the current rule of 51 per cent ownership by regulated professionals, so there was a divergence of views. In the response to the Scottish Government consultation, just over half—52 per cent—of respondents agreed that the 51 per cent majority stake rule for licensed legal services should be removed, compared with 48 per cent who disagreed. Some stakeholders have shifted their view on the issue slightly since the Scottish Government consultation, but our approach in the bill is to seek to strike a balance between the two views.

I will bring in my officials, as they have that history.

Yes, convener. The first section that has been highlighted with regard to ministerial powers is section 5, which allows for the regulatory objectives and professional principles to be amended to update them to reflect regulatory best practice. It was included in the bill in response to calls from stakeholders for a permissive and enabling framework of primary legislation that would be flexible enough to respond to future changes in the legal services market by allowing future amendments through secondary legislation. The Scottish Government will, however, accept the recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that the bill be amended to remove section 5, and we will lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

The next section is section 8, on the creation of a category system for regulators. It seeks to create an inherent requirement for flexibility to respond to any changes or proposed changes to how a regulator operates or in its membership numbers, and it is intended to future proof the regulatory framework. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the DPLR Committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove section 8 from the bill. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 8(5) are necessary to ensure that the bill accurately reflects any changes to the regulatory framework in respect of new accredited regulators receiving approval, any regulator ceasing to operate or a change in a regulator’s name, as recently evidenced with the name change of the Association of Construction Attorneys.

We will—

I recognise a significant problem for the SLCC with regard to the fact that, each year, more than 300 solicitors do not respond to the request for files. We are working with the SLCC and looking at amendments to strengthen the bill so that it gets the information that it needs. Leanna MacLarty might want to come in on that.

I am open to any considerations that the committee would like to suggest at stage 1. However, at the moment, we are striking a balance with the powers that the SLCC already has. Was it regarding something in particular?

Over a quarter of solicitors do not respond when the SLCC requests their files, so we are working with the SLCC to see how we can strengthen the bill to ensure that the SLCC gets the information that it needs.

Amendments 18 and 21 are my response to the committee’s request for the Government to review the stage 1 evidence on the trustees’ duty to provide information, with a particular focus on potential beneficiaries. Stakeholders questioned whether the duties that will be imposed on trustees should cover potential beneficiaries who might never stand to benefit from trust property, and would therefore be too onerous.

When it comes to information rights, there is a balance to be struck between the rights of those who might benefit from the trust property as a whole and the rights of individual potential beneficiaries. I recognise that requiring trustees to inform potential beneficiaries about their position under a trust could lead to costs being incurred on the trust property, but against that, those who benefit or might benefit from the trust property have a fundamental role in holding the trustees accountable. They cannot do that if they are not properly informed.

Officials have explored the matter further with stakeholders and with the Scottish Law Commission. Amendments 18 and 21 deal with the problem of vexatious requests for information about trusts made by people who are technically potential beneficiaries but who have no real chance of becoming a beneficiary under the trust.

The shift in the balance of trustees’ information duties will ultimately help beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries who are likely to benefit from the trust property. First, it will not affect their right to trust information and, secondly, it will reduce the likelihood of costs that relate to vexatious requests for information being incurred against a trust property.

I move amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 27 to 29 agreed to.

Section 30—Provision purporting to limit liability for, or indemnify for, breach of fiduciary duty

Amendment 54 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].