Minister urged to give committee sight of changes planned to legal reform Bill

A Holyrood committee has warned it will be “very difficult” for it to make a recommendation on controversial legal reforms without seeing what changes are to be proposed by the Scottish Government.

Members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee have been scrutinising legislation which has been branded by senior judges as a “threat” to the independence of the legal profession and judiciary.

Community safety minister Siobhian Brown has pledged the Government will bring forward amendments to the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, but committee convener Kaukab Stewart said MSPs would “welcome sight” of the changes before the minister appears before them on December 5.

With the committee tasked with recommending if the Bill should proceed through Holyrood, Ms Stewart told the minister that “as it currently stands” without sight of amendments which could “significantly alter the Bill”, it will “be very difficult for us to make any firm recommendation”.

In a letter to Ms Brown, Ms Stewart added the committee would also “welcome some clarity as to the timescales the Scottish Government is working to”.

She noted that Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the Lord President of the Court of Session, had said discussions with the Scottish Government about amendments to the Bill “are at an early stage” and “much more information” is needed.

Ms Brown last month told the committee the planned changes to the legislation would “take time to work through”.

As it stands, the Bill proposes to give ministers powers over the regulation of legal professionals, by allowing them to amend the regulatory objectives and professional principles of the sector – something usually done by the Lord President and others.

As a result, the senators of the College of Justice have claimed the Bill would leave the legal system open to “political abuse”, while the Law Society of Scotland said by giving the Scottish Government the ability to “intervene directly in regulation”, the legislation “undermines the fundamental principle of having a legal profession which is independent from the state”.