Chamber and committees

We are in active negotiations, and I am committed to finding a way forward.

The Scottish Government has provided fee uplifts and grant funding that are much greater than what has been offered—it has not yet been accepted—in England and Wales. Combined with our latest offer to the profession, that totals 20.5 per cent since 2019.

I will pick up a couple of the member’s points. There was a substantial set of reforms over many years prior to 2008. For clarity and purposes of discussion going forward, it is probably best if we stick to fee rates since 2008.

One point that the member raised was about DASA—Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018—cases. I have said in the chamber previously that prior to notification about action by the profession, DASA cases and the fee rates for those cases had not been raised with me. Had they been raised with me prior to that point, I would certainly have tried to address the issue.

The Scottish Government is, and continues to be, in active negotiations with the profession. Members will understand that I need to balance interests across the justice landscape and that I am operating in a very challenging public finance environment. Nonetheless, our actions and our investment in legal aid to date show that we are a Government that is listening and that wants to work with the profession to find a way forward.

I remind members that Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe on legal aid in terms of scope and eligibility. I am afraid that I cannot accept Pauline McNeill’s characterisation of the figures that she uses because—I know that she knows this—the legal aid budget is demand led. Therefore, it reflects the work that has been done, usually up to around two years before, although, obviously, that varies from year to year.

Members will be aware that negotiations with the profession have been going on for some time. I know that a number of sets of figures and different percentage rates are bandied about, and I want to be very clear about what has been agreed so far.

In 2019, the Scottish Government put forward a 3 per cent uplift on all legal aid fees across the board and, in 2021, it did a 5 per cent uplift on legal aid fees across the board. That was followed by a further 5 per cent uplift across the board in 2022. In addition to that investment, there was £9 million in Covid resilience funding and £1 million in traineeship funding, which were particular to Scotland.

An issue was raised with me that I managed to resolve. I set up an entirely new payment for holiday courts.

To put it simply, that is not accurate; the justice system is working through and reducing the Covid backlogs. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that the trial backlog has reduced by nearly 1,500 trials since April, and cases concluded are above pre-Covid levels in the High Court and the sheriff courts.

The court recovery programme is progressing in line with the expected pace. Our recent offer to the profession in May represented an increase of more than 20 per cent over four years. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the profession, but I can update members that we have drafted a new proposal, which will be put to the Law Society of Scotland this week.

I am afraid that I have not seen those comments, but I will endeavour to have a look at them. I can then come back to Jamie Greene on them.

As I said, we are in active negotiations, and I am very committed to finding a way forward. I have also reminded members that Scotland is a leading jurisdiction in Europe on legal aid. We have put forward to the profession a substantial package of investment, and we have, of course, retained the scope and eligibility in Scotland. I remind Jamie Greene that that is not the case in England. More than 70 per cent of Scotland’s citizens are eligible for some form of legal aid; in England, the figure is just 25 per cent, following some quite dramatic cuts there. I do not think that anyone in Scotland would want me to follow the example of the Conservatives on legal aid.

Unfortunately, we were not able to accept the profession’s previous ask, which it raised with me prior to May, of a 50 per cent rise in legal aid fees. That was in addition to the investment that the Government had already put in. We put forward a rise, the total of which, as I mentioned in my previous answer, amounts to a 20 per cent increase. For context, that is much more than what has been offered in England and Wales.

Members will understand that the process is time consuming.

When the bill was introduced, the Scottish Government set out our intention that a full review of the measures introduced would be undertaken once they took effect. Following scrutiny by the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 1, I recognised that having that enshrined in the legislation strengthens the commitment and provides reassurance regarding the content of any review and the timeframe for it to take place. I was, therefore, pleased to support amendments that were lodged at stage 2.

Those measures are now included in section 44A of the bill, which requires Scottish ministers to report on the operation of the act within five years of it receiving royal assent and requires the report to include information on “proceedings and convictions”, data for “relevant offences”, incident data and the “views and experiences” of people and their communities.

The five-year timeframe provides enough time for meaningful data to be recorded and reported, provides for people’s lived experience to be reflected as part of the review and ensures that the Scottish Government will be held to account. It will ensure that there is a comprehensive and constructive review of the operation of the act encompassing all relevant parts.

Mr Greene’s amendment 78 requires an additional review, solely of the licensing scheme, including, in particular, evidence of the scheme’s impact on improving firework safety. Amendment 87 would require that the report to Parliament on the operation of the act must also set out what changes, if any, will be made to it following a review.

I understand that the amendments were lodged to ensure that the licensing scheme meets its objectives and that it works in practice and as intended, and to add to the review requirements for the act as a whole, building on section 44A. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that the review requirements that are already in the bill are robust and appropriate, so I do not consider Mr Greene’s amendments necessary. A review of the licensing scheme—which is, of course, a core provision in the bill—will be required to take place as part of the review of the act as a whole, so I do not believe that it is necessary to be included as a separate component in the bill.

Any learning or areas of improvement that the review of the act identifies will be fully considered and will form part of the report to Parliament as standard. Where appropriate, adjustments and amendments will be made to how the provisions operate in practice and, if required, to relevant regulations that are made under the act, to which the affirmative procedure will apply, which will enable further parliamentary scrutiny before any changes are made.

In addition, focusing specifically on legislative, as opposed to operational, changes to the act, I do not believe that amendment 87 would achieve the intended outcome. For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support that amendment.

Amendments 88 and 89 seek to change the timescale for the review of the operation of the act, requiring it to be carried out within three years of the act receiving royal assent, as opposed to the five years that are currently provided for. It is expected that, if the bill is passed, the licensing provisions will come into force over the first two years following royal assent; therefore, the five-year reporting period following royal assent provides three years in which to gather the required information and monitor, and report on, any change. Reducing that reporting period to three years would provide only one year of the operation of the system in which to gather the required information. That would not be enough time to gather, record and report meaningful data. Therefore, for a comprehensive and constructive review of the act to take place, encompassing all parts—

Sufficient custodial sentences are already available in common law for the more serious incidents, as was discussed at length at stage 2. Offences that are likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment such as culpable and reckless conduct, breach of the peace or common law assault carry custodial sentences of up to and more than 12 months’ imprisonment.

I do not believe that the current penalties in the 1875 act should be changed only for Scotland. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 86.

As I stated during the stage 2 proceedings when the member lodged a very similar amendment, my ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared to keep the law under review. Indeed, it is that willingness to review the law that has led us to introduce the bill. The bill already reflects a period of significant consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders, alongside careful consideration of all available evidence, of which a key component was examining the existing legislation.

I point the member to the publicly available report from the fireworks review group, which includes a detailed section on existing legislation, regulation and enforcement, alongside a comprehensive annex, which sets out each piece of legislation, what it does, and practical considerations. The conclusion of that independent review group, as well as that of the misuse of pyrotechnics stakeholder discussions, is that there are clear gaps and therefore a need for further legislation. The measures in the bill will give effect to that work.

As I have said, we are always prepared to keep the law under review, but it is unnecessary and inappropriate to place a statutory duty on ministers to conduct a further review and to lay it before the Parliament within 12 months, when the previous work is the reason why we introduced the bill that is before the Parliament.

I ask Mr Greene not to press his amendment. If he does, I hope that members will not support it.