Chamber and committees

Thank you. Lucy Clark also highlighted that many deaf women who experience domestic abuse assume that it is normal behaviour and do not even know what consent means. While working on my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, I came across a woman who had slurred speech, and she said that her abuser had told the police and the authorities that she was drunk, which meant that she was not taken seriously.

Data collection is key to having a clear picture of which communities are more likely to be affected by domestic abuse. That is why my bill seeks to place a requirement on authorities to collect data such as age, sex, disability and ethnicity. Do you have the figures to hand on the percentage of deaf women who are survivors of domestic abuse? Do you agree that accurate data collection is key to understanding which communities are most likely to be affected by it?

Thank you. My next two questions are for Stacey Gourlay and Rachel Tardito. Have you undertaken any monitoring or assessment of how effective your local BSL plans are? If so, which areas meet the needs for BSL users and which areas may require further work?

Good morning. In the evidence sessions over the past couple of weeks, this committee has heard real-life examples of deaf people struggling, especially in rural areas. Those examples, particularly the ones that we heard in the private session, have been harrowing. Lucy Clark, who is a deaf survivor of domestic abuse, told the committee that there were only three BSL-trained domestic abuse advocates, all based in Dundee. How would a deaf woman who has been domestically abused in Argyll and Bute get the support she needs? I would like Professor Kusters and Dr Adam to respond to that.

At present, that data is not collected when crimes are reported to Police Scotland. Certain data is collected, such as the person’s name and some other details, but details of ethnicity and disability are not collected. That is why my bill seeks to require that data. Thank you for shedding light on the importance of those three points.

Thank you, Marie-Louise, that is really helpful. My next question is on means testing. Witnesses who attended the committee over the past two weeks called for the removal of financial eligibility requirements for certain types of cases where domestic abuse is a factor. Survivors of domestic abuse, the majority of whom are women, are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. That is an area that I know extremely well, because I introduced the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. Many of the survivors whom I have spoken to have told me how their abusers controlled their finances—many of those women do not even know what their household incomes are.

Last week, we heard that legal aid for housing cases in England is not means tested. Do you agree that we should take that as an example and apply it to legal aid for domestic abuse cases in Scotland? Marie-Louise, you mentioned carrying out a consultation on means testing. What work have you done in that area? When will the information from that consultation be available to you?

Thank you for that information. I have one final quick question. It is worrying that you say that, although this committee and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee have heard evidence on it in the past two weeks, not everybody knows that the means test has those levers to help vulnerable people, especially women. I am sure that men go through the process as well, but a lot of women are in that position and I am concentrating on the majority. We are many years on with this, but you say that we still need to raise awareness that means testing can help those women.

Organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid have also come in to tell us about this issue. I am surprised and very worried by evidence that although the system has been in place for many years, if anything it needs to be renewed, which is what we are discussing today. You have just said that many solicitors and organisations are not aware of the allowances that can be made. We should think about how many domestic abuse survivors, especially women, might have been let down by the system because there is an awareness and education issue and people do not have guidance on that aspect.

It is surprising to me that you have said something very different from what other witnesses have said. Why are we taking evidence on raising awareness when the issue should have been resolved earlier, which would have meant that those vulnerable women might not have gone through what they did?

We heard from Colin Lancaster earlier that sometimes there are levers to help survivors. However, as we discussed, there is quite a worrying gap there, especially when it comes to eligibility. I said earlier—and another member touch on this, too—that solicitors and organisations are not fully aware of what legal aid has to offer.

We know that the law that is in place is very complex and could be simplified, but what work is being done to ensure that lawyers and organisations get information about that? We have come only this far in so many years; it is shocking that this big issue was not identified years ago and that we have let the situation go on when a lot of vulnerable victims could otherwise have had the help that they needed.

You heard Colin say that the system does not allow SLAB to action any of that work and that it needs more to be done; my colleague Tess White pointed out that it could do a lot more work with the Law Society. I am asking you not only about awareness but about why it took so long for the issue to be identified, and how we can move forward. I know that you are doing the reform, but it will take time. How can we move forward to help vulnerable victims now?

Good morning. Thank you for the information that you have provided so far.

Over the past two weeks, witnesses have called for financial eligibility criteria to be expanded. Financial thresholds have not been updated in line with inflation since 2011, which was 14 years ago. Modelling from SLAB shows that eligibility for civil legal assistance has decreased and that that might be becoming a barrier in relation to advice and assistance. At the same time, people who are eligible for legal aid struggle to find solicitors who will take up their cases. Over the past two weeks, the committee has heard evidence that echoes that picture.

Although the Minister for Equalities told the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that legal aid needs to be reformed, nothing has happened. Is the Scottish Government failing the most vulnerable in our society? What more needs to be done?

Thank you for clarifying that.

Good morning. My questions will be a bit long, because I have been pulling together some things that our witnesses have told us over the past two weeks, so please ask me to repeat anything after I have asked my question.

Witnesses have called for financial eligibility criteria to be expanded, as financial thresholds have not been uprated in line with inflation since 2011. That is 14 years ago—nearly a decade and a half. Some witnesses said that those outdated financial thresholds are not fit for purpose in this decade. Andy Sirel of JustRight Scotland said:

“if you have £1,718 in your bank account, you are not getting legal aid.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 13 May 2025; c 18.]

In the previous session today, we heard concerns about that from Colin Lancaster of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Last week, Dr Ben Christman of the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland said that someone over the age of 21 who was working for the national minimum wage for more than 20 hours per week was not eligible for advice and assistance, as the current weekly disposable income threshold is £245 per week. He even referred—as Colin Lancaster did today—to a scenario in which people in receipt of universal credit were not eligible for advice and assistance. However, some legal cases can cost up to £500,000.

If someone on universal credit cannot get legal aid, who is legal aid for? If we cannot even help the people in our society who most need it, can you clarify whom we are actually helping, minister?