Contents
- Attendance
- Petitions
- Subordinate Legislation
Subordinate Legislation
Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/56)
The next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. I refer members to the relevant paper in our pack, which is a note by the clerk, and to a letter from the Law Society of Scotland, which is among the papers. Annabelle Ewing and Liam Kerr do not need to repeat their declarations of interest.
Do members have any comments on the instrument?
11:00
I note the Law Society of Scotland’s comments in relation to the instrument. I have a general comment. Almost every week, we seem to refer to legal aid and the challenges around it. For a number of years, the Law Society has consistently expressed concerns about the diminution in relative value of legal aid in monetary terms to the profession. This is maybe for another day—you will correct me if it is, convener—but I hope that the issue will be reflected in our legacy report. That is a general comment rather than a specific comment on the instrument.
Thank you—I would like that to be reflected in the legacy report. I have not been a member of the Justice Committee for long, but I recall that the costs of civil justice was one issue that we discussed in the context of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Bill, which reaches stage 3 this afternoon. Of course, legal aid applies to civil justice and to criminal justice. You are absolutely right that the committee has referred to the issue on numerous occasions, even in the short time for which I have been the convener. Speaking for myself, I certainly want that on-going interest in and concern about the costs of litigation and of the justice system generally to be reflected in the legacy report.
I fear that John Finnie is not going to enjoy this, but I fully agree with his comments. Obviously, I support the regulations.
My comment is perhaps more for the legacy report or for general questions to the cabinet secretary. It feels as though the measure is an acknowledgement that legal aid is short of where it needs to be, but I would like that to be an explicit acknowledgement. I would like to understand whether the 5 per cent increase is the result of a detailed assessment that shows that legal aid is about 5 per cent short of where it needs to be to be sustainable and reasonable, or whether it is the result of putting a finger in the air and saying that 5 per cent feels about right. More detail is needed on that.
The Law Society’s letter is useful and asks the pertinent questions: what is the Government doing to ensure that the system is kept under review and that legal aid keeps pace with where it needs to be, and what is the Government doing to create a mechanism to ensure that, at the very least, legal aid increases with inflation? That would ensure that, if a 5 per cent increase is the right level now, it at least keeps going at the right level.
I have two points. First, I welcome the 5 per cent uplift, as the Law Society has done in its letter. I am sure that it will be very welcome to legal aid practitioners across the land.
Secondly, reference has been made to the legacy report. In that report, it will be important to seek to secure further clarity on specifically what the Government plans to do further to the comprehensive legal aid review that was carried out by Martyn Evans. I think that the Scottish Government’s initial response to that was some time last year. Obviously, things have got caught up with the coronavirus pandemic, but I think that there are a number of outstanding issues that need to be taken forward.
I will add to what colleagues have said. I agree with the points that have been made, and I think that there is a broad consensus that the move, which is a result of the review, is welcome. Many of us see it as the first stage in what we hope will be further refinements to the scheme.
I simply want to note the particular issue in relation to legal aid in the island communities that I represent, where there is a real risk that, without change, we could see legal aid deserts. Such deserts are likely to be in island and rural communities. That needs specific attention, along with the issues that the Law Society and others have raised. I support the point that the convener and others have made that we should reflect the issue in some way in our legacy report for the incoming committee in the next session of Parliament.
It has been a helpful debate. A number of members have made comments about the issues pertaining to legal aid generally, although not so much about the regulations as such.
Are members content not to make any formal comments to Parliament on the specific instrument but for the comments that have been made pertaining to legal aid in a more general manner to be reported in a letter from me to Ash Denham, the responsible minister, inviting the minister to respond to those comments? Is the committee amenable to that course of conduct?
I see that members are indicating that they are happy to proceed in that way. I am grateful for that.
That concludes our consideration of the SSI and it concludes our business this morning. Our next meeting will be announced in due course. I wish you all a good morning and a good rest of the day.
Meeting closed at 11:06.Previous
Petitions