Chamber and committees

It would be up to the police to determine, in accordance with the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, but my understanding is that the police would still be called and the person could still be charged. The police might simply not be able to give a fixed-penalty notice.

First, it is not being raised so as to be a deterrent.

We accept that there is sensitivity about the £70 penalty level and that some people could perceive that the increase does not go far enough. Because the legislation has not been updated for more than 20 years, we are just bringing the level up to account for inflation. As we move into the next parliamentary session, I hope that, in future, our penalties for antisocial behaviour can be reviewed annually instead of every 20 years. The penalty level that the order brings in is to reflect inflation. As I said in my opening remarks, it would be about £68 if it were to be brought up to reflect inflation over the period from 2005 to 2026, which is why we have determined that it should now be £70.

The number of penalties that have been paid has been stable over the past 10 years, with around eight in 10 being paid in full. That proportion has remained broadly consistent with inflation, even though the penalty itself has reduced in real value over time. Collection of penalties is a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and it has operational independence in doing so. I do not have specific figures with me, but I will be happy to write to the committee on that point.

My understanding is that they are not, but Robert might have something further on that.

That issue has not been raised with me by Police Scotland, but it may have raised it in conversations with Robert.

I have no further comments to make. I move,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Antisocial Behaviour (Fixed Penalty Notice) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.

Good morning, members, and thank you, convener.

These Scottish statutory instruments form part of the Scottish Government’s programme of legal aid reform, which aims to strengthen access to justice and ensure that the system remains fair and sustainable for those who need it most. They were developed in partnership with the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and I would like to express my thanks for its valuable contribution.

I also extend my gratitude to the profession for its thoughtful and constructive engagement throughout the consultation. The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association have expressed broad support for the regulations.

Access to justice is a fundamental right, and we want to ensure that people get the help that they need and that there are solicitors available to provide it. That is why we have embarked on these changes to Scotland’s legal aid system—changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives, while ensuring that the system works better for legal professionals.

The Criminal Legal Aid and Assistance by Way of Representation (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 will improve access to justice in criminal cases by simplifying legal aid processes, standardising eligibility, and ensuring fair and sustainable remuneration for solicitors. For solemn cases that are resolved by a plea of guilty at any diet prior to trial, the regulations provide that the preparation fee payable will be the same as for cases disposed of under section 76 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. This means that the fee will be the same in all circumstances when an accused person has a plea of guilty accepted at a diet prior to trial, recognising the preparation and negotiation work done to resolve the case without full trial proceedings. It incentivises early resolution where appropriate and maintains fairness in payment structures for solicitors.

For summary criminal cases, the regulations will remove the provision of assistance by way of representation and establish summary criminal legal aid as the default form of legal aid. This will be available in any case, regardless of the plea tended by an accused at the first calling of the case in court, thus removing administrative hurdles and ensuring timely access to representation for those most in need. The regulations will also remove the payment differential between remuneration for duty solicitors and the wider fixed payment regime so that the fee structure supports fair payment, no matter who is acting for the accused.

The Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 will strengthen support for children within the children’s hearings system. Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and Citizens Advice Scotland have expressed broad support for the regulations.

Children applying for assistance by way of representation—or ABWOR—will no longer need to pass income or merit tests to be eligible for support; it will be available automatically. A grant of ABWOR will also be extended to last from an instigation hearing until a full compulsory supervision order is made or the hearing is discharged.

The initial authorised expenditure limit for solicitors will rise substantially, from £135 to £550, so reducing the number of applications that solicitors need to submit and thus improving efficiencies. An important aspect is that care leavers in receipt of the £2,000 care leaver payment will not have it counted as income or capital when assessing their eligibility, thereby reducing the financial barriers that care leavers might face. Overall, the changes will reduce administrative work for the Scottish Legal Aid Board and solicitors, provide greater certainty of representation for children and lessen the need to reassess their financial circumstances, and they are expected to have a direct positive impact on trauma-informed service delivery.

Although reforms proposing block fees in cases affecting adults with incapacity were considered, we will not progress those changes at this time. It was clear from the consultation that more work with stakeholders is needed to find the correct balance when applying block fees for those cases. The Scottish Government acknowledges those concerns, as well as the committee’s recommendations from the recent inquiry into civil legal aid, and is committed to ensuring that any amendments align with forthcoming legislative reform in the area to enhance their effectiveness and sustainability. Further engagement will be key to achieving that, and it is important that any changes are taken forward in a coherent and comprehensive way.

In summary, these changes reaffirm our commitment to modernising legal aid, driving forward public efficiency and ensuring that every pound of public funding delivers maximum impact in providing access to justice for everyone in Scotland.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

Members will be aware that it was not possible to progress the legal aid reform legislation in this parliamentary session. Just over a year ago, I made a commitment that I would do everything that I could in the next 18 months before this session of Parliament finished to introduce the secondary legislation, and that is what is being brought forward today.

On adults with incapacity, after engagement with stakeholders, opinion was divided, which is why we are not taking those proposals forward at the moment. I have had conversations with leading solicitors who take on that work and have listened to their concerns. That is why we have taken the decision to pause that aspect. That work will not be done in the next six weeks, and it will have to go forward into the next parliamentary session.

I am sorry—I did not pick up the first thing that you said. What did you say about looking at things?

Yes, I heard that. I might bring in my officials on this but, in the responses to the consultation, opinion was divided 50:50. Half of the respondents thought that they would get more money and half felt that they would not make enough. That is why we have to pause and do more consultation. I have met solicitors who do that type of work, and I have taken all those points on board. It is just unfortunate that we are not able to progress things because of the timeframe.