Due to changes made to the official Scottish Parliament website at the start of 2011, our parser that used to fetch their web pages and convert them into more structured information has stopped working. We’re afraid we cannot give a timescale as to when we will be able to cover the Scottish Parliament again. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Section 20 — Amount of levies and consultation
Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
11:30 am
Murray Tosh (Conservative)
Group 16 is on consultation on the commission's budget. Amendment 64, in the name of David Davidson, is grouped with amendment 65.
Mr David Davidson (Conservative)
Amendment 64 simply aims to make the bill consistent with the year end of the Law Society of Scotland, which would save a lot of work and additional burdens. Since the commission will be a new organisation, I am sure that that change could be accepted by the minister.
I move amendment 64.
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat)
I support amendment 65, which concerns a matter on which I focused at stage 2 and which has been a principal area of concern to some solicitors, who perceive a lack of transparency in setting the commission's budget and the levies. The two are inextricably linked, of course.
The commission's financial accountability and the consultation required to determine its budget were improved at stage 2 and are now being further improved at stage 3. At stage 2, the Executive accepted the principle of my amendment 289, on consultation. That principle is now endorsed and developed by amendment 65 in a better form than my amendment 289. It not only improves considerably on my efforts at stage 2, but it goes a considerable way to ensuring that solicitors have a commission that can set its budget—and the levies as part of that budget—openly, transparently and accountably.
Johann Lamont (Labour)
I reiterate the Executive's commitment to ensuring that the commission's annual budgetary consultation is transparent. However, the timescale in amendment 64, in the name of David Davidson, is unnecessary for the annual consultation that the bill requires on the commission's proposed work plan and budget for the following financial year. The period from January to April is sufficient time for the commission to consult on its proposed budget and lay its finalised budget before the Parliament. For that reason, I do not support amendment 64 and I ask David Davidson to withdraw it.
As has already been indicated, amendment 65 builds on an amendment that was lodged by Jeremy Purvis at stage 2. Members of the Justice 2 Committee will recall that my predecessor undertook to lodge an Executive amendment along similar lines at stage 3. Amendment 65
Mr David Davidson (Conservative)
I am not sure that the minister appreciates that she is asking the Law Society to be involved in an audit and accountability process when it is only halfway through its financial year. As the bill is about involving the legal professionals who will pay the running costs of the commission once it is set up, it would be helpful if the minister acted consensually and gave way a little bit on the issue.
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat)
Given that the requirement is for the commission to consult the Law Society, not that the two bodies' budgets must be consistent, I am curious as to why the commission's consultation should be consistent with the Law Society's financial year. Consultation should place no additional burden on the Law Society.
Mr David Davidson (Conservative)
I am told that it will place a burden on the Law Society's staffing levels, which will further increase the cost. As I said, the commission will be funded by practising lawyers who pay their dues. Amendment 64 is a small change to ask for at this time.
Division number 13
For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Hyslop, Fiona, Johnstone, Alex, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Petrie, Dave, Robison, Shona, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Watt, Ms Maureen, Welsh, Mr Andrew
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Murray Tosh (Conservative)
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 64 disagreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.